[surroundedbyblue]

Hello??? Did you read the article? The hospital petitioned the court to appoint a legal guardian for this woman. That removed any control the family had over this woman’s care. Just like Terri Schiavo, whose family wanted to care for her at home at their own expense. The article’s point is that the gov has no right to decide who lives & who dies. Don’t you get that?

[surroundedbyblue]

Wow! The cold-hearted, anti-life responses by some FReepers are unbelievable & are what give conservatives a bad name.

I will pray for you.....some of you seem to be under the influence of the Evil One.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree that the responses of some FReepers are deeply troubling.

The article, though, doesn't do a good job of making the issues clear. The central issue is not

• that she's an immigrant (and apparently a legal one);
• nor that Rwnadan culture does or doe not compare favorably with American culture as regards deliberately starving people to death;
• nor that indigent people have or do not have an unlimited right to expensive, futile hospital treatment;
• nor a question of public funding.

The real, central point is that a helpless woman's feeding tube was removed, for the purpose of causing her death by starvation/dehydration. This is murder.

Since she was severely disabled, the proper thing to do would have been to secure "ordinary care" for her -- at a long-term convalescent care center or hospice --- which her adult sons, all apparently employed and enjoying some level of income, should have paid for.

"Ordinary care" is nothing more or less than nutrition/hydration, hygienic maintenance and comfort care; it is not expensive; and it should have been provided by her next of kin. This is their familial obligation. If they can't afford a convaescent home, it could have been provided in a private home, or even an apartment, with home hospice workers and/or family members attending to the (simple) process of tube feeding.

The fact that all the choices were taken away by a court-appointed "guardian" who exercised "guardianship" by arranging for her death by starvation, is gravely wrong. Whatever the legalities, from a moral point of view it is premeditated murder.

[Fantomw]

By all means, let one of her sons, with masters degrees, take their mother home and care for her or pay for her care at the hospital.

I am sure the hospital would be fine with that.

There is no moral high ground to say someone else, like the hospital or taxpayers, must pay for her care.