View Full Version : Allowing someone to die of thirst - moral, immoral, etc . . .

Cito Pelon
08-08-2014, 05:47 PM
Let's say a very elderly person with multiple tumors, cancer, etc, wishes to die with dignity, doesn't wish to be a burden on their family, doesn't wish to be kept on life support. We've all known someone that has a "living will" or some such situation.

OK, let's say that person has denied theirself food for a long time, but kept theirself hydrated. But, at a certain point they become so weak from lack of nutrition they can no longer keep THEIRSELF hydrated.

Is it immoral to deny said person hydration and basically let them die of thirst?

A person dies slowly of hunger, but quickly of thirst. And it's an agonizing way to die, agreed? Said person WANTS water, in fact, if asked if they want water they still have the strength to say yes, or if asked to squeeze their hand if they want water, they squeeze their hand.

Is it immoral to deny said person the water they clearly want? And in fact said they wanted to be kept hydrated as long as they had the strength to ingest water?

08-08-2014, 09:09 PM
The point being...?

08-08-2014, 11:58 PM
Immoral criminal neglect.
How is this even a question in your mind?

08-09-2014, 12:14 AM
My old boss had her father die of Huntingtons disease. When he wasted away beyond anything humanly descent he had a living will that instructed his family to "pull the plug". They honored it and it was an agonizingly slow death, because it's not like he was a vegetable. He was essentially trapped in a body not fully functioning.

My bosses husband said in his eyes he thought we treated our animals better than ourselves... in that we put them down. I never could put myself in their shoes or the fathers to see what I would do. I would honor the request of any of my loved ones, but it's got to be terrible.

08-11-2014, 01:16 PM
**** yes it's wrong. If someone asks for water and another person does not help that person they deserve some s*&$

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:01 PM
If it's a state in which they're allowed euthanasia then it's a matter of the law to not interfere in their manner of chosen death. Even where euthanasia is not a law, people still have the right to deny themselves treatment and nourishment. At most they'd be given a psych eval to determine if they are cognizant of the consequences of their actions, and if so, physicians cannot legally interfere.