[Alberta's Child]

It is a question of how this child is going to die. As I said very clearly in my earlier post (but I'll repeat it anyway) . . . If the ventilator is turned off and the child dies, then the child has effectively died of whatever medical condition caused his hospitalization in the first place. If the child were breathing on his own and the feeding tube was removed, then starvation/dehydration -- not the condition that resulted in his hospitalization -- would be the cause of death.

This might sound very subtle, but it represents a huge distinction in medical ethics.

[BykrBayb]

Then why allow ventilators to be used at all? Why do we allow patients without brain damage to use a ventilator? That is, after all, where the distinction is being made. The excuse for removing the ventilator is the brain damage.

[8mmMauser]

This might sound very subtle, but it represents a huge distinction in medical ethics.

I am sure it does, but whether one strangles or dehydrates, the kid still is dead even though he does not need to be snuffed. As you can suppose, from years of experience, I am not enamored of medical ethics, but do get concerned about the killing of innocents sanctioned by the state and laws. I guess it is something carried over from abhorring the techniques developed to art form in Hitler's time.

[robertpaulsen]

How does your distinction apply to someone like Christopher Reeve? It doesn't.

The problem is that you're missing the point. The point is WHY are these life support mechanisms being removed? If the patient is brain damaged or brain dead, then the cause of death makes no difference since the patient is already (medically) "dead".

If the patient is not brain damaged or brain dead, then were talking about "quality of life" and euthanasia. That is not the case here, nor was it with Terri Shiavo.