If this person wanted to die and could somehow communicate it, then yes, it would be legal. You can't force anyone to receive medical treatment they don't want...
That would be euthanasia which is illegal. True enough, but is food and water medical treatment? No it isn't.
The two are different, but they aren't in different realms. Although living as a mute with no limbs would suck, it's still life. My brain would function and I could find a purpose in living. Someone would have to bring the food to me and help me eat - they wouldn't have to put a tube down my throat for me to survive. Babies can suck on a breast and get nutrients. They just need a tit. Terri needed a tube down her throat. The two aren't the same. How can you keep saying a feeding tube & life support are different, and then attempt to use examples that are obviously different from Terri to support your argument?
I'm not sure it is in that particular case. As long as his intentions are known, he can refuse having an artificial tube inserted in his stomach. It's no different than someone diagnosed with cancer. Even if it's not terminal and chances of recovery are high, a person can refuse any and all treatment. The plastic feeding tube is the artificial treatment, not the food and water.
Point is, you have people in coma's all over the country, that aren't PVS and legally, they can't remove the feeding tube from them. For one, no DR. would do that. Feeding them is not keeping their lungs working by way of a ventilator. To me, it was the first case I had ever heard of a feeding tube being removed from a patient and allowing them to starve to death.
So in absense of a document, we err on the side of life. Hey, if her husband wants to go in the and yank the feeding tube from her, let him do it. But no US court judge is gonna tell the nursing home to do it. That is a state sponsoring of death by starvation..........that is where I have a problem. There is a chance many of these cases could end up in court. So, just mandate, by law, that a document of a video or something has to exist saying what the personw ants. If not, if all that is keeping them alive is a feeding tube, we leave the tube in.
Coma's are a completely different issue. Although it's often unexplainable, people can come out of comas. I'm pretty sure it was the first case that went to court.
I don't understand what you're saying. The court didn't order her death, they just allowed it. What's the difference between Michael & a nurse pulling the tube out? I have specifically told my family that it is what I would want, but I don't have a living will. So I would have to be kept alive because I didn't have it in a written contract? Until people under 30 routinely have living wills, this is quite impractical.
For what it's worth, a decision written by Rehnquist back in 1990. This law.cornell website is full of all sorts of good stuff for those interested in these kinds of things. I just skimmed this one, but seems like the kicker in this was the lack of proof of the victim's desire to forego life sustaining treatment in such an event (not necessarily a living will, though). I know there was no living will in the Schiavo case, but was other evidence presented that she wouldn't have wanted it? Too long to post the whole thing, but you guys should check it out if you are this interested in this subject. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZO.html
Maybe I'm wrong, I think her husband said she told him she didn't want to be kept alive. Nothing more. Maybe somebody knows something else. I think everything was spoken supposedly.
