Court ordered starvation? What's going on in FL?

[GN One Day...]

[devil's advocate]
Why is it that so many people are against euthanasia, and consider it a horrible practice, not to mention illegal, but the court in FL ordered the feeding tube to be removed from the invalid lady in FL (she's dying), so that she'll die?
How is euthanasia horrible (but painless and fast), but letting an invalid starve to death is a matter the courts can order?

Is there more to this than reported on the news? The husband wanted her wishes to not be kept alive to be honored. The parents want her sustained. I don't think starving to death is the way to keep her wishes.

[/devils advocate]

 

[TR Custom Parts]

I think people should legally be allowed to "check out" if that is their wish. Working in a nursing home, I see many cases where it would just break your heart to see how these folks are being kept alive, with no quality of life whatsoever.

Would never want to be in that position, just pull the plug and let me go!

As far as just pulling her feeding tube, would think it would be more humane to do the Kevorkian route than starving her to death.

Back to work in "God's waiting room".

 

[salvageV6]

I think you should learn to write much shorter sentences.

Court upheld the patients wishes which is all that matters.

 

[GN One Day...]

Brevity is not my forte.
Probably shorter than some of my previous posts.

 

[The Radius Kid]

Originally posted by GN One Day...
[devil's advocate]
Why is it that so many people are against euthanasia, and consider it a horrible practice, not to mention illegal, but the court in FL ordered the feeding tube to be removed from the invalid lady in FL (she's dying), so that she'll die?
How is euthanasia horrible (but painless and fast), but letting an invalid starve to death is a matter the courts can order?

Is there more to this than reported on the news? The husband wanted her wishes to not be kept alive to be honored. The parents want her sustained. I don't think starving to death is the way to keep her wishes.

[/devils advocate]

I agree.Those hypocritical bastard$ will slowly starve her to death,but to do the humane thing [Kevorkian style],they don't have the balls.
I guess cruel and unusual punishment does exist afterall,when you get the chance to exercise it.

 

[gn85girl]

Well, I really believe it should be made legal to let somebody die. Unfortunately, the law is scared of it because it comes close to killing.someone because in most cases someone else has to actively do something and who has the right to end a person's life? Especially, if they are relatives included in the to-be-diseased will that have a say in the decision it becomes a real sensitive issue. In my opinion though people should have the right to choose what to do with their body if it is to die or other just find a way to ensure that this is really the person's free will.

Starving to death though is a really cruel way to die and I really would like to know more about the backgrounds of the case than what was offered. It seems hard to believe a court would consciously make such a decision.

 

[The Blob]

Removing someone from life support and euthanasia are two completely different deals. Removing someone from life support is letting someone die who would die anyway. Euthanasia is killing someone who would otherwise live.

This lady is in a coma. Letting her die naturally, even by starving, is not really cruel because she has no awareness.

Euthanasia, on the other hand, is a slippery slope I'd just as soon we don't start down. If we condone some killing then where does it stop? Who sets the rules for who can be euthanized and who can't... the government, relatives, the person themselves, some medical board? I see problems with any of those choices.

If we start down that slope, what clear thinking person cannot see the day when some people are trying to get rid of Grandpa simply because he is inconvenient? And remember, someday you will be Grandpa.

 

[GN One Day...]

They aren't taking her off of a breathing machine they're cutting off her food supply. IMO, there is a big difference. It would be more humane to cut off her air. What we're really talking about is the difference between ETHICS and LIABILITY.
Euthanizing an elderly person, who has chosen to die, is the same thing as a living will. Both are assisted. Less so with euthansia, they often have to commit the final act on their own. They would die eventually too, it's just that it is normally a very painful, slow death.
I understand that the lady did not want to exist in this state. I understand her husband wanting to help her in that way. What I don't understand is doing so in such an awful way. This will be torture for the husband as well. They're cutting off her food, and saying that if she dies, that's Nature. That's a cop-out for liability reasons. Common sense tells you what will happen--she will die. As surely as a bullet to the head, but not nearly so fast. Do the humane thing and end it peacefully for her. She stated her wishes before, if they are going to be enforced, do so properly, painlessly and humanely. I don't think there is any definitive answer on what a person experiences in a coma.