Thousands of elderly people are being forced to have tubes fitted so they can be artificially fed if they want to be admitted to a care home, a major report warns today.Ignore the medicalization behind the word "admitted" for a moment, what I'd like focus on is "artificial feeding."
What is it about this so-called "artificial feeding" that makes it artificial? Is food not introduced into the individual's body providing sustenance and life? Are individuals with PET tubes not nourished? Or are the nurses caring for these individuals just pretending to feed their disabled residents?
No, of course not. Reading what I just wrote my arguments seem almost silly or strawman, except they aren't.
The fact of the matter is, the whole reason why so-called "artificial feeding" is considered an artificial form of sustenance rather than a valid, true method of eating has to do with how it violates abled norms regarding nutrition. Disabled people with PET tubes do not eat in the same way that abled people with forks and knives do. Therefore, because their method of gaining nutrition is alien to most people and does not conform to their understanding of eating, it fails to be recognized as a valid form of eating. It becomes "artificial."
Mountain out of a molehill? Shoot me. The fact of the matter is, the exact terminology we use to describe a particular form of adaptive eating does not in and of itself affect the civil rights of disabled people. Nonetheless, the attitudes which render these words, the idea of the invalidity of adaptive techniques based on their failure to meet abled standards, do.
It needs to stop.
~~
The Untoward Lady
[Edit: it also occurred that it's "artificial feeding" rather than "artificial eating." It is passive, the disabled individual as the helpless consumer with the focus of action on the abled caregiver. A bit outside the scope of this post, but something I felt I should address nonetheless.]
3 comments:
Hello Untoward Lady. As a parent with a child who has a feeding tube, I found your point to be interesting. The article's point, however, was that the elderly are being forced into having a feeding tube, even if they don't necessarily need one. The fact of the matter is, this could lead to terrible abuse, in that the residents are fed via tube and not orally, because it's faster and easier (and possibly cheaper) to pour formula into a hose, rather than deal with helping an individual eat via mouth. Tube feeds are not as good as mouth feeding...teeth rot, mouths go dry, digestion is compromised, food quality is poor. Tube feeding is disempowering in this case. In many ways, "artificial" is not an entirely inappropriate term. I managed to retrain my daughter's swallow, and use the tube for supplementation and use real food in it when necessary. I would never go back to full tube feeds unless her health were threatened and then I would continue to use only real food in the tube. Just so you know.
Thank you, Claire, for your perspective.
I did not mean to imply that PET tubes don't have serious side-effects when it comes to personal health. Medically, then, PET tubes are less desirable than mouth feeding for this reason. That being said, there should be absolutely no reason why feeding though a PET tube, dispite this, should be viewed as a less valid form of nutrition than mouth feeding.
This is part of a much more pervasive phenomina regarding disability. Consider this analogy:
Requiring a wheelchair for mobility is physically disadvantagious in many ways to walking on one's feet: traversing barriers, physical accessibility, and integrating with a world which is designed for bipedal individuals can become more of a challenge. Nonetheless, mobility via a wheelchair does not become any less valid than bipedal mobility as a means of locomation.
I just want to make it clear that when I say that a certain adaptive technology or technique is every bit as valid a way of interacting with the world as their abled equivelent I am in by no means making a statement on its qualitative medical and practical desirability.
Thanks for answering! I am always looking to learn about how language affects perspectives in this world of disability...I have been surprised many times at what offends people...or at what challenges them. Makes me more sensitive. BTW, I really liked your perspective on Bill Peace's post about Terri Shiavo...I had forgotten how family can be an asset to some and possibly a danger to others. Very true. One must hope for a well-balanced and educated legal perpsective, however, because sometimes one just ends up getting more idiot voices in the mix.
Claire
Post a Comment