[Jorge]

There are those, such as yourself, and Howlin, which comfort your consciences with the idea that if a person wants to be starved/dehydrated to death under such conditions, that we should not disappoint them in that desire. I believe that starving/dehydrating a person to death is an immoral action. Notice, no mention of the legality.

Perhaps then you can comfort your conscience as to the humanity of prolonging a person in a hopeless state of living death, to suffer indefinitely because you don't believe in removing a feeding tube.

I hope you realize on the other hand that there are others who consider your position immoral?

This is NOT an easy issue.
That is why the law, and many of us here believe such decisions are best left up to the individual and their family members.

And not to the Congress or Presidents or Governors, or these unseemly and often ugly demonstrations outside of a dying person's hospice.

[TheDon]

And not to the Congress or Presidents or Governors, or these unseemly and often ugly demonstrations outside of a dying person's hospice.

It seems to be the chosen way. Take for example abortion. It, too, has been removed from the realm of gov't control, and left to be a personal decision. You are also pro-abortion too?

[TheDon]

Perhaps then you can comfort your conscience as to the humanity of prolonging a person in a hopeless state of living death, to suffer indefinitely because you don't believe in removing a feeding tube.

I've heard this argument, but it conflicts with the "they can't feel pain" argument, and the "they are not self-aware" argument.