[Normally a Lurker]

Do you believe it is reasonable to dehydrate/starve to death brain damaged persons who haven't specifically requested it?

Your question tries to over-simplify an extremely complex issue.

The answer would depend on a setailed analysis of a wide range of associated circumstances involved in the specific case.

Let me reverse the question: Do you think it is reasonable to artificially sustain such a person for many years when it's possible or even probable this would be against their wishes. (To me, and for me, such a fate is much worse than death.)

In either case, I think that the legally designated decision maker can and should apply criteria to the set of circumstances that they would use if making such a decision about theirself - i.e., what their own decision would be about theirself if they were in such a situation.

[Theodore R.]

an extremely complex issue

Liberals have long called issues "complex" when most moral concerns are simple -- right or wrong. Even people without a firm biblical foundation can generally through conscience know what is "right" or "wrong." The Terri case is just too simple for many to understand. She has the right to life, the right to therapy under various federal and state rehabilitation laws, the right to be removed from a destructive guardian under FL law. It's not "complex."

[stands2reason]

possible or even probable this would be against their wishes.

My guideline is "clear and convincing" evidence for putting people to death. And I find it horrid to do it by starvation---if we're going to go that way, why not lethal injection? It's much more humane.

[stands2reason]

The main point of my question was this----Do you feel there's ever good reason to starve a human being to death?