I don't think so. This is different because most/some of us have been involved in 'end of life' decisions when it's involved a terminally ill and dying family member... but the problem here is that this woman is physically healthy. You just can't go around starving and dehydrating perfectly healthy people to death, regardless of their mental capacity.
In my mind, needing to be fed isn't a medical intervention when it's the only physical problem a person has. I've been thinking lately of my great aunt (or even Ronald Reagan) who had to be fed pureed baby food by spoon. She didn't even know her own name and she could barely swallow the food.
Colleen...
Thank you for actually READING my posts (unlike some).
I've been involved as clergy in two such situations. As I posted elsewhere, my family has been, or continues to be, professionally involved with the care of such people. I'm definitely with you on many issues.
I'm thinking there is a point where most of us would vote to let God / nature take its course. I'm sure that all of us would vote to provide prolonged medical care in other cases. The discussion needs to center about where that line exists, and what mechanism we use to determine whether someone has gone over that line.
In reality, what normally happens is that the "mercy killings" happen quietly, without consulting the courts, with the full cooperation of the doctors. I know. I've seen it happen. Dr. Kevorkian simply went public with the practice.