I am really interested in everyone's opinions.....
2007-01-22 06:01:08 · 6 answers · asked by KW 2 in Health ➔ Other - Health
There are a lot of variables here but giving someone food and water I believe is required. If someone is able to stay alive by themselves by giving them these necessities then it should be done. This does not prolong death it prolongs life. This in no way forces a person to live because their body is staying alive naturally. If a child had no arms or was paralyzed we would think it right to help them eat and drink and so it is with others who for what ever reason can't do it themselves we are obliged morally do give them the necessities of life. This is not the same as keeping the body alive on a machine when they otherwise would die naturally. To remove a machine the body dies a natural death. To withhold food and water is to die a miserable death of dehydration. Big difference.
2007-01-22 06:14:51 · answer #1 · answered by beek 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That depends I think on what the quality of continued life would be. If the person is alert and able to function otherwise, I see no reason for not using a feeding tube for nourishment. On the other hand if the person is a living vegetable, no apparent conscious contact with others and is bed bound, I feel a feeding tube is just prolonging the inevitable and should not be used. But most importantly is what the individual wants and if the person made his/her wants known. Some what everything possible done to keep them alive because they fear the transition into death, others don't want to be kept alive and I think those wishes have to take precedence over everything else.
2007-01-22 14:07:27 · answer #2 · answered by essentiallysolo 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If the only problem with the person is that they are unable to consume food normally (i.e., they have difficulty with their esophagus, or some such), why not? A person can participate in a fully functional life even as a quadriplegic (look at Stephen Hawking for example!).
It should only be left up to the person "suffering" to decide if their quality of life is sub-standard.
2007-01-22 14:07:34 · answer #3 · answered by Brutally Honest 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
has nothing to do with morals but it's obviously a physical apparatus for those who can't swallow normally.
who cares how they get their nutrients ? NOT me
2007-01-22 14:05:01 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No and no to breathing devices, feel this is all wrong and morally incorrect.
2007-01-22 14:07:41 · answer #5 · answered by lonetraveler 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Only if there's any real hope that they'll recover and have normal lives some day.
2007-01-22 14:05:19 · answer #6 · answered by thezaylady 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