I know it sounds bad but personally, I could not euthanize somebody. Who could? Who is supposed to carry out the procedure?
I think euthanization is a slippery slope but in this case the baby was euthanized anyway - just by starvation. I presume also she was sedated during the 9 days.
It seems to be that passive euthanization is OK but active euthanization isn't. I don't get that at all.
I don't think an article from a rag like the Daily Mail is a good way to get a balanced view on what happened in those 9 days. It is a sensationalist rag.
The girl had severe brain injury, so I'm not sure that the statement "the nine days of suffering Natty endured could have been replaced with 30 seconds of a medically-induced, less painful death."
Also the following statement sounds odd
"Natty lost half her body weight and became increasingly delirious. She became 'nothing but a shell of the little girl, that a few short months ago, filled our lives with laughter and happiness,' her family said."
If she was deaf, blind and paralysed and suffering from seizures prior to the starvation - was she not already nothing but a shell of the little girl?
There's no doubt she was a beautiful girl. A friend of mind had his 4 year old daughter die of cancer - on valentines day of all days. I remember sitting in a bar with him and looking at him and tears were streaming down his face - because the place we were in was playing the song they played at her funeral.
I'm welling up just thinking about it. When he sees my daughter it reminds him of Jazzy. Honestly - we don't know how lucky we are to not go through that. I can't imagine it.
This is a tough read - but here is her story -
http://www.jazzywren.com/jazzywren.com/Welcome.html