"medical advances have led to a vastly increased capacity to keep people alive without, in many cases, providing any real benefit to their health."This thought is rampant in the medical ethics community, where many have lost any anchor in morality. It is purely about situational ethics and relativism.
Here is more about what is going on in England:
Hydrating and feeding dementia patients is a waste of the National Health Service’s resources, a leading medical ethicist has said.
In an article for the British Medical Journal, the chairman of the Institute of Medical Ethics criticised a High Court judgment in September last year, which concluded that it would not be in the best interests of a brain-damaged woman to withdraw her artificial hydration and nutrition.
Writing under the heading “Sanctity of life has gone too far”, Professor Raanan Gillon, who is also an emeritus professor at Imperial College London, said: “The logical implications of this judgment threaten to skew the delivery of severely resource-limited healthcare services towards providing non-beneficial or minimally beneficial life-prolonging treatments including artificial nutrition and hydration to thousands of severely demented patients whose families and friends believe they would not have wanted such treatment.
“The opportunity cost will probably be reduced provision of indisputably beneficial treatments to people who do want them.”