[TexasCowboy]

Eric, I hate to inform you of this, but you're making the same mistake I made last night.
I didn't have time to become informed except what I had heard on the news, and this case is MUCH more complicated than what you hear on main stream media.
Until you get educated on all the ramifications of this action, you really don't have anything to contribute.

[Capitalist Eric]

Until you get educated on all the ramifications of this action, you really don't have anything to contribute.

Well, I'm back. And while you may have a point, it seems pretty cut-and-dried.

1. She is not legally competant, therefore her closest next-of-kin is now responsible for her.
2. Since the husband is now the primary person to decide what is best, the parents have no legal standing.
3. Since she is in a vegetative (or autonomic) state, removing her means of life support- whether a feeding tube or respirator or whatever- can be done. The end result, whether considered ghastly or not, is the same.
4. The legal precedents for this have been long-established, and are relied upon by those of us still living to preclude our being a turnip for (up to) decades past where we're already dead.
5. The judicial system has upheld this (repeatedly), and all the "suspicions" and possible monetary or personal motivations are irrelevant.

Did I miss anything?