According to the article ...
A bitter right-to-die row erupted in the United States in 2005 over the fate of Terri Schiavo, a 41-year-old woman who had been in a vegetative state since a heart attack in 1990.Schiavo's case went back and forth through the U.S. courts and even prompted then President George W. Bush to intervene as her husband fought for doctors to halt feeding and let her die.
Experts say traumatic brain injury can heal better than injury from stroke or heart attack, such as Schiavo suffered.
So, in answer to your question, no, this technology would not have been beneficial. On the other hand, no one has the right to deny a human being their right to life.
THanks for the clarification.
I still feel terrible about her.
She was not in a vegetative state. She was alert and responsive but mentally handicapped.
I hate this phrase, "let her die". If I refuse to feed my 4 year old daughter until she starved to death nobody would say I "let her die". They'd say I murdered her. And rightly so. She needs the food to live, she cannot get food on her own, I have the food, it is in my capacity to give it to her and I have a moral obligation to provide it. Just because she can't go and get the food herself doesn't make it okay to deny it to her.
How is Terry Schaivo different? Well, we're told she in a persistent vegetative state, that her brain was basically dead already. Yet some say she was responsive to various stimuli so there was some question, and here we see that doctors dont know everthing about the brain after all. And while her husband wanted her dead, her parents were prepared to accept the burden (and the hope!) of caring for her and keeping her alive.
I don't really think this was an issue for the federal government to decide but I do think that from a moral perspective a great wrong was done.