But I certainly don't think that's the point that sentence was making. The Dutch are working on this protocol for people who have no free will
and who are terminally ill; the article mentioned severely mentally retarded peope because many of those people would not be able to express their will in a case where they were also terminally ill and in great pain. It isn't an either/or scenario, but a both case - they would have to meet both of the criteria, be both terminally il and in a coma, terminally ill and severely mentally retarded, terminally ill and an infant, etc. I still understand if someone is against euthenasia, but I did want to clarify that.
Quote:
|
...euthanasia cases for terminally ill people "with no free will,'' including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
|