Replies

"Do we remove these 'Devices' and allow them to wheeze their way into the afterlife?"

It depends.

Before the patient became brain damaged, did they express any desire, verbal or written, about what they would have wanted? If so, don't we have an obligation to carry out that wish, given their condition as you described it?

If they did not express a desire, either written or oral, then we are confronted with a euthanasia decision. Which is a completely different topic for another day and another thread.

I disagree. The statement of preferences in either written or oral form comprehends the use of so-called 'Heroic Measures' to sustain life. My post delves into exactly what is defined as such a measure and, after such a definition is agreed upon in legal parlance, are the individuals wishes regarding these measures the same as what the law defines them to be? If Terri actually said she didn't want to be wired up to machines (And I don't believe MS on this point) did she include Feeding Tubes to be 'Machines'. I don't think eve the lying MS's testimony went to the outrageous length of saying that she ever specifically expressed disdain for a feeding tube as a means of support.

Likewise, when she said she wouldn't want to live that way did she, at the same time, agree to die the way she did?

Just a few questions that I really haven't seen well explored.

So if someone has a written directive that states, "Please shoot me in the head if I become incapacitated and can no longer take care of myself" then it becomes our obligation to fulfill their wishes? People do not say "Please, starve and dehydrate me to death for 13 days if I become mentally incapacitated." And even if they do so, is that the right thing to do? Kill someone just because they asked you to? I'm sorry, I just don't think that's right.