And #167. See what I mean. Some people think there are NO circumstances in which this would be permissable. I'm just getting them to admit it, that's all. And, since it goes on all the time, why does this case engender such attention when it is rather commonplace.
There are a few reasons, the biggest one being the HINO ----- Husband In Name Only.
My feeling is that if he wants her dead so badly, in a better world, there should be a way to do it very quickly, not like it is being done now.
Give me an example, please, of a circumstance in which it would be permissible to starve a person to death.
I'm having a hard time with the concept, as you can see.
The purpose of food and water is to prevent starvation and dehydration. In cases where food and water are either not necessary to prevent starvation/dehydration or will be ineffective at doing so, their administration may be considered "futile". In some such cases, the administration of food and water may cause more pain than their absense; in such cases, they should not even be considered "pallative care".
In Terri's case, however, food and water are necessary to prevent starvation and dehydration. Further, the best way to ease the pain of starvation and dehydration would be to give food and water. Starvation and dehydration of people who are not otherwise dying isn't about minimizing pain--it's about minimizing life.
The evil ones aren't trying to starve/dehydrate Terri because she's dying, but rather because they know full well she isn't.
Because people are beginning to wake up to the tricks of the euthanasia crowd.
If Terri dies, even more people will wake up.