AP For Starvation Judge

Eric Cordian emc at artifact.psychedelic.net
Sat Mar 26 22:35:23 PST 2005


Justin writes:

> She is a corpse with a heartbeat.

According to a cast of characters which include a euthanasia proponent, a 
lawyer at the forefront of dehydration advocacy for the brain-damaged, and 
a doctor who thinks its morally acceptable to starve Alzheimer's patients 
to death.

> Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her 
> husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- 
> if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick.

I think we have to divide things we do for disabled people into "care" and 
"heroic medical measures."  I consider a feeding tube to fall into the 
former category.

That which we may do to ourselves, if we are functioning, exceeds that 
which we may require others to do to us if we are not.  I can deny myself 
food, water, and air, for instance.  I cannot instruct others to deny me 
those things if I am rendered incapable of making my own decisions.

I can instruct them to deny me things like a respirator, or dialysis, of 
course, which is reasonable.

There is no reason for the feeding tube to be removed at all.  It is not 
valuable.  It is not horribly invasive or uncomfortable.  It is not going 
to be taken out and used on another patient.  They can certainly starve 
and dehydrate her to death with the tube in place.  In fact, leaving it in 
place would be a prudent thing to do, to spare her the risk of having to 
have a new one installed if the decision to kill her is reversed before 
she dies.

THe only reason the tube is being removed, is because they are playing the 
game that "The Tube" is keeping her alive.  In reality, nutrition and 
hydration are keeping her alive, and in fact, they are also keeping you 
and me alive too.

Nutrition and hydration are "care," not "heroic medical measures," and 
while people can refuse to eat and drink themselves, they should not be 
able to leave advance directives demanding others deny them such things.

If Terri were able to be spoon fed by an attendant, would the judge have 
then ordered "spoon and attendant withdrawal?"  Would the papers report 
that "the spoon is keeping her alive artificially?"

If you want to make an argument for killing the cognitively impaired, 
let's at least call it what it is, and not engage in political theatre 
over feeding tubes.

> If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy)
> that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see
> doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is
> willing to pay?

Well, I would argue that you do not have a legal right to demand others 
restrict your air, food, and water, unless they need to be delivered in 
invasive uncomfortable ways that reduce your human dignity.

You are of course welcome to not breathe, drink, or eat as long as you are 
in charge, but you do not have the right to demand we kill you by 
withholding such things if you become disabled.

> That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work.  I
> suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either?

I think euthanasia is fine if the patient is suffering horribly, has all 
their marbles, and has less than six months to linger from a terminal 
illness.

Terri Schiavo meets none of these criteria.

I certainly don't support the right of an adulterous spouse who swore up 
and down at the malpractice trial that he only wanted to care for his wife 
for the rest of her natural life, and who didn't mention her "wish" to not 
go on until 7 years after her brain injury, to have his brain-damaged wife 
starved and dehydrated to death solely on his say-so, absent any written 
indication of her wishes.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list