Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: KLP who wrote (345065)	1/23/2010 9:30:12 AM
From: skinowski	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 793931

if a coma patient can be legally denied sustenance — a death that can take ten days and who knows what distress — why could Frances Inglis not apply for a quicker, more humane end for her son? Because it is against the law. The author assigns special weight (and rights?) to motherly love. What if the patient's son, or father, or girlfriend or best friend - decide to end his suffering and inject him with some illegally obtained Heroin, or slash his wrists, etc.? It's clearly a slippery slope. Googled up this article... it discusses some of the concepts, including active vs. passive euthanasia. pregnantpause.org It occurs to me that no one would "deny sustenance" to a "coma" patient. It would have to be not just coma, but pretty much proven brain death. It would have to be an irreversible condition. Until then, and until the due process under the law is completed, all well wishing "enders of suffering" need to restrain themselves.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next