Originally posted by FredT
Longest run we have had was a kid that wnet 30+ days waiting for a heart transplant.

Hmm, so how much of an influence was the mental retardation having on the parents decision? If this was an otherwise healthy child, would they have
done differently? Not that I would even think about second guessing them or judging them in anyway, I certainly do not.

skibum
IMO there is nothing wrong with allowing them to die, but by causing the death as discussed in the article is , for lack of a better word,
wrong.

Is there really much of a differnce tho, between not giving 'agreessive treatment' and giving a leathal overdose? Either way you make a decision,
well aware that the result of it is death.

edsinger
This is absolutely heartbreaking!

These people are not trying to improve the population by weeding out the sick, demented and infirm. They are doing these things entirely out of
consideration for the person invovled, this
is enough to make it two different things. As for it being right or wrong, well, the usual thought
about mercy killings is the 'horribly wounded solider' situation. Are people acting wrong there? I wouldn't care to advance judgement on that
situation, because I have never had to make that choice. Have you?

Euthanasia was NOT done in this case, the Lord called her home when life support was taken away

Not to be rude but, get real. This was not a case of divine intervention and certainly is not demonstrably more so that any of the other cases of
'non-willed euthanasia'. Like I noted above, also, in both cases and types the person had to make a decision, knowing full well that after they
made the choice that the person would be dead. Either way they had to choose. The actions are not so very different.