We are not talking about people who are truly "able" to eat or drink. A feeding tube is something that we give to someone who is no longer able to do either. In some cases, the use of a feeding tube is probably the right thing to do. In other cases, it may not be the right thing to do. In either case, the decision to give someone a feeding tube without consent is just as much playing God as the decision not to give someone a tube.
Again, the question is who decides when and for how long to use this unnatural means of giving nutrition. The point of my post is that while I understand some people's desire to decide for everyone, I disagree with that position. Instead of trying to decide for everyone, we should be doing all that we can to ensure that the decision is left with those who should be making it. When there is reasonable doubt, I agree that the default position should be to play God and use our unnatural, life-saving technology. As "mere mortals" we absolutely have to make decisions about when to use the technology that we develop. This decision absolutely is our decision to make, and the question should be whether individuals can make that decisions for themselves and their loved ones or whether others are going to try to usurp that decision.
Bill
"This decision absolutely is our decision to make, and the question should be whether individuals can make that decisions for themselves and their loved ones or whether others are going to try to usurp that decision." It is a difficult decision compounded in Terri's case by a judicial system that functioned broken. In Terri's case, it is the ones choosing for her and ignoring a mountain of evidence that spoke to the unfitness of the one given the right to make the choice, it is that broken functioning that most want desperately to fix, without playing God just trying to get the system which is clearly broken to err on the side of life instead of execution.
"In either case, the decision to give someone a feeding tube without consent is just as much playing God as the decision not to give someone a tube."
No, giving someone s feeding tube is doing what you can. To NOT give them a tube, pretty much determines that YOU are calling the shots. Convince me that starving a person to death isn't just that - playing God.
As I mentioned, ultimately it is NOT you who takes the person move on. What I mean is sticking in a feeding tube doesn't mean the person will linger. A heart attack or another complication can easily claim them.
Ya know, killing someone off is just as much playing God, if not more, as using the technology that He gave us the ability to have to save lives.
If you want to kill someone off, they're gone. If you want to try to use technology to save their life, you *might* be able to or you might not. If God wants that person, they are His no matter what technology we attempt to use.