Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wendybeth
I'm still waiting to hear whether or not she was considered to be enough of a person to feel pain. Not a lot has been said on that as yet, post mortem, so I'll wait and see what the experts have to say about that, based on her autopsy results.
|
You've brought this point up a couple of times, so I will throw my thoughts out on this.
If she was in pain, was this pain in existance just when the feeding tube was removed? Or could this pain have been around for a month, a year, or more? Even if she felt pain, I would have no regrets about this decision. I do not know of many people who would, if given the choice, rather stay in what was obviously (after all this time) a permanently vegatative state rather than face relatively short-term pain or discomfort. While I am sure that dying from starvation isn't a whole of fun, the couple of weeks of it sure beats being a lifeless vegatable!
To me (as others) the REAL tradgedy in this case was not that we allowed her to die, but rather that we allowed her to die the way she did. If ever there was a case to be made for euthenasia, this was it (as was my grandfather who died of emphasyma and many other people who have had to suffer needlessly!).
As cold as it may sound, I say "so what" if her last couple of days were painful because of the removal of the feeding tube: it is a hell of a lot better than the way she was "living"!