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: Ilaine who wrote (106884)3/31/2005 4:09:32 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) of 793671
 
I heard a medical ethicist present the case as a simple syllogism.

Patients have the right to refuse treatment. Period. A feeding tube is treatment. (Food is not treatment, but a feeding tube is treatment, just as air is not treatment, but a respirator is treatment.) If Terri Schiavo had been compos mentis, she could have pulled the feeding tube herself. Patients who are not compos mentis must have a proxy make their decisions, according to what they would have wished, it that is known. Michael Schiavo was Terri's proxy, and the court accepted that Terri's wish was not to live on a feeding tube in such a completely disabled state. Therefore Michael Schiavo had the right to pull the feeding tube on Terri's behalf.

If the parents had not contested the decision, there never would have been a case.
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