The battle regarding nutrition and hydration for non-dying, yet profoundly handicapped humans, has been waged for many years in the court system. Some would say that the removal of food and water is tantamount to the killing of a human. This writer thinks that's correct. No one lives without food and water. Food and water are ordinary necessary and available under all circumstances. The debate has been whether food and water are extra-ordinary, if provided by feeding tube, or even spoon feeding. This on the surface is ridiculous. If such were true, then a baby bottle would be extra-ordinary, and so would a straw to drink your pop.
The euthanasia movement however marches on. Their primary goal is total autonomy. The question I pose, dear reader, is a moral one. If society condones the removal of food and water, for the express purpose of killing a handicapped, non-dying human, then would it not be more humane to lethally inject them?
No comments:
Post a Comment