I am argueing the exact opposite side of this. I don't want the Fed.s to have the right to overrule family and be forced to keep someone alive for their own purposes, be they benign or not.
That leaves the door open to organ farms, forced blood banking and any other biologically and morally abhorant behavior the Feds deem is "in the best interest" of society.
Not that this congress would do it, but it's the precident being set and the law being subverted.
This case has nothing to do with organ donation. You can only use the organs if they are still fully functioning as life support is withdrawn, such as a respirator. You CANNOT used organs from a person who has been dehydrated to death. The organs are useless. Please people, educate yourselves. Now you are trying to give organ donation a bad name. sheesh!!!
Giving someone food and water isn't "keeping them alive." A lot of what this case is about is killing the helpless because they cannot take care of themselves. All the rest of it--claiming it's Terri's wish, the claims that she is brain-dead or comatose or vegetative (whatever the popular term of the moment)--are merely window dressing to the central issue, which is how we treat our helpless.
That leaves the door open to organ farms, forced blood banking and any other biologically and morally abhorant behavior the Feds deem is "in the best interest" of society.
I don't see how this is even remotely connected. I have strong feelings about organ donation--but I think that another time and place would be appropriate to discuss that.