Because this case has nothing to do with being Pro-Life. It is normal medical practice performed hundreds, if not thousands, of times every day. When one has watched one they love go through misery like this they can see the inhumanity of prolonging that existent.
This has everything to do with being pro-life. Being pro-life means believing life is sacred.
When one has watched one they love go through misery like this they can see the inhumanity of prolonging that existent.
What misery? I thought you believed she was PVS?
It is normal medical practice performed hundreds, if not thousands, of times every day.
inhumanity of prolonging that existent
And there we have the rationalization of murder.
And where's your response to post # 54?
The purpose of giving food is to prevent starvation or malnutrition. The purpose of giving water is to prevent dehydration. Such care is futile when, and only when, it is either unnecessary (the person is in no apparent danger of starvation or dehydration) or would be ineffective (giving food or water would not prevent starvation/dehydration).
What is objectionable in Terri's case is that there is no evidence whatsoever that food and water would not perform their intended function. Further, the evidence that Terri is unable to swallow is hardly sufficient to justify forbidding all efforts to give food and water by mouth. Unless, of course, the goal is to avoid the risk that she might survive if fed orally.