[k2blader]

The State has no obligation to individuals anyway. Medical care is an institute of the State.

Exactly.

If one supports denying food and water to people who rely on taxpayer-funded health care, it would only be logical that he also supports denying *any* medical care to people who rely on taxpayer-funded health care.

[kingu]

If one supports denying food and water...

It should be made clear here that the actual action in question, rather than the overly broad judgment, was seeking a ruling on if intravenous application of nutrition and fluids was a medical treatment or ordinary care. The government hospital was not trying to deny meals to patients where the patient feeds him or herself.

I'm sure that this is already understood, but some others reading this might not understand.