*YOU* believe it is a moral obligation to feed and hydrate patients who are otherwise living.
I do not believe the body is capable of living if the body can no longer chew, eat or swallow their food, AND their brain is not functioning enough to assist them in swallowing.
Morally I disagree with you. I believe in God, and I believe differently than you. That does not make you morally superior to me.
You offered, "I do not believe the body is capable of living if the body can no longer chew, eat or swallow their food, AND their brain is not functioning enough to assist them in swallowing." Considering Stephen Hawking and a long list of other humans who you would put down by withholding nutrition and water, is there something else you would like to add to your offerings, perhaps regarding the alive unborn, before many of your fellow Freepers place you on the ignore list?
Terri swallowed all the time. But the judge decided that giving her anything by mouth, even after the tube was pulled, would be "experimental" and a "medical examination."
If you do not believe that God gave us medical progress to prolong life, why on earth does it exist?
Can you give me something beyond your "belief" that Terri has not capable of living for the 15 years that she was tube-fed? It's obvious that she was able, because she did live.
What you do not believe is that a body should be *aided* in living if the person cannot feed himself or herself.