[The Old Hoosier]

To pin a label on her condition, and say, "ha, it means this, that and that, so we should starve her to death," is to ignore the individual facts of the case. And the television footage on Fox News. This case really comes down to whether third parties can decide to terminate the lives of severely retarted people.

Moreover, is it ever right to starve someone to death under any circumstances? I can understand letting someone die when some truly extraordinary means could save them, but to make it a crime to feed or hydrate someone?

[TheAngryClam]

When the third party, in this case Michael Schiavo, is the legal guardian, yes, it does. What you advocate is the rights of other third parties, with no such legal connection, to override those decisions of the guardian.

Just wait until your pet cause gets the same meddling, and you'll cry foul to high heaven. For example, maybe it's homeschooling, where the state decides what the parents (legal guardians) can and cannot teach.

Also, it's not simply denial of food and water, as if she were locked in a shed somewhere. It's the removal of a tube that's inserted through her stomach and pumps these things into her. Not very natural.

[TrebleRebel]

Correction. Physical disabilities do NOT constitute mental disabilities. Its obvious this woman is physically disabled, but the question is what extent her mental abilities are impaired and lessen her quality of life. And, does an impaired quality of life denote the necessity to end life altogether.

I have worked in long term care. I have seen many an extended family put pressure on a spouse to keep a loved one alive and placed in care. And then disappear when the bills begin piling up and the lonliness sets in.

This is way too complex an issue to be tried and sentenced in the press.