I guess we should just kill anyone who does to meet your criteria of a life worth living. Only problem is that who has the "right" to dictate who should live or die? A case can be made I am sure that people with Alzheimer's disease would be better off dead. Do we just start killing people based on some line that people like you draw in the sand? Who controls where the line gets drawn and how far it can be moved? Anyone on life support can be sent to their graves if they do not pass the criteria. All a spouse needs to say is that I heard so and so say they would not want to live this way.
There must be criteria for removal of life support. (it can be argued that food is not "life support" in the traditional sence of the term). The criteria should be that a written will must be required.
You're absolutely correct. It's called a "living will" and in its absence, the decision
is at the hands of your spouse, then next of kin. In the absence of either, the
courts will make the decision based on credible medical information alone. In
all situations, a complete medical diagnosis/prognosis is absolute.
In Terri's situation, all criteria were met.