[robertpaulsen]

"I meant that even if a person is sick or helpless, we should not deny them food and water."

"We" meaning the state or "we" meaning private charities?

If the state is going to be using taxpayer monies to provide food and water (and other palliative 24-hour round-the-clock care like physical therapy, basic hygiene, medicines, medical treatment, a hospital bed, etc.) shouldn't the state determine if the money couldn't be better spent on a patient who is not brain damaged or brain dead? (Assuming the patient wants to be kept alive in that condition.)

[fella]

You talk as if the State were something different than the people. I find it hard to believe that the people of even Massachusetts are so reptilianly cold blooded as to wish for the death of this child. The State represents the peoples will, when it goes against them it no longer represents them.

[rimtop56]

Robert, I'm all for small government and limited spending, but if we as a nation or a people think we can't afford to give some helplessly disabled person food and water (and yes, a modest bed somewhere and a little care if they have no means), then our poverty is not in our pocketbook but in our soul.