Of course you have to take it on a case by case basis. This person's life is already over with. There's nothing left; just a one-time person waiting to die and suffering in the process. He can't speak, see, or do anything. He is already dead for all practical purposes. His continued suffering only benefits one entity; the hospital or paid care givers of his shell to keep his body alive so they can continue to get paid a crazy amount of money. If he could speak; I bet he would ask for an overdose of morphine or other drug so it would be like going to sleep then never wake up on this plane again. His afterlife will give him what he craves. That is if he even has enough brain power left to understand his situation.
No one is talking about "killing everyone in pain". I have no idea where you got that idea.
Can he pray?
Some religions require you prolong life in all cases, but ironically Catholicism does not. So we can pull a feeding tube that is unwanted (the original court case on this, the Brophy case, was a man who told everyone he didn't want to be kept alive with tubes).
So if you state in a living will, or via a health care proxy you don't want CPR/Resuscitation/ breathing machine/ dialysis/chemotherapy/ high doses of narcotics to keep the pain away/ Tube feeding, it is your choice.
What I am protesting is that the state ordered this.
and the trends to put feeding tubes into people who can eat, then remove them with the object to let them starve to death. It is this last trend that made Pope John Paul II warn about removing feeding tubes.
Tube feeding is a godsend to those caring for people with swallowing problems so they can be cared for at home, (my aunt cared for such a child for 28 years). With proper help (government paid caretakers, helpers from family, friends, and fellow church members) the person is cared for properly and lovingly.
but the nursing home makes more money to feed them by a tube (which means they keep them in a room, often sedated, instead of interacting with them and taking them out to eat and socialize with other patients).
as for being dead “for all practical purposes”? ah, that is also a problem. for that is YOUR opinion, not his nor the person's family in this case.
this is a slippery slope, for the “bioethicists” actually have made lists of “personhood”, where they eliminate the right to life from not only the comatose, but those with minimal awareness, those with severe mental retardation, those with senility, those with schizophrenia or severe mental illness and babies up to 2 years of age.
These are hard questions, but in the USA you have a culture of death that is pushing “assisted suicide” and euthanasia to save money.
Don't confuse your wish to avoid unwanted extraordinary treatment with what is going on here.