# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the Court ruled to allow Tony Bland to die, only because they have reviewed all the possible choices and the condition that he is in. Since Tony Bland was in a coma and had suffered severe brain damage, it was unlikely that he would be able to wake up again. Although he is 21, legal of age, he did not assign a proxy. Hence, the decision would be shared among the doctor's opinions and the parent's wish. Medically speaking, the doctors most likely is aware that he might no longer wake and the parent's wish was to let Tony Bland die as they think that he wouldn't want to be kept alive like that. Therefore, they both agreed to let him die by removing life-prolonging treatments, after the Court had heard all their stands and pleas.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the court's ruling that he should die as he is in a vegetative state, meaning that he is awake but unaware of his environment. It would put him out of pain as keeping him alive would be more painful for him. Although there is patient autonomy, since Tony is in vegetative state, he is unresponsive and eh would probably be unable to make a decision on his own.

However, i do not agree with the use of passive euthanasia as in my opinion, it is omission of care as they are taking away his nutritional needs, making him hungry and suffering until death due to starvation. I feel that it only adds more pain and suffering rather than giving him a peaceful death, possible causing more harm than good for the patient

# data[].attributes.body
By letting the patient die through starvation means is equivalent to being negligent , being negligent is defined as a caregiver failing to provide needed food and medical care , which i find cruel . The parents should have considered other merciful alternatives such as euthanasia . Under the lasting power of attorney care givers should not be allowed to make decisions relating to life sustaining treatments.

# data[].attributes.body
i feel like it is not right as he didn't chose to withdraw care but his parents. withdrawing not only treatment but food and water too is not right too. although tony bland could not feel pain etc as he is in a vegetable state, i still do not think it is ethical to kill someone based on others opinion (parents and court ruling) and to reject nutrition to someone as it is unlawful killing and negligence. sometimes doctors opinions can be wrong too - tony couldn't wake up, bcos miracles happen and if he was still on life support and with advanced technologies now, he might have a chance to live.

# data[].attributes.body
I agreed with the court's ruling decision. As Tony's recovery from a persistent vegetative state is not guaranteed, therefore even if he is able to recover, he will not be able to return to his normal life. As more resources and money will be used if he is kept alive. I believe that euthanasia would be the best option for him because he has a limited chance of recovery and that keeping him in the hospital would force him and his parents to suffer more.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally do not think that it was right to allow Tony Bland to die. I feel that with the advancement of medical technologies, he would at least have a chance at waking up and possibly recovering. I also feel that since he did not personally ask to die, his parents should not have decided to allow Tony to die through the withdrawal of treatments as well as food and water. Since patient autonomy is every person's right, this decision should not have been made since Tony was unable to decide for himself. I also feel that the way Tony died was inhumane. Since food and water, a basic human need, was denied to him, it would have resulted in starvation and dehydration, which would have caused him to suffer rather than giving him a peaceful send-off.

# data[].attributes.body
From online articles, Tony Bland was in a persistent vegetative state for three years prior to the application by the doctor and his parents to pull out life support for him. The medical consensus by the doctors was that he could never again regain consciousness.

I think the decision of court to allow the withdrawal of life-sustaining equipment amounts to an omission of a medical treatment, which means to withhold treatment (life-prolonging equipment) for a dying patient. This is different from the act of helping the patient to die by giving a lethal injection, even if the patient is terminally ill.

I agree with the court ruling to withdraw the life-sustaining equipment for Tony. This is because firstly, there is medical consensus from doctors that he would not regain consciousness. Keeping him in a permanently coma state is worse than if he is allowed to die with dignity. It would be in the best interest of the patient (beneficence) to allow him to die with dignity. Hence it is ethical to withhold treatment.

# data[].attributes.body
I find that it is agreeable for the courts to allow Tony to die through withdrawal of life prolonging treatment. Reason being, Tony had already suffered from a severe brain damage which leads him to a vegetative state. It is also not guaranteed that Tony will wake up from his coma.

His parents had also believed that Tony would not want to be kept alive with his current condition. It could be years to wait for him to wake up from his coma. If he were to wake up, he could have other complications such as losing his ability to walk, could not remember anything or other complications may arise. However, I do not agree with the withdrawal of food and water. It is unethical as Tony does not deserve to live in starvation.

# data[].attributes.body
I am neutral regarding the court ruling to allow Tony Bland to die without life-prolong treatment as he is in serious coma and brain damage to the point where life-prolonging treatment may not benefit or help him much in terms of his health crisis situation. But then again, it can be cruel thing to let someone die through starvation and dehydration which makes his suffering may worse. Secondly, does his parent know and agree to this decision> Are they willing to see their son suffer more even with his current health crisis? Why does the court allow it in the first place? Compared to Nancy case, this treatment is much more suffocated and cruel for me overall.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that the court allow Tony Bland to die because he is in a vegetative state where he is not able to do anything and he is already suffering. The court reviewed his condition and agreed. Even though he is 21, but because of his condition and the state he is in, he is unable to make a decision for himself, hence his parents had decided to not let him continue to suffer as much as they want to keep him alive with them.

However, I do not agree with the withdrawal of food and water as during the time he was not given any food or water, he would feel hungry and be thirsty which increases his suffering more before he died.

