conuly: (Default)
[personal profile] conuly
Terri Schiavo is not on life support. She does not use a ventilator. I don't know where that story started, but here it ends. She is not hooked up to any machines. She uses a feeding tube. That is not life support. Taking her off the feeding tube will cause her to - slowly - starve or dehydrate.

There is evidence that she reacts to things around her. There is also evidence that her condition would be drastically improved if the money from the settlement had gone towards her treatment instead of her husband's court bills.

So please, base your opinions off of accurate information.

And now, I will let other people talk about being in situations where they were believed dead, and post those links (links I've posted before) about other people who nearly died because "after all, she's not going to recover, might as well pull the plug now" - and at the time, they were conscious.

Date: 2005-03-17 09:22 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theshiversbaby.livejournal.com
In the same vein as what the user above wrote - what, exactly, is the definition of "life support" if not (more or less) a piece of equipment or machinery that keeps you alive when in a comatose or brain dead state? I suppose that's a bit rough and I'm sure you'll find it's full of holes, but you see what I'm getting at.

A feeding tube is a machine. Were she taken off of that machine, she would die. How, then, is this not life support? Can the phrase "life support" only be used in reference to a ventilator?

Date: 2005-03-18 06:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theshiversbaby.livejournal.com
::blinks::

I know you didn't make the definition, but I was asking what it was, specifically. Or at least, which one you're using.

Date: 2005-03-18 07:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theshiversbaby.livejournal.com
I just realized, however, that the feeding tube isn't connected 24/7 but rather only at mealtimes. I don't know how I missed that in reading about her. So I suppose this definition of life support is a moot point since if she's not hooked up to machines all the time, it's definitely not life support...whatever life support is!

Date: 2005-03-18 11:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Actually, you can make a much better argument for dialysis being life support than you can for a feeding tube. But it's kind of pointless, as very few people would say people who need dialysis should die.

Date: 2005-03-18 11:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] leora.livejournal.com
Life support has to take over a function that the body normally does on its own, like breathing or pumping the heart. Everyone needs to be fed and given something to drink, she just needs to use an alternate method for doing so. It's not life support, because it's the basics that all humans require, not anything special or unusual. She also needs air in order to keep living, but we don't call that life support. However, take it away and she'll die pretty fast (I believe roughly a few minutes). And I've read, although have no idea where the info comes from and find it suspicious that you can live about 3 seconds with no blood, so remove all her blood and she'll die really quickly.

Profile

conuly: (Default)
conuly

December 2025

S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
78 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 222324 25 26 27
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Dec. 28th, 2025 09:49 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios