Life Support

With so many issues involved in the Terri Schiavo story, it's hard to even keep track of them all. One thing I've noticed from the right to life people is the way they try to make a distinction between the feeding tube that keeps her alive and a respirator, or between her condition and that of someone in a coma.

"This woman is not on a respirator," he said. "All we are talking about is whether she should be given nutrition and hydration, and that would be considered the normal thing to do - to feed the person."

So, she's not on a respirator? So what? People need food to live just like they need air to live. What is the difference between requiring a machine to breathe for you and requiring a machine to feed you? Either way, you are dependent on the machine to live, so I really don't buy this distinction at all. The determining factor should be what her quality of life is and if she has any hope of getting better. Would the people who make this distinction be likely to feel differently if she were on a respirator? Adn if they would, then why? Since their argument seems to be that she is not in a vegatative state and that there is hope for her to get better. The fact that she needs a feeding tube to live and doesn't need a respirator doesn't necessarily mean that she is in any better shape, or that she has nay hope of getting better.