I think that many people who are religious and believe in the afterlife feel that it is better for the person to die and go on to a better place than suffer. If it were me I would rather be left to die, I wouldn't want to be alive just for the sake of being alive. If I couldn't have a productive, active life, what is the point? I wouldn't want to be a burden to my family. I'm sure I'll get blasted by several Freepers out there, that's OK. This is just my own personal opinion.
I feel the same way as you.
That was the question of poll ~ most didn't even read the poll question.
"What would you do if it was you in this state?"
I wouldn't spend six months that way ~ release me from my earthly bonds and let be with the Lord.
I think I'd want to be kept alive. I understand she can taste and appreciate jello and she smiles at music and her parents.
Maybe it sounds stupid to base a quality of life just on the pleasures of eating jello, but I figure that is better than nothing (I'm assuming she's not in severe pain).
I think that is better than being dead, myself. HOWEVER I would want to be well taken care of, given therapy, changed positions so I don't get bedsores, etc.
I guess I just really value my life. We only get one, after all. It might not be the quality of life we once had but it's better than no life (IMO).
I've told my husband I'd want to be kept alive. Guess I'm one of the 2 in 10 who would. Oh well--it's not the first time my opinion is out of the mainstream!
Why is what you would want relevant? Most religious people believe that God is in charge here, and that He commands that we love one another. Providing nourishment and hydration falls in the category of love. And, it's not even as though the taxpayer were going to have to foot the bill, as her parents are ready, able, and willing to do so.
People are making this case far more complicated than it is-- do we allow her loved ones to give this woman food and water, or do we disallow it? The answer to this question speaks volumes about us as a society.