What Terri Schiavo’s case comes down to is not the non-existent "right to die", nor is it "privacy" or a matter of due process or jurisdiction. What has not been addressed, by anyone directly involved with the case, is the legal fiction that a feeding tube constitutes extrordinary means of sustaining life. That is the crux of the matter.
At least, that’s what I thought. But it just occurred to me, while watching re-run video of a brave 10-year-old being escorted to a police van, that protestors were not carrying feeding tubes as they tried to approach Terri’s hospice. They were carrying perfectly ordinary cups of water. Surely not even the mind of a Judge would be so highly trained as to classify an ordinary cup of water as "extrodinary" medical care. Were the protestors threatening to professionally administer these highly complex cups of water? No, they were not.
It has been my understanding that Terri does have the ability, with assistance, to swallow both food and water, without the aid of a feeding tube.
WITHOUT a feeding tube.
So the feeding tube has, apparently, been a colossal red herring all along. It must be (and I want badly to read the Judge’s findings) that there is some kind of injunction barring Terri from receiving any food or water of any kind from anyone. In other words, "this person will be starved to death, by any means necessary, come hell or high water."
A couple of days ago, in an interview on Fox News, Terri’s brother said that this was America, that we just don’t starve disabled people to death here.
I’m now terribly afraid that he was wrong.