What would be more useful in probing the truth would be to honestly outline the fact patterns of each case, as well as their eventual outcomes. There was a post here that said Cruzan's father commited suicide some years after he carried out his daughter's wish to starve to death. I wonder if that is true. If he did, I wonder if he left a suicide note. If he left a note, I wonder what it said.
I have noticed lots of misrepresentation of fact on this issue, which indicated exactly how divisive the issue is. There must be a deep moral point involved, in order to cause such conduct.
There is. And it is that moral point that I have been making repeatedly. I do not know how much of what Terri's family says that I believe. I also know that it doesn't matter. The moral principle involved here is "do we kill people with healthy bodies but damaged brains?"
The argument made is that they are not "really" alive so it is not "really" killing. I think that is a dangerous road to go down. Where is the line drawn? When there is doubt I prefer to error on the side of life. I would rather give rights to a "not-person"(is there such a thing?) then risk killing a "person".
To argue that they are "suffering" causes their whole "not alive" argument to collapse as if you are not alive then you can not suffer. If they are alive enough to suffer then they are alive.
If they are alive then they deserve the status of a person. You may not kill a person with impunity.