Ariel Sharon and the continued efforts to keep him alive

[imb39]

BBC Story

This story is about Ariel Sharon and the continued efforts to keep him alive.

I do not want this to turn into a flaming war about Sharon and the conflict in the Middle East.

My question is this - are the doctors doing the right thing? He is almost certainly brain dead. His body is beginning to fall apart. He should be dead by now. Are the doctors acting immorally by prolonging his life without any regard to the quality of his life. Are the resources being used to support his life being used the most efficiently?

I ask this because there are issues within Britain about the cost of certain drugs/treatments. Where would this fit in this context? Also would denying him treatment like this be constituted as euthenasia? Where does it become impractical to save a life?

This has tenuous links with the abortion thread, I suppose, as it deals with the value of life. But I thought it warrented it's own discussion.

[the_mango55]

I think they should let it go. Sometimes nature needs to run it's course.

[The White Knight]

He kind of disappeared from the news here lately (unless my deafness increased). I don't know about whether it's morally wrong or right here, I'm more concerned about eventual political chaos after his 'official' death.

[Tom Paine]

Same here... And I'm worried about why, a little... its a scary prospect of what could happen in Israel and Palestine, with Hamas facing an inexperienced opponent.

[Turbo]

Right and wrong for me is based on my religious faith, yet there doesn't appear to be much guidance on this. I think Keeping Sharon alive should be done until all hope for a recovery is exhausted. This is required to respect the sanctity of life. To continue artificially keeping someone alive denies them the afterlife and keeps their soul entombed. I am not sure however at what medical point all this happens. Is it wrong to disconnect a feeding tube that keeps someone alive? I don't think so. Death is a reality for everyone.