Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior
Again, maybe that was the kindest/best/right thing to do, but then why use such a draconian method as starvation to deliver the sufferer from her plight?
Even the people on death-row get a better way out.
|
From what I can gather, it is because of a legal wrangle. They can't give her a drug to specifically kill her, as this would constitue legal murder, even if given by a doctor. It would be regarded the same as if someone walked in with a gun and shot her.
Whilst you can't give her anything, you can legally
deprive someone if they are in a "persistant vegetative state". In this instance the only thing that she could be deprived off to kill was food and water, as she had no infections or anything that would have killed her in the absence of usual drug treatment.
Why they say that? I have no idea, but I guess it is the easiest way to split up letting someone die, and forcefully killing them.
As far as I know, she suffered no pain, given the sheer amount of brain damage she had, she couldn't process the signals from the nerve endings through spine to the synapses, etc.