....and...
- Which brings us back to poor Haleigh Poutre: Until and unless ANH is recognized as a unique category of care to be governed by its own rules for determining when and whether sustenance can be withheld or withdrawn, Haleigh remains very much at risk. After all, her doctors could still conclude that she will not improve. They could still recommend to guardian Harry Spence that he withdraw her food and fluids lest she grow up profoundly disabled. Spence could still agree that an early death is better than a longer disabled life and ask the courts to sanction her dehydration. The juvenile court could promptly hold a new hearing in which the judge would undoubtedly be told by a bevy of "expert witness" bioethicists that dehydrating this child to death would be ethical and morally appropriate even though she is conscious. The court could still order her to die slowly, over two weeks, of dehydration despite her being awake and aware. And the supreme court of Massachusetts could still give final approval to the decision. Such is the sad state of medical ethics and the law in the United States of America.
4 posted on
02/01/2006 7:34:33 AM PST by
mnehring
(Perry 06- It's better than a hippie in a cowboy hat or a commie with blue hair.)
To: All; mnehrling
Bump to Post #4.
I have read that they talked about giving Haleigh a year. A year for WHAT? to RECOVER? We should not kill the disabled.
Haleigh needs our prayers.
65 posted on
02/01/2006 11:20:04 AM PST by
Sun
(Hillary Clinton is pro-ILLEGAL immigration. Don't let her fool you. She has a D- /F immigr. rating.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson