The right question

Someone who has been watching the arrests of people attempting to feed Terri orally emailed this question to David Limbaugh:

Dear David: I share your disgust with the Terri Schiavo situation and wonder at Michael Schiavo's motive. One detail in particular is really bothering me. I can understand a family's decision to withdraw or not consent to a feeding tube. What I cannot understand is why, once the tube has been removed, a court or individual would stand in the way of someone providing oral food or water if the patient can handle receiving it. What possible justification can there be for a court to prevent Terri's parents from giving her ice chips? This rule, above all others, proves to me that the Court is intent upon killing Terri. "Allowing nature to take its course" is no more their intent in this case than it would be if you or I were forbidden water. If Terri were truly unable to take anything by mouth and letting nature or God decide if it's time for her to die is the objective, then why bother forbidding oral fluids and/or food? Thank you for your dedication and your attempts to save Terri. Joanne

If you have an answer to her question, please let me know. I certainly can't answer it. It seems to me that Joanne is absolutely right that the goal here is to kill Terri, not to prevent her from receiving even minimal medical intervention. It also seems to me that the proper wrap-up for this post is this link, which takes you to a short article, with picture, showing police arresting a 12 year old boy who tried to deliver a glass of water to Terri. (Reuters has a "protect" function on its pictures that makes it difficult for me to incorporate the picture into this post.)