You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
Aspiration v. Starvation and Dehydration?
The St. Pete Times reports:
An attorney for Terri Schiavo’s parents asked a judge Monday to allow her to be fed by mouth once her feeding tube is removed on March 18, though a lawyer for her husband said such efforts would be unsuccessful.
MediaCulpa rips into George Felos for this quote, where he is making the argument for not attempting to feed Terri Schiavo by mouth.
Such a death from aspirated food entering her lungs would be painful, Felos said.
“Mrs. Schiavo is entitled to a peaceful death with dignity,” he said. “She’s going to aspirate and she’s going to have an extended, gruesome death” if fed.
He says:
What does Felos think we’re going to do — shove an entire Buffalo wing in her mouth? Spread tuna on a Ritz cracker and force her jaws up and down? Give us a little credit.
And the irony of Felos being worried about her pain — when he is happy to have her die of thirst and hunger — is more than we should be expected to bear.
Dawn Eden reacts as well:
Let me get this straight.
Death by aspiration is “extended” and “gruesome.”
Death by starvation and dehydration is “with dignity.”
If you haven’t seen them, check out the “myths” listed on the TerrisFight.org site.
http://myopiczeal.blogsome.com/2005/03/09/aspiration-v-starvation-and-dehydration/trackback/
Just to throw yet another wrench into the works…
Regardless of the particulars of this case (got me a new girl, get rid of the old one; patient doesn’t require life support…!!!), why is it supposedly morally okay to let a comatose person starve or dehydrate to death but wrong to give a lethal injection? To get at any difference, you really have to split hairs: the first is euthanasia through inaction, the other is euthanasia through action.
Comment by Mark — March 9, 2005 @ 11:41 am
Mark.
I think you are presenting a false dilemma. It’s not an either/or, it can also be “both are wrong.”
And as far as the particulars, I’m not sure what the definition of “comatose” is medically, but she’s responsive to external stimuli and it is claimed by many involved that she aware and is not in a PVS. (See the “myths” page referenced in the post).
Comment by Myopic Zeal — March 9, 2005 @ 11:52 am
In my use of the phrase ‘Regardless of the particulars’, I was trying to present my argument outside the scope of the current matter, and was sloppy in my meaning. I am aware that she has some stimulous response, which concerns me greatly as well. If she has any awareness, then euthanasia is dead wrong.
What I was trying to get at was if there was no sign of awareness, and no reasonable possiblity of there being any, then why would there be such a dilemma morally?
I does seem that the court feels there to be that dilemma anyway, though.
Comment by Mark — March 9, 2005 @ 10:22 pm
We really liked the website .. Thank you.
Comment by Anonymous — July 9, 2005 @ 11:37 pm
Finding your websight was like finding a needle in a haystack.
Comment by Anonymous — July 10, 2005 @ 8:50 am
Thank you for providing this site and guest book.
Comment by Anonymous — July 12, 2005 @ 5:21 am