SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DMaA who wrote (106369)3/28/2005 11:26:05 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793626
 
Why don't they include a provision covering mechanical ventilation?

I think that legislative proposal I posted was intended to modify or supplement the existing law. It could be that ventilators are covered elsewhere or it could be that the proposal was a rush job the scope of which was only to cover the Terri situation. Here's the whole law.

flsenate.gov


If removing nutritional life support is murder, why isn’t removing respiratory life support also?

I don't get the distinction. I follow the discussion but I rarely hear enough precision for me to really grasp where folks re coming from. Most of what I've remember hearing is that food and water are human rights. Assuming for the sake of argument that that is true, then air is a human right, too. But that doesn't speak to the question of whether the provision of them via artificial means is a human right. In any case I don't see the difference between air and water. I think that feeding tubes are appropriately categorized as "life support systems" just like ventilators.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News