I comprehend that this was a difficult and controversial case, influenced by particular religious beliefs and legal opinions - both of which being not always the best way to solve a problem.
Our medical technology is developing to the point of keeping a great many brain injured, etc. patients alive for extended periods of time. The consideration here is that the cost of doing this will prevent medical care from being available to those who could use it more practically. How do you decide who rates the excessive cost of staying alive with no normal life activity and who gets healed and returns to a normal productive life. At some point that decision will have to be made. The more the government gets involved in this, the more socialized medicine will result. If this is what you want, Hillary is your candidate. Try comprehending that.
I've got a newsflash for you, FOOD AND WATER IS NOT "MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY" AND WE ALL NEED IT.
There was no state money involved in this. The parents were paying the bills and personally responsible for her.
This is one consideration, and an important one. That said, however, end-of-life decisions are made every day. Sooner or later, most families decide to pull the plug. The thing that ultimately made the Schaivo case so difficult is that the family could not reach consensus. How do we resolve such cases absent a prior, preferably written statement of intent by the patient?
I have no problem with giving great weight to the views of the doctors. As I understand it, however, in this case the doctors, nurses, and attendants who had cared for Terri during most of her years of institutionalization were in favor of life. The husband had to have her transfered to find docs willing to do her in. So the medical opinions were divided. I suppose it's not surprising to find that experts can be bought on either side of a difficult case.
Another option is to let whoever is paying the bills make the decision. I don't know how Terri's care was paid but I've always assumed it was by the State of Florida. At least under the Jeb Bush administration, Florida was in favor of life.
So here we have a difficult case in which most of the family favors life, the caregivers for most of the period of institutionalization favor life, and the bill payer favors life. On what grounds do we resolve the disagreement in favor of death? The wife is the chattel of the husband?
Or the political interests of the death/abortion/infanticide/euthanasia lobby? Bingo -- we have a winner.
(I have managed to get to this point without raising the husband's conflicts of interest and changes of story. Those are distractions, though possibly important ones. We don't need to go there, IMO, to get to the key issue.)
I can't help seeing this case through the prism of the Baby Jane Doe case lo those many years ago in Bloomington, Indiana. In that case the parents, who had other children and were overwhelmed by the prospects of a lifelong struggle, refused the child and wanted to "let her go" -- i.e., sedate her and starve her to death. The docs were willing to go along. A nurse objected and filed a complaint, the courts got involved, and we were off to the races.
This became a media firestorm when the wicked Reagan Administration, as the media and the death lobby framed the question, intervened to try to save the life of a disabled baby. You know the drill: radical Christian right extremists trying to impose their dogmatic views on others and trampling privacy rights. Never mind that it was a local nurse who blew the whistle.
The clincher in my mind was that, once the case became public knowledge, several responsible people came forward and offered to adopt the girl and pay for her care. How in the world can we resolve tough cases in favor of death when financially responsible people are willing to provide care?