Their attitude, their personal beliefs counts in this case.

Such as gloating, or religious values. As it was shown in the channel.

 

A contract in those conditions are expectant of an 'usual' condition

of life and death. Obviously this was a unique case.

 

What they asserted was their own values, which turned into a debate.

And having know the hospital's mistake, the doctor who did not

arrive to save my mother in time, that she'd waited there for

hours fighting for her life, and having lost her life during surgery.

Quoting Dr.Andrew, "She was too weak".

After her death, why do you think she got weak in the first place?

 

They knew, this was a case of preservation. About wanting to exist.

Nothing more. It does not hurt anyone.

 

They should have made an exception certainly. But more importantly,

they antagonized and made this choice based on their own prejudice,

and discrimination. That is the factor here. Not any contract of

bringing in any machines or anything like that.

 

So they cannot hide this under usual contract.

This was a moral obligation, a unique, but obvious plea to save one's life.

 

Their own beliefs was what got in the way, and that was what the debate was

about. That it is pointless, and she is better off organ donation.

 

And what was worse, was their attitude, as it carries on to the channel.

 

Without respect or care.

 

Then that is collective malice. This is why I was furious.

And this is why you cannot let them go of their crimes.

 

 

They made it into a witch hunt to something that could've been simply

approached with care. No contract should shield them from this.