Neither can a newborn baby. Should parents be given the power to "end an infant's suffering" by withdrawing the "medical care" (sheesh, my mom could be called a professional nurse!) that is providing sustenance to the helpless?
The REAL problem here, folks, is not that Terri cannot feed herself. The problem is that unfortunate Terri cannot speak. So other more unethical, heartless, irrational people have decided they have the power to speak for her.
With all respect, the real problem is that Terry can't make the decision for herself. If she could, she could tap a finger, twitch a toe, blink an eye -- all of those things they always do on TV when under the influence of some mysterious South American paralyzing drug. But she can't. So someone has to make those decisions for her. Whom should it be? The husband, the parents or, now as urged here, the state?
What began as a dispute between two private parties (the husband and the parents) has now become an appeal to the state to create a new right -- a right to a permanent feeding tube for every man, woman and child. This is urged on vague, PETA-like concepts of the importance of physical life.
I'm sorry, folks. The private dispute was fairly decided (the type of thing our courts actually do fairly well). The husband won, the parents lost. The process was carefully reviewed on appeal.
Of all forums in the blogosphere, this should be the last to try to create new rights in the state to trump private decision-making. Today's right to a feeding tube will be tomorrow's right to a heart/lung machine and Saturday's right to chemotherapy, and Monday's right to Hillarycare.