I'm not going to answer for Michael. I dont know the first thing about him. And frankly could give a Sh$% about him. He is no saint and I dont think any one here proclaims him to be. It is not him we are talking about. I dont give a Sh#$ about his motives. What we are talking about is the continued daily torture of a brain dead person, who was unfortunate enough to be revived through the miracles of modern medicine after her brain had been denied oxygen causing it to die but yet her heart revived. How does this differ from removing anyother person from life support? How does it differ from removing and accident victim, stroke victim, or heart attack victim from life support? People do not die the second the machine is unplugged. I remember watching a childhood friend die after his parents stopped life support after a car accident that left him brain dead. He was able to breath on his own for about 2 hours before he died. As tough as it was for his parents, they had the ability to see things for what they were, and were not so selfish that they would keep him "alive" for their benefit.
I think you need some basic understanding of what happens when the brain is dead. She didnt know she wasnt getting anything in the feeding tube, just as she didnt know that she was getting anything in the feeding tube. She didnt feel hunger like you or your dog. A feeding tube does not provide a bolus of food like you get when you eat a meal giving you a feeling of being full. Rather it trickles in liquid over 24 hours, giving your body sodium and potassium and other very basic nutrients. If you could feel hunger you would feel like you were starving 24 hr a day. Dont fool your self that this is as humane as some might make you believe.
These people can not swallow, that is why they are fed through a tube. One major problem is aspirate pneumonia, even with a tube. The liquid is regurgitated up through the esophagus and down the trachea to the lungs. That is why they dont get large amounts of liquids at once and rather spread out over time, but aspitarion still happens. Then there are more treatments, more blood draws, more blood gas draws where they draw the blood from arteries, more IVs for antibiotics ect ect, and you do this over and over again. And for what purpose? It doesnt change the outcome, it only prolongs it. Can any of you say that you believe this is for the benefit of the patient? And in what way do they benefit?
Nobody who is in favor of this has answered the question. Would you want it done to you? Would you want to lay there for a year, ten years, twenty years that way? Having people stick you, shove tubes in and out, drag you to the hospital every other month to have your pneumonia treated, lay in your own excretions until someone came to wipe you. Having your limbs twisted and contracted. Tell me this is how you would want to live.
My Father had a feeding tube after his stroke. By his choice. He was able to tell us that he wanted it. He couldnt talk (very well) you could understand some things. He couldnt swallow with out getting fluid in his lungs, thus the need for the feeding tube. He always told me how hungry he was and how dry his mouth was. Even using swabs for his mouth he always complained of it. He died of an aspitate pneumonia about a year to the day after his stroke. When he got bad and couldnt respond, we chose not to prolong his suffering. A week later my Dad died. He was never in pain he slowly slipped away. That was eight years ago. As much as I miss my Dad I would not have wished what awaited him had we chose to keep him alive on my worst enemy. Knowing my Dad is with God is much more comforting than seeing him in a contracted unresponsive state in a nursing home. As much as it hurt to let go, the benefit was his.
