Indoril Nerevar Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 Was the feeding tube removal ethically wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 I'd say it's court ordered murder. Even death-row inmates are allowed an appeal, so why should she have been different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted April 10, 2005 Author Share Posted April 10, 2005 The fact that she was over capacitated and could not even form audible thoughts should definatly say something. The fact is that people need to die. By keeping people alive you are denying nature and what is natural. It is a function that is and will always be until the end of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 She died 15 years ago. Removing the feeding tube only made it official. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted April 10, 2005 Share Posted April 10, 2005 She died 15 years ago. Removing the feeding tube only made it official. Agreed. I think it's about time people started carrying cards around in their wallets letting people know if they turn into a cabbage the life support can be turned off within X amount of days, similar to the "Give my body to science when I die" cards that are already around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 True. I guess the debate comes in when determining at what point a person is no longer "alive." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malchik Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Ahh, not quite so easy but I do believe it depends on who is affected. If someone is willing to pay to keep you alive and it hurts no one (presumably giving the payee some pleasure) then what does it matter if you are kept alive? You are clinically dead and so it's not hurting you. If however you have expressed a wish not to be left in that condition that wish should be honoured. In the particular case mentioned I think the problem was with the less than altruistic behaviours of the other parties involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switch Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 The thing that I didn't get is, if they were going to kill her, why didn't they just do it instantly and painlessly, hmm? It never seemed to factor into the debate that they wouldn't ever make even a dog experience death via starving. It seemed more than a little cruel and barbaric to me that they were letting her slowly die while blithering back and forth in the courts. Surely it would have been better to debate it in the courts, and then if/when they won, let her die in a less nasty way? They have painkillers and such, I suppose, but it still seemed uncalled for to me. But that's America for you. No offense intended to any Americans here, but sheesh. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark0ne Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 I think the only difference between America and the UK would be that they wouldn't take the tube out before the court cases were over, but they definately wouldn't administer a lethal dose or similar to quicken the death. The whole point of Euthenasia is to let nature take its course. Nature taking its course isn't jabbing people with poison, it's death by natural means (go figure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramul Posted April 11, 2005 Share Posted April 11, 2005 Apparently, despite the 'fact' that she 'couldn't feel pain' (did they ever do an MRI or anything?) she was given a morphine drip. An explanation given by a caller to Rush Limbaugh was that it was intended to hasten death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.