“So, she doesn’t need anything else besides a feeding tube? No turning her body or massaging her muscles? No diaper changing? No bathing and other hygiene? No personal contact?...Miminal brain activity...”
If a human being needs those things, it is the moral obligation of other human beings to provide them. A two-year old needs those things, so if her father doesn’t want to be bothered, does he go and ask the court for an order to kill the two-year old? This woman is 36 years old; so what. If her father abandons her, if there is no money, those are not valid issues to kill someone.
If you think they are, I hope you aren’t ever in the situation of lying in a hospital bed while those around you discuss your death, believing you cannot hear, and all the while your brain is working much better than anyone knew, as has happened over and over and over again with “comatose” patients.
The argument that inconvenience or expense justifies a disabled person’s extermination is depraved. We have obligations as humans to care for the weak, sick, poor. If her father has abandoned his responsibility, there are, thank God, many Christian people who willingly care for those in need who are not related to them.
Why is it that you felt the need to put words that I never said into this quotation? That is just dishonest in any discussion, and I don't appreciate what is clearly your intention to take my questions and characterize them as a position of which you don't approve.
You made the statement that all this woman needed was food and water. I think that everyone can grasp the notion that she and people like her need much more than food and water. They need a home and at least a couple of people to care for them, in addition to medical care.
"If you think they are, I hope you aren’t ever in the situation ..."
I asked questions in response to your statements. I never indicated how I feel on the matter, one way or another. Actually, I take each case with its own unique set of circumstances and try to form an opinion. I have yet to receive enough information to attempt an opinion because nobody wants to answer simple questions. I still want to know if the court ruled the way it did in this case because the daughter had expressed to her father that she would not want to be kept alive with no real hope for a recovery. Do you know and, if you do, will you answer the question without a dissertation about my desire for that answer goes against your belief system? I'm not trying to have a debate on her medical condition because I am not qualified to do so and I suspect that you aren't either.
If the judge in this case ruled tomorrow that this woman's father has no right to make decisions for her, would you be willing to take her into your home and care for her, at your own expense, for the rest of her life? If not your home, are you willing to write a check for her care for the next 30 or 40 years? Those are simple questions and a direct answer would be appreciated.
"The argument that inconvenience or expense justifies a disabled person’s extermination is depraved."
I certainly never made that argument. With a broad statement like that, I'd have to agree with you. "Disabled" covers a wide range of conditions and I am not in favor of people being killed because they have a disability.
"If her father has abandoned his responsibility, there are, thank God, many Christian people who willingly care for those in need who are not related to them."
Who are these people and who foots the bill? It is easier to make these statements than to come across with the money and care. This woman is in Italy. Should my tax dollars go to her care? If not, how am I to assume my responsibility? If you've got a system in mind, please share.