And the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube has been pushed to the 18th.

[conuly]

Here.

Before people start debating this, let's get the following out of the way:
She doesn't use a ventilator.
She's not "hooked up to a machine" to live.
She isn't on life support, at least not as it's been defined to me.
She uses a feeding tube to eat. Removing this would cause her to starve to death/dehydrate.
Her parents say that she's minimally aware.
Her husband disagrees, and says that she didn't want to live like this.
He is living with another woman.
AFAIK, nothing from the insurance went to cover therapy for her.
It is argued that this therapy could've improved her condition.


Now you can go duke it out in my journal.

Comments

[moggymania.livejournal.com]

Only knowing how such things work, it'd be something like a jury of Christopher Reeve, Elizabeth Bouvia, etc. :-/ (That's what happens when disabled people get appointed to a lot of state agency positions, they find tokens who are either acquiescent or have a lot of internalized ableism.)

That crossed my mind after I posted my comment. My idealistic thought is that it'd be nice if we could somehow guarantee that the jury would be made up of more progressive people, but I have no idea how we could guarantee that, not to mention (of course) that it's precisely what the typical-bodied *wouldn't* want. If it were a realistic goal, chances are we wouldn't need to have such a committee in the first place!

"And yeah, part of my fear is fear that it could happen to me or others I know in the wrong situation. I know people who right now could no more prove they were aware than she can."

Even beyond that, too, some people refuse to accept evidence even when the individual can blatantly demonstrate awareness; they'll just come up with reasons to disregard it. Or they'll say that merely being aware isn't enough, that somebody needs to have a "quality of life" and then refuse to recognize anything outside their own preferences/experience as being worth living for. (It's hard to go beyond that in sheer arrogance, in a way...)

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

Even beyond that, too, some people refuse to accept evidence even when the individual can blatantly demonstrate awareness; they'll just come up with reasons to disregard it.

True. There's always Wendland. :-/

Or they'll say that merely being aware isn't enough, that somebody needs to have a "quality of life" and then refuse to recognize anything outside their own preferences/experience as being worth living for. (It's hard to go beyond that in sheer arrogance, in a way...)

Yeah. I don't even know how to react to that one anymore. It seems impossible to shake people's imaginary horror scenarios of <gasp> not being able to do certain things. (Now that Clint Eastwood's snuff film won a couple Oscars, I imagine it'll be even more difficult.)