It's a tough decision for me to make. I don't want anyone to die. But God has given us that fate, and stopping fate using technology can get tricky.
I think that science keeping individuals from reaching heaven when God meant them to may be just as immoral as taking them off life support.
It's a hard choice to make and I believe that's why each person or guardian has to make that decision for themselves or their family members.
It is our ultimate goal in life to learn, create, grow and go to Heaven. Hopefully Science will advance enough that we will be able to distinguish between someone who will recuperate and someone who was meant to go to heaven. In this case as well though you are stuck with "who to believe" when it comes to your loved ones life.
I do have a question though: How many years can someone be kept alive using machines? With advances in technology I would think our capabilities would keep growing and we could eventually have people who cannot eat, sleep, breath or talk on life support for 50 years to (who knows) maybe 150 years. Do we keep them alive this long? When do we decide our science is keeping people alive on life support too long? There has to be a line and many will argue where that line is and when it's been crossed. Which brings me back to loved ones and personal wishes.
I understand your questions, they are questions for all of us. I have to say that I personally consider food and water (and oxygen) to be ordinary care no matter how they are delivered. In my mind that is basic human care.
Karen Ann Quinlan did finally succumb many years after they removed her respirator. She didn't continue to live and her organs didn't last forever. Neither was she resuscitated at that point, nor did she receive any transplants. To me that was the *right* thing to do for the *right* amount of time. I suggest we use her case as an example of moral behavior. God didn't allow her to stay here forever, and she wasn't forced to die before she was *ready* to go. JMHO.