noun {C}
1 the equipment used to keep a person alive when they are very ill or injured:
See #15
My mother was fed through a feeding tube for over 2 years while she was beating Cancer, My father also had a feeding tube during his last 4 years on this Earth and that is not life support. Clear your mind my friend, you're falling for the leftist propaganda
Part of the purpose of the law is to provide a course of action (or at least the option of various courses) when a situation meets certain conditions. Because the different circumstances in any individual case are potentially infinite, the general language of a statute must be applied to specific exigencies. And, that's why lawyers exist--the idea that they are trained to argue that a given situation should meet the statutory requirements because of X reason (granted, this is a sanitized and simplified version of the lawyers' role, but I hope you'll let me slide on that, as it is fundamentally sound for the purposes of this post).
The thing about these different arguments: sometimes both can be reasonable and technically right, even if they are antithetical. Thus, you can argue that the feeding tube is a life support system because it is piece of machinery designed to keep a person alive; I say it is not because the feeding tube does not take the place of any bodily organ, but instead only the process of eating food via the mouth. The trier of fact will decide which is right, and it largely depends on which court you get that determines which will be chosen. Your argument might prevail in one court; mine in another.