The reader who sent this in asked for his name to be withheld:

Mr Derbyshire—
’Why not kill Mrs. Schiavo quickly and efficiently, by depriving her of air
to breathe?’–NRO editors.
I am a practicing neurosurgeon. At least several times a month, I care for
patients with severe brain damage (usually from a hemorrhage or traumatic
injury) with no hope for neurological recovery. These are patients who are
in deep irreversible coma but may not meet all the criteria for brain death.
Some of them have spontaneous reflexive respiration.
I have seen and dealt with hundreds of patients like this and observed
colleagues care for hundreds more. I am generally conservative and agree
with NRO editors on most issues.
I routinely advise family members to allow removal of artificial
respiration if there is no hope for recovery. This is standard paractice and
occurs in every hospital routinely. According to the NRO editors, am I
’suffocating’ these patients and ‘killing’ them? I believe I am doing
neither.
By the logic of the NRO editors, all of these patients should receive a
tracheostomy and be ventilated until they die of some other cause. Were
this to be done, there would be thousands of near-brain-death patients
admitted to ventilator wards every week receiving futile care.
While there may be doubts about the Schiavo case on other grounds, the NRO
editors have over-reached with this statement.
[Name withheld]