[August 2006 journal entry, reflecting on the unfolding Terri Schiavo case]
I do not consider artificially delivered nutrition/hydration to be equivalent to or interchangeable with a plate of food and accompanying drink. I know firsthand there is a spectrum re the preparation/delivery of food and drink for individuals who cannot eat/drink easily – e.g., selecting food that does not require chewing to swallow/digest or holding an individual’s head up/forward when s/he tries to drink or selecting food drink that can be more easily digested or . . . – the far end of such a spectrum being giving the disabled person ice chips and other comfort measures. I do not place nutrition/hydration technologies on this spectrum but instead view such technologies as methods devised in the last few decades to override the physiological consequences of an individual’s inability to eat or drink. Justification is required for them to be used. Justification that is compelling on the ‘fighting illness and death’ side of the ‘care’ spectrum’s threshold is not compelling on the ‘in league with death’ side of the ‘care’ spectrum’s threshold. Before the development of these overriding and artificial interventions, caregivers were not thought to be cruelly abandoning or starving a patient who could no longer eat or drink.
