That gave me mixed feelings.
On one hand the courts have essentially made it legal to kill that child by removing help. He's going to die because they said he should and the parents can do nothing about their son's life.

On the other hand he's suffering so badly that such a controversial decision was made to end his misery. You wouldn't expect to keep an animal in that state alive, deeming it far more kind to put it to sleep.

I'm not sure what to think to be honest.
( vix0r was not Matthew on, Sat 21 Mar 2009, 15:01, 1 reply)

Not really kill him.
I think that there's a moral difference (and a legal one) between killing and letting die. And the parents' position - though perhaps understandable and admirable in its way - was simply wrong. I'm willing to believe the doctors who said that treatment was burdensome. They know about these things.

However, though I think that the doctors didn't kill him (many of my colleagues would say that killing and letting die are the same, but I disagree), I think they should. That would have been illegal, of course - but if you're willing to see someone die, then I think you should kill them as quickly as possible rather than waiting for nature to do the job. Nature, after all, has proved to be rather against the child so far...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 21 Mar 2009, 15:24, closed)