Replies

By diluting the significance of the term "euthanasia" you are actually being self-defeating. Most people are opposed to euthanasia, that is, the active killing of a person for stated humanitarian reasons. Most people are not opposed to the withdrawal of futile care, and indeed a lot of people do not want to be kept alive when there is no chance of their improving (my parents both have advance care directives demanding withdrawal of sustenance if they should become permanently vegetative). By calling the withdrawal of futile care euthanasia you are clouding the issue and alienating supporters. The question in this case is whether the state was jumping the gun in asking for the permission to withdraw such care and whether the rights of patients and caregivers are adequately protected (such as making sure patients really are in a vegetative state before withdrawing care and not invalidating a caregiver's priveleges in determining the care of the patient) in such situations.

I am sorry about your mother and certainly hope she was treated with the respect she and your family deserve.

I am not the one watering down the word, "euthanasia". The ones who are implementing euthanasia are watering it down, using softer terms that sell. But the effect is just the same. In the case of Haleigh, the officials wanted to euthanize her plain and simple. In the case of Andrea Clark in Texas the authorities wanted to euthanize her despite protests to the contrary and they used the softer term, "futile care" as their tool. Rather than interpret the term "futile" as treatment which would not help, they interpreted the life of Andrea as futile. That is how we are seeing them work.

A review of past discussions of Haleigh's dilemma makes clear the DSS intent and attempts to cover up the true nature of their deeds.

There is a difference between futile care, and futile lives. DSS determined that Haleigh's life was futile. There was nothing futile about her care. It was doing what it was designed to do. And DSS recognized this. What they didn't recognize was that Haleigh has as much right to live as anyone else. They intended to euthanize her, by depriving her of food and water, and giving her morphine. That is euthanasia.

By diluting the significance of the term "euthanasia" you are actually being self-defeating. Most people are opposed to euthanasia, that is, the active killing of a person for stated humanitarian reasons. Most people are not opposed to the withdrawal of futile care, and indeed a lot of people do not want to be kept alive when there is no chance of their improving (my parents both have advance care directives demanding withdrawal of sustenance if they should become permanently vegetative).

You would make a good point if this was a futile care case, but it's not. Nor is it a euthanasia case per se. It's a case of malpractice and failing to give the kid any chance. What, waiting a few days or even weeks to recheck her condition was too much to ask? The doctors screwed up big time, and the state agency was very fasyt on the trigger, almost suspiciously so.

By diluting the significance of the term "euthanasia" you are actually being self-defeating. Most people are opposed to euthanasia, that is, the active killing of a person for stated humanitarian reasons. Most people are not opposed to the withdrawal of futile care

I think that's the whole Orwellian idea.