Thank you!
And between those who believe in the constitutionally grounded right of patients to refuse extraordinary life-saving medical treatment, and those who want to revoke that right to serve their simplistic, one-dimensional so-called "pro-life" views.
There is definitely a rift.
"and those who want to revoke that right to serve their simplistic, one-dimensional so-called "pro-life" views.
You call being "pro-life" simplistic and one-dimensional? What do you call being "pro-death"?
Since when is food and water "extraordinary life saving measures?"
For the MILLIONTH TIME:
1. Terri did NOT refuse "extraordinary life-saving medical treatment".
2. FOOD and WATER are NOT and "extraordinary life-saving medical treatment"
"And between those who believe in the constitutionally grounded right of patients to refuse extraordinary life-saving medical treatment,"
Food and water are not extraordinary, nor are they medical treatments.
Also, there is no evidence that Terri wanted to refuse any of this. Feeding tubes came about so that hospitals, nursing homes, etc, would not have to have a person feeding each patient 3 times a day. In other words, they were used for the convenience of the staff, not for medical treatment.
Also, feeding tubes may well, have not even been around when Terri was found unconscious in 1990, they certainly were not well enough known to have been an issue regarding life and death decisions.
What does your claimed "constitutional right to refuse extraordinary life-saving medical treatment" have to do with the Schiavo case?