One year ago today Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed amidst a firestorm of public outcry both for and against the decision. What criteria should be used to determine whether medical care should continue? Is food and water given by some means other than by mouth considered to be medical care? Why was Terri Schiavo's case handled differently than people like, for example, Christopher Reeve, whose sustenance required far more medical intervention (including a respirator) than Terri Schiavo?
Leave your comments here. Be nice.
The best contribution I can make to this discussion is to provide a link to my compilation of authoritative and reliable resources that address the principles that must be applied when making serious health care and end of life decisions. Since making these decisions can be very difficult and emotional, it would be prudent for everyone to be well informed about the complexities of the issues involved before being confronted with them.
The title of the weblog, which hosts this document is 'Serious Health Care and End of Life Decisions'.
The URL is http://healthcaredecisions.blogspot.com
Posted by: Fredi | 18 March 2006 at 10:19 PM
Good questions, all. Thinking about the injustice done to Terry Shiavo makes my blood boil, even now, a year later. Terry's case was handled differently because the situation was made into a Republican/Democrat issue, and a choice/right-to-life issue. For some reason, everyone politicized it, rather than looking at the real question, who gets to decide if you live or die? And in this case iin particular, is someone still your husband if he has moved on and has started a new family?
Posted by: cathy | 04 April 2006 at 02:29 PM