<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<DIV>On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:31:10 -0400 <A
href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</A> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Not on life support... What was that tube that
was in his neck and why did he have to wait for the breathing machine to put
air in his lungs before he could speak. Not a Doctor, just
asking......</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>You may be right. I am not only not a doctor, I haven't paid close
attention to Christopher Reeves. Actors don't mean a lot to me -- a weakness
that prevents me from applying to be a Jeopardy contestant.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On the rare occasions I saw Reeves on the news, in a magazine
article/photo, etc., it was obvious that he speaks, me goes places in his
wheelchair, he makes decisions about pursuing therapy -- or he did, up to the
day he died.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I know he was left quadraplegic by his accident, and obviously needed a lot
of help. It is possible that his lung muscles could not actually draw in enough
air consistently enough without some help. Or maybe enough to absorb oxygen, but
not enough to use his vocal cords effectively.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The fact remains, he made his own decisions, decisions that many people
admired him for, and when his body gave out beyond the point of sustaining
itself, he died. Nobody legislated that he should, or should not, take intensive
therapy. Nobody legislated that he should, or should not, have that tube in his
neck, whatever its purpose may have been. Nobody is going to run for office
saying "I co-sponsored the bill that kept Christopher Reeves hooked up to this
or that tube." Which is all exactly as it should be.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now the law that provided <EM>access </EM>to dialysis for anyone who needed
it, that was a good law. It made the <EM>means </EM>of sustaining life
<EM>available </EM>to all who would otherwise die. I've driven many such people
to their appointments, or home afterward. They do go home and have a life, and
they consider it worth the pain and inconvenience. On the other hand, when the
elderly and much-admired secretary at my church decided after several
hospitalizations that she wanted no more procedures, she died peacefully, and
pastor preached a eulogy with the theme "I'm sorry, but I can't stay any
longer." She had to go home too.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>