"Furthermore, there is evidence that Terri Schiavo expressed her wishes not to have her life artificially maintained under such circumstances."
The "evidence" is where the problem is. I think most people would agree that if Terri had left a living will, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
well put
Indeed we wouldn't, but even in the absense of such an instrument; if she had disscussed the issue with her husband, and others, they know her wishes. It's a family matter, not a state and certainally not a federal one.
After 15 years I don't see it as rush to pull the plug as it were.
It remains a complete mystery how eating and drinking have now been morphed into "artificial" life support.
Eating and drinking are natural functions, and sometimes disable people need help with them - and this is a help that we are morally and legally obliged to provide.
Withholding food and water goes far beyond removal of "artificial life support" such as respirators, aartificial kidneys, or heartbeat maintenance devices, and cannot be equated with such actions in any sense whatever.
Terri Schiavo's life was not ending, and it was not being artifically prolonged.
Terri's life is being ended as an act of murderous will.
"Furthermore, there is evidence that Terri Schiavo expressed her wishes not to have her life artificially maintained under such circumstances."
The "evidence" is where the problem is. I think most people would agree that if Terri had left a living will, we wouldn't be having this discussion.