Replies

This is not a situation where extreme medical life support measures are painfully and pointlessly prolonging the death process of a terminally ill human being.

I agree food is not "extreme life support", but I think one must look to the condition of the patient as well. If she did request not to be keep alive in this sitiuation then I think there is question as to what is correct.

I see 4 groups of people on this issue:

1. Those who oppose the premature death of any individual. Those who believe it is wrong to remove life support even if Teri would have wanted it.

2. Those who think that Teri's wishes, whatever they are, be carried out. But, if there is any ambiguity, one shouuld chose life.

3. Those who think that the law is clear and that in cases of unclear intentions the guardian speaks for the individual - and their decision should be followed.

4. Those who think that Teri is not worth keeping alive due to her medical condition.

Obviously, there are more nuanced positions in between what I wrote above. But, using that scale my position is #2.

I see many here who I would classify as #1, and many here who attribute #4 to anyone who has a differing opinion.

5. Those who think this is part of a movement to dehumanize disabled people for future use in a utilitarian society.

6. Those who believe terminal dehydration to be among the most sadistic and cruel ways to kill an animal, much less a human being.