I agree. I'd also say that if a person has left clear evidence (written, anything less s/b unacceptable when it come to life and death) that they want to be removed from all life sustaining measures including food and water, even though we may not agree with their decision, we have to honor their wishes.
But the Schiavo case does not meet that criteria and in fact, I think we must look to the person who has been appointed her guardian and see if he may not have her best interests at heart. There is also evidence that she can indeed swallow nourishment on her own and so she may not need to be fed through a tube.
I am mindful of a very slippery slope. The situation in the Netherlands is frightening.
You may want to read the recent column by Wesley Smith in the National Review. It's a pretty straightforward interview with a bioethicist who espouses 'personhood' as depending on the level of awareness. He straight out states that Terri Schiavo is not a person. He is unfortunately, representative of a great deal of people, medical and otherwise.
My common sense tells me that we do not starve and dehydrate human beings in order to cause their death (and call it good, to boot!).
But the Schiavo case does not meet that criteria and in fact, I think we must look to the person who has been appointed her guardian and see if he may not have her best interests at heart. There is also evidence that she can indeed swallow nourishment on her own and so she may not need to be fed through a tube.
Yes.