What's legal and what's right?

Saat ini aku tengah pening. Dah muak dah tengok lecture notes.. tengok cacing2, bakteria2, virus2, nanah2, najis2, kahak2, pustules dan sebagainya. Aku try baca ethics. Huh, menyusahkan hidup pulak Encik Ethics ni. Makcik lecturer keep on emphasizing 'you need to know the legal right in case you end up in court'. So, you need to know what's legal just to save your ass but you make your judgement according to your moral value?? does that make sense to anyone?? Why bother having 2 different sets of right?? can't we just have one?? THE one that'll suit both?

If someone refuse feeding by mouth, according to civil right you can't force them to eat but morally you are obliged not to let them starved to death. So what you do is you wait till he's mentally incompetent to decide on his own (low glucose make your mind deteriorate.. not a fun way to die.. dying is never fun though.. unless u r a martyr.. heh..) Then, you are now legally able to make a decision for them and feed them. Does that make sense to anyone?? Huh.. that seem pretty inconsistent to me.. not a perfect law..

Its legal for you to take a patient off his ventilator if he wanted to even you know that with Allah's will he'll definitely die without it but it's illegal for you to administer drug that'll kill him even if he asked you to because that's considered actively killing him. I thought you need some ATP to move your muscle to actually pull off the ventilator probably even more than it is needed to plunge a syringe into patient's I.V. and inject some lethal drug that'll make both of you go to hell (if you don't repent lah). And from what I learn in chemistry.. any activity requiring ATP is active. so.. wouldn't that mean you're actively killing the patient either way?? Does that make sense to anyone?? huh.. again.. it really really is not a perfect law..

And they say it all lies in the intention. Huh.. 1400 years ago that rule has been established by an unlettered man in the middle of the desert. Doesn't even need a genius fancy 'House of lords'... but why toss away the completely established law sent down by our Lord (not the lords who learn legal right from some kind of university taught by another mere mortal.. )??