Yes, but how is the governor supposed to know whether draining the fluid is medically appropriate?
It doesn't take a doctor to know that if you remove food and water from someone they will certainly die unless they are given food and water again; giving them food and water cannot cause any harm worse than denying it. But in your hypothetical, how could a governor know for sure that draining the fluids could do no harm?
He obviously couldn't if the doctors themselves don't know for sure, but that's beside the point I was attempting to make. I guess I'm not making myself clear, let me try again.
In the hypothetical situation as originally posted the lady is dying because of the fluid build up. If left untreated death is a certainty. If the drainage procedure is carried out she may still die, or live but suffer irreversable harm, or she may recover and survive in good health. Option one is she recieves no effective treatment and therefore dies. Option two is she is treated and may live in good health, may live but suffer severe damage of some kind, or may still die.
Option one = no chance of survival, option two = some chance of survival. I can't see any advantage in choosing option one, can you?
My only point is that whenever there is a chance that life may be preserved by treatment, the choice should always be for the possibility of continued life after treatment over the finality of certain death without treatment. I'm sorry if I'm not communicating effectively, but I don't know how to say it any clearer than that.