Death is exactly what your feared State ORDERED upon the innocent Terri.
You have twisted the debate back to issues you already admitted were irrelevant. I said that the logical conclusion to be drawn from that article was that Terri's wishes or consent does not matter because the right to "life" was "inalienable". I pointed out that even if she'd executed an affidavit saying she did not want intubated feeding, was on video tape expressing her wishes, etc., that would not matter to the author because her wishes are irrelevant. You agreed.
You also complain that the state would rule over us in a matter so personal as when we die! Fool!
Look in the mirror, Tex. You are the guy saying that whether or not someone wants to be intubated is not their choice. So if the person refuses intubation, the state, to preserve that "inalienable right", must force feed that person. I find that offensive.
We both apparently believe that the state court in the Schiavo case got it wrong, but you seem to think that the wishes of the person shouldn't matter even if they are unambiguous. You get intubated whether you like it or not. And on that issue, we part company.
Can a person excute a valid contract that says based on condition A and B and C that they be starved? No. That's suicide. The contract is an illegal contract.
You are right about the valium, though. Not that particular de-stressifier though. I think I'll take a break and do some productive work and get some de-stressing via that enjoyable activity.