It's not morally offensive --- not murder--- to turn off the ventilator when it can no longer prevent an inevitable death and it is more burdensome than therapeutic.
This is not so with nutrition/hydration. N/h are always "ordinary" care even when administered by tube. A tube makes no difference. It's just as low-tech as a sippy cup or a drinking straw. It's not really burdensome, and its purpose is not a futile intervention, it's merely sustaining life by preventing starvation/dehydration.
The only exception would be where the food simply cannot be assimilated anymore, and/or there are complications at the tube site (such as infection.)
(2) The second major issue here is the parents' right to seek better care for their child. If the parents want him discharged so he can be admitted to Gesu Bambino in Rome, the NHS needs to support their right to do so. Alfie's got a mother and father, he's THEIR child: he belongs to himself, his parents, and God ----not to the NHS.
This situation makes me sick.
Once again rendering to "Caesar" that which belongs to God. And the Catholic Bishops of Britain are going along with it. Shame. Shame and damnation.
my brothers body swelled to the point of not recognizing him because his wife refused to let him go....and he suffered greatly for that..... On the other hand my mothers body had simply started shutting down so there was no question it was time.
But it cannot go without being said that parents of young babies or children have the most difficult time of letting go when the time comes or even perhaps recognizing it. ..and the reasons are numerous....
I don't like to discuss who's right or wrong in these cases...nor if or not a patient could or should be moved to another place. These are troublesome questions that are not easily put in any category....