Why is Terri in a Hospice?

That's what I've been wondering. After all, she's disabled, but she's not dying. Hospices are for people who are terminally ill. Patients stay in hospices for a few weeks or months, not for years. But yet Terri has been in one for years and she's not terminally ill.

Here's what I think. Putting Terri in a hospice, rather than in some place like a nursing home, was a very shrewd PR move on the part of Michael Schiavo and his lawyer, George Felos (who once served as chairman of the board of directors of this hospice).

What suggestion is planted in the average person's mind when they hear that somebody is in a hospice? Naturally they think, "That person is dying." So Terri being in a hospice sways the public into thinking she's dying, that she's a "vegetable". Then they hear about the legal battle between Terri's parents and her husband and they think, "Oh, the parents need to just let that poor woman go. She's dying. Pull the plug!"

If you remind them that there is no "plug" to be pulled, only a feeding tube, they say something like, "Well would you want to live that way? I wouldn't want to live that way!" Of course, nobody wants to be disabled or brain damaged. But is it okay to starve someone to death because they are in such a condition? Unfortunately, it looks like some are all too willing to say that it is okay. It's getting to a point that if you are disabled, you are considered as good as dead.

If Terri dies of starvation, will we start seeing more brain damaged and disabled people sent to hospices? While they may not be dying, they will be considered as good as dead by many people. People will expect them to die. And killing them will be no big deal because, as people will say, "Who wants to live like that anyway?"