[Deep_6]

The word "euthanasia" sparks emotions at its very pronouncement. For those in favor, "the good death" is at once a wish, a hope, and a right. For those opposed the word means the intentional termination of a life -- a suicide or a murder -- regardless of method or motive. For the sake of clarification, if not argumentation, let's recognize at the outset that any decision regarding treatment of the terminally ill is a death decision. Whether the decision is to effect a full-frontal assault on the forces that conspire to shorten ones life or to hasten the inevitable, either option is a choice among options available at the end of life. Once again, what is new here is the impact of technology: not long ago there were limited options as death approached, and it approached at an earlier age. Inevitably, Nature would 'take its course'. Now medical advances and overall improvement in basic health have increased our longevity -- and now we stay alive long enough to get cancers that only show up as opportunity and age allow. Medical advances can now keep any particular body alive; so it is an old ethical question in a new guise we face: "Should we?"

Read it here

[Robert A Cook PE]

Nope.

The question here is:

Shall an innocent woman be starved to death for a week to ten days, dying ignobly in her own waste without companionship or aid based solely on the unsubstantiated word of a man who wants her dead - All based solely on a supposed "memory" of a "remark" brought up 8 years later, just as that guardian finds he can make hundreds of thousands of dollars from an insurance deal and go live with his lover?

---...

Not a court in the country would sentence a convicted murderer to die bvased solely on third hand testimony - all the while denying that murderer any appeal, any review, nor any medical care.