Replies

precisely right. Fox news blog, today, has a bioethics DEBATE on this very case. a debate, by definition, means there are two sides to it. it is VITAL that situations such as these be debated and fully examined by those in similar situations, and by those who merely are HUMAN with no similar experience. how are we to keep our society from sliding directly down into the toilet if we innoculate all manner of immorality/unethical behavior from criticism by saying WHO ARE WE TO JUDGE? i am not saying the parents are unethical or immoral, i am saying that the subject is one that requires debate, as there are valid considerations on both sides.

I my experience,
angel harps don't play and rays of sunlight don't stream through windows when the 'right' decision is made. Most of the time, it's making the best choice out of a lot of bad ones....

The world isn't marshmallow cream and happy dreams. Its about ugly and pain and sadness and hurt....and somehow, in the middle of all this, these parents made a choice.

Hell, they chose to put a feeding tube in her (no one is grousing about THAT surgical procedure). They could have let her develop aspiration pneumonia via NG feedings and she would have died sooner.

Even sooner if they had opted not to feed her at all, since oral intake isn't possible.

HECK, even better.... just let her get big enough and get one good septic decub....she'd be dead by her teens.

Seems to me like these folks from the beginning not only have wanted her to live, but live as comfortably and healthily as possible. With them and in their care.

Unlike many of the sanctimonious morons I'm reading here.