MELBOURNE, May 30, 2003 ( – The Victorian Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the feeding tube of a mentally incompetent 68-year-old woman could be removed.  Australia’s The Age reports “Justice Stuart Morris ruled that the artificial feeding and hydration being provided to the woman, known only as “BWV” was a medical procedure rather than palliative care, and therefore could be refused.”  Although the woman’s family was supportive of the decision, both the Catholic Church and the pro-life movement both intervened against removal of the artificial feeding.  Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition told LifeSite, “The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is disappointed that the Australian courts decided that starvation and dehydration is an acceptable way to euthanize a vulnerable person.  Whether one is killed by a plastic bag, by starvation and dehydration or by using a hand gun, it is still killing.”  Schadenberg explained, “This is different from a competent person who’s death is imminent deciding to accept their death. The Australian case represents an incompetent person who is not otherwise dying being killed because she is not going to die naturally.  The Australian courts have broken from Common Law by ignoring the Do No Harm principle that has always been upheld in our legal tradition.  See the coverage from the Age:


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.