# data[].attributes.body
Although heartbreaking, the parents must have had thought through this many times before coming to a consensus. They believed that what they are doing is in the best interests of their son, and hence it is justifiable. A panel of doctors would also have been there to guide them through this decision to remove the life-prolonging treatment for Tony Bland. He is in a persistent vegetative state and no longer has the capability to think for himself nor do anything, hence prolonging his life would have only allowed him to suffer more. Therefore, I somewhat agree with the court's decision.

However, I do not agree with the manner in which his life was taken. Other alternatives would have been better as the withdrawal of nutrients seems quite cruel to me.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that it is valid for the Courts to approve Tony Bland to die through omission since someone who is brain dead cannot really recover anymore. They do not have control over their thoughts, body and cannot even feel pain hence he cannot really have the ability to make his own decisions so it is up to his parents to decide on his behalf on what is the best for him and it is justifiable.

He is like an empty shell that is just living and breathing with the help of life support. He would not be able to live normally even if they decide to keep him alive and I think it is valid to end his life instead of prolonging it.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, I agree that the courts allowed Tony to die as he is unable to make his own decision but through this method (no food or water), I feel that it would be painful for Tony as he will need to suffer more while waiting to die (naturally). Other method such as being put on euthanasia would be a less painful death

# data[].attributes.body
For Tony, he experienced severe brain damage meaning there is a extremely high possibility he will not be recovering from his coma.

His parents, though hard for them, believe that this is not what their son would have wanted.
And in this case, the doctors must have also felt that there is nothing that can be done to help the boy.

Hence the courts ruling seems acceptable to me.

# data[].attributes.body
According to my perspective, I agree with the Courts ruling to allow Tony Bland to die due to his condition of being in a vegetative state as it will put him out of his misery. Even if he was to recover, he would not fit into society and would face many more an issue in the future such as more medical condition, financial issues, and even the updating of what is going on in the modern world.

However, part of me disagrees with this as it is not his decision to end his life. And with the fact that ending his life was the withdrawal of nutrients, seems inhumane of them. There should be other alternatives to end his life such as euthanasia would have been a better option.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that Passive Euthanasia would cause Tony to suffer more as the omission of treatment, food and water may lead to him suffering from more complications (unnecessary) before his death.

There is also the essence of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia involved where he is unable to make his wishes known and the court order kind of forces him to be killed where he could be wanting to live despite his severe brain damage.

Nevertheless, the parents should know him best thus I hope that advanced care planning could be made available then so that Tony can nominate a healthcare spokesperson or donee(s) of Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA) to make the healthcare-related decisions on his behalf. It would be better if he did advanced medical directive documentation so that his parents would know if life-prolonging is necessary.

Since these are not in place in the year 1989, the court ruling would then be the best decision-maker thus I agree with their decision based on this basis.

# data[].attributes.body
i agree with the withdrawal of life prolonging treatment as despite the boy being in a coma state, he still requires nutrition which is being supported by assisted feeding and those life support machines can be costly that it override the benefits of continuing to live therefore the decision made by the parents is for the best interest of the boy since he was not able to make decision or voice out his wishes etc

# data[].attributes.body
Tony Bland is at the legal age of 21 years old and suffers from severe brain damage and was neglected from care by the decision of his parents and doctors. Base on my opinion I felt that it was not ethical for Tony Bland to be neglected from his treatment and consumption. As this decision was not made by himself, therefore, is cruel to be neglected based on the doctor and parents’ opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
I disagree that the court allows patient to die through withdrawal because in a way that I look at it, it seems like a form of encouragement seeing patients die if there were still other alternatives made available for them unless this was an option made by the patient themselves. Patient's decision would then have to be respected. However, with Tony Bland's current situation, the doctor who has been treating him might have already state their prognosis that he will not get better or get out of coma, at least. Additionally, this does not give the doctor a reason to let the patient die through starvation because it is then a case of negligent which brings more harm than good

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, it is not wrong to allow Tony to die by withdrawing artificial treatment. This is because he have suffered from severe brain damage which caused him to be in vegetative state. This also means that there is no assurance that he will wake up from coma. Therefore, withdrawing treatment allow him to die as a natural cause of illness. Withdrawing his food and water intake is also not wrong. This is because he already lost function to eat and drink.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the judge's ruling that he should be put to death because he is in a vegetative state, this implies he is cognitive but unaware of his surroundings. It would ease him of any pain as keeping him alive would not be useful as he is unable to resppnd or being engaging with his environement. While there is patient autonomy, Tony is unresponsive and incapable to make a choice on his own when he's in a vegetative state.
However, I do not agree with the use of passive euthanasia as it is a breach of care since they are denying him of his nutritional needs, making him hungry and suffering till death from starvation. I think that rather than offering him with a peaceful death, it only adds to his suffering and misery, potentially causing more harm in the long run to the patient.

# data[].attributes.body
From what I understand of the case, the Court had considered all possible choices and Tony's condition and ultimately had to allow him to die. As Tony suffered severe brain damage and was in coma, the possibility of him awakening is uncertain. Tony who is 21 years old had not assigned a proxy thus no one could make a decision for him. His parent decided to let him die as they believed he would not want to be kept alive and live on in that state.

Based on this, I do not think it is right as Tony did not choose to withdraw care and may have wanted to live on. In addition, I felt it was inhumane to extend withdrawing care by not providing Tony's basic needs of food and water