Who is paying for continuing this life support when she is brain dead?!
Just because there exists the technical ability to force a dead body to breathe, doesn’t mean dead people should be kept alive indefinitely.
It’s a complex issue - modern technology has considerably blurred the line between life and death - so who makes the choice and based on what criteria? On the other hand, keeping those life-saving machines occupied by someone who has entered an irreversible state will end up causing others who might need the machines more, to have to wait longer, increasing their odds of entering a “vegetative” state themselves.
This is quite different from the situation of a person like Terri Schiavo, who was not brain dead, and not even dying --- no, not even "terminal" --- when they removed her nutrition and hydration. In her case, even though she was breathing on her own and responsive, her husband Michael wanted her gone, for whatever reason of weariness, confused compassion or personal interest (she did have assets he would inherit) --- and when at last she died, she did not die of her "underlying condition," she died of hunger and thirst: starvation and dehydration. That, my friends, was murder.
In the pathetic situation reported on this thread, death has occurred without any hurry-up from powerful others. Burying the dead is also a Work of Mercy.
That is.... if what was reported is true.
No they shouldn't be kept "alive" in perpetuity, but at least let her parents get past Christmas instead of having the ghouls in organ donation drooling over her heart, liver kidneys and eyes.