The Life You Save May Be Your Own
In the wake of Terri Schiavo's death, there will be, and should be, legislative efforts to protect patients who are fed with feeding tubes from being summarily starved to death.
As often as not, patients who are placed on feeding tubes are capable of swallowing. The reason they are given "assisted feeding" through tubes is primarily because hand feeding is a time consuming task for the staff in long-term care facilities. In other words, it is easier and cheaper to feed the minimally conscious through a feeding tube. It also reflects the assumption that the patient can't enjoy his or her food, so way bother passing it over the tongue? On the more noble side, use of a feeding tube allows the nursing staff to verify that the calorie intake is at the level proscribed.
One of the dangers of using feeding tubes is that the muscles used to swallow may atrophy for lack of exercise. Thus, some patients may not be immediately able to swallow without difficulty if assisted feeding through a tube is stopped. Thus, the feeding tubes may produce the iatrogenic disease (a condition arising from medical treatment) of an inability to swallow. Therefore, removal of feeding tubes should always be accompanied by a period of physical therapy designed to retrain the complex coordination of muscles used in the swallowing process.
In Terri Schiavo's case there is considerable evidence that she was still able to swallow soft foods, such as Jello. But once the death march was begun, her ability was not even tested, much less given a chance to improve. Instead, under the orders of the her husband (who was also the common law husband of the mother of his two children), Terri was not to be allowed to receive any nutrition or water orally. In other words, neither the court nor her husband wanted to complicate matters by discovering that she could still swallow. Some say ignorance is bliss. In this case, the pro-death crowd need ignorance as an excuse for starving the dependent to death.
While it is not inherently evil to put a patient on a feeding tube, it is evil to use the feeding tube over a long period of time and to allow a suppression of swallowing reflexes and then remove the feeding tube and declare, "She can't swallow food! Therefore, this feeding tube is extraordinary treatment. So instead of keeping her alive by artificial means, the ethical thing to do is to let nature take it's course. (In other words, allow her to die because she can't forage for food or swallow it on her own.)
"Even the pro-death crowd have yet to declare that feeding the minimally conscious with a spoon is "extraordinary care" that can be withdrawn without committing murder by neglect. Instead, they advocate for the insertion of feeding tubes which--at least arguably--is a form of "artificial life support." Once the tube is in, then can this "artificial life support" can be withdrawn to let nature take it's course. This is the game...and in the case of Terri and tens of thousands of others...the deadly game.
So here is my proposal for legislators. The law should require that in any case where feeding tubes are to be withdrawn, a period of time, say 30 days, must be allowed where the feeding tube is used and rehabilitative efforts at oral feeding must be attempted, and thereafter oral feeding must be provided to the degree that the patient is able and willing to swallow, or even hold the food in his mouth, unless there is a clear and evident choking, distress, and pain. This "attempts to feed by mouth" requirement should even override a patient's living will order not to have any artificial life support, precisely because feeding and hydration is not life support but fundamental life maintenance required be even the healthiest of patients. Starving a person to death by withholding food, even orally, is no different than putting a pillow over a patient's face to deprive her of oxygen.
Please contact your state legislator and ask him or her to sponsor legislation regulating the withdrawal of feeding tubes to require oral feeding. The debate that will follow will reveal (1) that feeding tubes are preferred for saving money, not for advancing patient's recovery and (2) the pro-death crowd is opposed to mandatory attempts at oral feeding precisely because they ordinary care is not deadly enough. I'm confident that this is a common-sense proposal that most people will support, especially in the wake of the Schiavo case. What will be interesting is to see how the pro-death culture will oppose it.
Excerpted from the Elliot Institute Newsletter
In the wake of Terri Schiavo's death, there will be, and should be, legislative efforts to protect patients who are fed with feeding tubes from being summarily starved to death.
As often as not, patients who are placed on feeding tubes are capable of swallowing. The reason they are given "assisted feeding" through tubes is primarily because hand feeding is a time consuming task for the staff in long-term care facilities. In other words, it is easier and cheaper to feed the minimally conscious through a feeding tube. It also reflects the assumption that the patient can't enjoy his or her food, so way bother passing it over the tongue? On the more noble side, use of a feeding tube allows the nursing staff to verify that the calorie intake is at the level proscribed.
One of the dangers of using feeding tubes is that the muscles used to swallow may atrophy for lack of exercise. Thus, some patients may not be immediately able to swallow without difficulty if assisted feeding through a tube is stopped. Thus, the feeding tubes may produce the iatrogenic disease (a condition arising from medical treatment) of an inability to swallow. Therefore, removal of feeding tubes should always be accompanied by a period of physical therapy designed to retrain the complex coordination of muscles used in the swallowing process.
In Terri Schiavo's case there is considerable evidence that she was still able to swallow soft foods, such as Jello. But once the death march was begun, her ability was not even tested, much less given a chance to improve. Instead, under the orders of the her husband (who was also the common law husband of the mother of his two children), Terri was not to be allowed to receive any nutrition or water orally. In other words, neither the court nor her husband wanted to complicate matters by discovering that she could still swallow. Some say ignorance is bliss. In this case, the pro-death crowd need ignorance as an excuse for starving the dependent to death.
While it is not inherently evil to put a patient on a feeding tube, it is evil to use the feeding tube over a long period of time and to allow a suppression of swallowing reflexes and then remove the feeding tube and declare, "She can't swallow food! Therefore, this feeding tube is extraordinary treatment. So instead of keeping her alive by artificial means, the ethical thing to do is to let nature take it's course. (In other words, allow her to die because she can't forage for food or swallow it on her own.)
"Even the pro-death crowd have yet to declare that feeding the minimally conscious with a spoon is "extraordinary care" that can be withdrawn without committing murder by neglect. Instead, they advocate for the insertion of feeding tubes which--at least arguably--is a form of "artificial life support." Once the tube is in, then can this "artificial life support" can be withdrawn to let nature take it's course. This is the game...and in the case of Terri and tens of thousands of others...the deadly game.
So here is my proposal for legislators. The law should require that in any case where feeding tubes are to be withdrawn, a period of time, say 30 days, must be allowed where the feeding tube is used and rehabilitative efforts at oral feeding must be attempted, and thereafter oral feeding must be provided to the degree that the patient is able and willing to swallow, or even hold the food in his mouth, unless there is a clear and evident choking, distress, and pain. This "attempts to feed by mouth" requirement should even override a patient's living will order not to have any artificial life support, precisely because feeding and hydration is not life support but fundamental life maintenance required be even the healthiest of patients. Starving a person to death by withholding food, even orally, is no different than putting a pillow over a patient's face to deprive her of oxygen.
Please contact your state legislator and ask him or her to sponsor legislation regulating the withdrawal of feeding tubes to require oral feeding. The debate that will follow will reveal (1) that feeding tubes are preferred for saving money, not for advancing patient's recovery and (2) the pro-death crowd is opposed to mandatory attempts at oral feeding precisely because they ordinary care is not deadly enough. I'm confident that this is a common-sense proposal that most people will support, especially in the wake of the Schiavo case. What will be interesting is to see how the pro-death culture will oppose it.
Excerpted from the Elliot Institute Newsletter
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated and are published at the blogger's discretion.