To: Dan B. who wrote (227036 ) 3/30/2005 1:03:35 PM From: tejek Respond to As it stands, the reason is not that she'd inhale it as comjelly says (she did have saliva and autonomically swallow indeed, and water could slowly get into her this way if allowed), it is because they are in fact not allowed by the court ruling to put even ice on her lips to relieve dryness. When you claim the court ruling allows her to eat food, and imply that her parents could feed her jello or water, you are just plain wrong. The ruling forbids it. If she can't put it in her mouth by herself, no one is allowed to put it there. You are silly to essentially effectively dismiss the testimony of Terri's caregivers as lies, IMHO, and almost certainly wrong indeed. Too much confirmation. The bottom line here is that we have a problem with justice here, all other doubts I may have about unheard testimony and Terri's husbands motivations aside. It IS silly to starve someone like Terri when she could be put down quickly and humanely instead. A living will ought be allowed to state that if one finds oneself in Terri's condition, one wishes to be put down quickly and humanely, rather than be slowly dehydrated to death (yes, dehydration will get her first, not the lack of food). To my knowledge, such a living will would not be honored by the courts, and a doctor who openly honored it could find himself in jail with Kevorkian. I say this is plainly wrong, and no amount of court time and law put into this case that doesn't change it, is worth a possums piddle.
