You wouldn't do it to a dog!
Nobody in there right mind would starve a dog or cat to death by cutting off it's food supply, but now by law it's fine to do it to a human being
"LEGAL permission will no longer be required to end life-prolonging care for patients in a permanent vegetative state, the UK Supreme Court has ruled today"
"The ruling will effect up to 24,000 patients with permanent vegetative state (PVS) and minimally conscious state (MCS), meaning they can now be effectively starved and dehydrated to death if the medical staff and relatives agree that this is in their “best interests"
Is it just me or is this just wrong on so many levels
Comments (103)
Your body should have rejected the chicken on principle
Maybe a hefty morphine drip might assuage any concerns about suffering during the process.
I'd certainly rather finances were channelled into those who have prospects of a reasonable quality of life.
Two thirds of the world are starving and are very much conscious of it, but we don't have an emotional attachment to them.
The problem with your solution is due to the law any involvement of other people is going to land them in prison, we now know due to the Brexit debacle that governments can not be trusted to make decisions the people want or are in there best interests
I talked about three options and one of them was a euphemism for the other two which are currently practised.
18 years ago our country had something called pathway, were food and water was denied a person. Unbeknown to me they put my mother on this. It took 2 weeks for her to pass. Thank goodness she did not feel agitated or anything she slipped into a coma. I later learnt about this pathway, it does not happen now, but I will never forgive myself for not knowing. She had a broken hip and I'm sure she would have recovered.
I myself have learnt 2 good methods to end things for me, if I'm able I would rather put my face on
We just have to take it as it comes really and keep our own council.