ok, that settles it thanx. liberals don't have a leg to stand on for this one then. if she received compensation for something that was done wrong to her, she surely deserves to be kept alive, even if there is virtually no hope for recovery, she is kind of entitled to that.
And as I said the act of removing the tube is murder by starvation. I really don't get it - if she can feel anything at all, then death by starvation is surely cruel. And if she is completely nonresponsive on all levels and doesn't feel anything at all, why does her husband want her to die and why does he care to fight it this hard, what difference does it make if she is kept alive with the money she is entitled to in the first place? I just don't understand this.