[Claire]

Originally Posted by Prudence

1) Some people feel removing a feeding tube is a particularly painful/gruesome/unpleasant death. If all other facts were the same, but she DID have a living will stating that she didn't want to be kept alive, would that justify removing the tube?

I'm among the people who agree that tube feeding is an extraordinary measure (and if you've ever been responsible for doing it, as I have, then you can understand the significance of this feeding method). If a person wants no extraordinary measures taken, and in Florida an extraordinary measure includes hydration and feeding tubes, then honestly, I have no problem with the removal of the tubes. I'm not sure how painful the death will be for her. I'm not sure how much she feels, but since I've read only that she has no living cerebral matter, I'm not convinced that her death will be painful. Gruesome? Sure, for everyone else. Unpleasant, yes, for everyone.

2) If all other facts were the same, but she DID have a living will stating that she didn't want to be kept alive, AND giving that decision to her husband, BUT it was proved that her husband was a philandering jerk before her incident, should her instructions still be followed? What if all the above and, like now, the parents want to and are capable of providing all her care and don't want to remove the tube?

Sorry, but I believe a living will is a living will. In this case, once again, the courts would be her guardian if petitioned to be, and I'm sure they'd find that she obviously wanted no extraordinary measures taken. The husband's philandering and the parents have nothing to do with it.

3) What if the above, existence of living will, but the husband is obviously loving and devoted? If the parents want to and are capable of providing all her care and don't want to remove the tube, should they prevail over the living will?

Same as above. The parents should stay out of it. The tube should be removed as per the living will.

4) Some people in various places here and elsewhere have mentioned her religious beliefs being incompatible with removing the tube. Other people have mentioned that the husband should just divorce her and let the parents care for her. But divorce would also be against the religion mentioned. Can these two ideas be reconciled? Or does no one person ever hold both positions so it's not an issue.

I'm not religious, and I feel like that's a great question. One I've been grappling with since first reading up on this case.

5) Various medical officials have stated that no one has ever recovered from a vegitative state of this length. People have miraculously, if you will, recovered from long-lasting comas. If congress and/or courts determine the outcome in this case, will this impact the enforceability of living wills in cases of persistent, non-responsive coma? (The more traditional "pull the plug" cases where breathing and other functions are performed mechanically.)

I'm terrified by the thought of the federal government getting involved, quite honestly. I do believe that now every similar medical situation can come under similar public scrutiny and it's scary to me. Privacy is a thing of the past. I would be mortified if I were Terri.....embarrassed and mortified.

6) If in any of the above hypos it is determined that life-preserving measures are to be continued, who bears the financial cost? Can/should a spouse be required to pay all bills? Should divorces of vegitative or comatose patients be prohibited to prevent spouses from abandoning their financial responsibility? Is there a maximum cost after which treatment is discontinued? If treatment must be continued, does the community pay?

Great questions! Dang, you're good.

I don't have anything else to add tonight, I don't think. I'm wiped.