Category: take action

You may or may not have noticed this, but during several of the AP’s stories, it was reported that Ruth Graham, had requested her feeding tube be removed during the last several days of her life.
Jeffrey Weiss has a great piece in the DMN today about the situation. He’s also blogged additional quotes that didn’t fit the print version of the paper.
Why is it that no one is upset that Ruth Graham, or even Pope John Paul II requested their feeding tubes be removed before death yet outcry is heard everywhere over the Terri Schiavo case?
From the DMN:

The dignified, semi-public passing of Ruth Graham showed a family struggling with end-of-life issues that affect many American families: private home, hospital or nursing home? Aggressive treatment to the end or comfort care? When is it time to let go?
Mrs. Graham, who died Thursday, was not merely the wife of a famous person. Her husband, Billy, is among the best-known religious leaders in the world, and Mrs. Graham carried her own moral and religious reputation. Who she was drew particular attention to the moral decisions associated with the end of her life.

Weiss offers additional quotes on the DMN Religion blog:

Dr. Art Caplan, quoted in the story, is one of the world’s best known medical ethicists. He offered an interesting observation that I had no room for there:
Ironically for all the protest that took place around the removal of a feeding tube from Terri Schiavo by those such as Tom Delay and the current Pope who said food and water cannot ever be stopped no one has said a word about what was done in the Ruth Graham case. This strikes me as more then a bit hypocritical even though I think what happened in her case was ethical and in accordance with her express wishes.
Dr. Tom Mayo, of SMU and the UT Southwestern med school is another top medical ethicist — famous far beyond local zip codes. Among his thoughts that did not make the story: That sometimes for the dying, food or water can actually kill them faster and/or make them uncomfortable. As the body shuts down in the days or hours before death, it stops being able to deal with nutrition and even water. The effects can even be rather gruesome, as he explained in some medical detail I will not share. So those who would insist on feeding — even tube feeding — may not be offering any blessing. Depends on the case, though. And if you’re really interested in how ethicists such as Dr. Mayo explore these sorts of broad questions, Google up “trolley problem” and “ethics” and “double effect.”

In the end, the idea of a feeding tube or life sustaining machines may have a lot more to do with the patient’s wishes and their consent, along with the wisdom and sincerity of their physician.
In the Schiavo case, there was no living will, no confirmed writings or thoughts of Schiavo as to her wishes. It was simply a case of he-said, she-said.
In the Graham case, it was apparent from the family spokesman that it was Ruth’s wishes and eventually the family decided to follow those wishes.
Either way – it’s an interesting moral comparison between the two individuals.