|
MsMJAY -> RE: Should this "child" have been aborted? (11/27/2013 6:02:30 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kirata
How do you propose to "let" someone die who even without "intense medical intervention" nevertheless declines to cooperate? What should have been done? Withholding nourishment was suggested, but only a psychopath could argue that starving him to death would simply be "letting" him die. Got any better ideas for how to dispose of him without actually disposing of him?
I have to disagree with you about this to a degree. Unfortunately, sometimes withholding nourishment is exactly how people are allowed to die. It's fairly common actually. It's sick and twisted, but it's also the only way to allow someone to die without being accused of murder.
When my wife's cancer got too bad, she went on hospice. She was dying, and in a good deal of pain. She finally decided that she'd had enough and started refusing food. I had to watch and wait over a week as she slowly starved to death. I had plenty of narcotics on hand, it would have been a simple matter to give her enough to put an end to the pain, but then odds are I'd be in prison now. I even had to fight with a nurse who tried to insist that she be brought into the hospital and put on an IV.
So yes, according to the laws in place at present, drugging someone unconscious while they die of starvation and dehydration is normal. But giving them enough pain meds to end their suffering immediately is a criminal act and considered unethical.
My heart truly goes out to you. I mentioned earlier that our attention in this country is going to have to eventually be given to end of life issues. I lost a close relative to cancer also and watched her needlessly suffer until she slowly died. It is what changed my perspective on this issue. I believe people should be allowed to decide end of life issues for themselves and there should be places where they can go to say their goodbyes to their loved ones and die on their own terms.
|
|
|
|
