So it's ok to pay 70% of your income? Just be honest. This just isn't about Terri, I'm talking about if everyone stayed alive no matter what. That would be a huge financial burden on society. I'm being realistic.
Easy cop-out. Just kill the sick.
Your view is exactly why I am avid about the Terri case. This is the beginning of a nazi society as Hitler instigated. Try and form a more perfect society for whatever reason and killing is how you do it.
And, I'll tell you, I will point out this horror everytime I run across it. It has been hidden before Terri and this may be the purpose of Terri - to show us the dark forces at work in our society.
Terri's parents were willing to pay for Terri on their own; gastrostomic feeding is not terribly expensive. If Michael had the hospice announce that at 12:00pm some Friday they were going to put Terri on a park bench and have nothing more to do with her, and that any people who wanted her fed would have to take care of it themselves, that would probably have been morally justifiable. Even if nobody came to feed Terri and she died, the fault would not lie mainly on the hospice, but also shared among those who could have acted but did not.
But Michael et al. explicitly acted to prevent Terri from receiving care, even from people who would voluntarily pay for it out of their own money. So what does your argument above have to do with Terri's case?