I have this problem with "right to die" as a slogan. Last time I checked, we all of us have an _obligation_ to die. Can't avoid it. For me, the question boils down to "How?" And to my eye, "living" like that looks a lot like torture. Deliberate, interminable, torture. I wouldn't treat a dog like that.
Nod. I don't support her "right to die", but I do support her right to refuse medical treatment.
Now, if you really want to hurt me, change this situation so she could swallow a thin pudding that would supply water and nutrients. (She can't, though some people have spread untruths stating that she can.) At that point, if her parents were willing to care for her and feed her, I couldn't say she had a right to refuse "medical treatment" because being spoon fed isn't medical treatment.
Her situation strikes me as nightmarish, and I suspect that she deserves a quick, peaceful death. But, under those hypothetical circumstances, it would be euthanasia, not "refusal of medical treatment", and that's a completely different set of issues.
Why couldn't she be allowed to refuse food?
Last time I checked, it was still legal to starve yourself to death. Scott Nearing did it without facing any Congressional intervention. (Of course, he was a Commie, so they probably _wanted_ him to die....)
For that matter, family lore says a great-great aunt of mine did that when she fell off a horse at age 80-something and broke her hip. Just refused to eat, until she died.
It's not that a person can't refuse food; it's that a guardian can't decide that she's refuse to be spoonfed, the way a guardian can say she'd refuse medical treatment. At least, I'm pretty sure it's different. Philosophically, if she would swallow pudding if it was put in her mouth, I'd feel compelled to let someone put pudding in her mouth for as long as someone was willing to do so.
The key difference with the great-great-aunt is that she was (presumably) conscious and simply refused to eat or drink... no one had to say "no, I know her, and she would have refused to be fed".
I just checked the wording on our "Advance Directive" forms (Maine legal-beagle-speak for "Living Will") and it does specify "artificial means" such as a tube or IV. Maybe I need to write in a bit of creative prose there. The form specifically says you can modify any part...
Everyone, liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, or any other political designation you can come up with, should want for her wishes to be carried out. And right now, the courts found that *her* wishes would be to stop medical treatment, including feeding.
I have a much shorter answer to that question. You're missing the thinly-veiled assumption in that phrasing, which my response addresses. I don't want her to "die", because she's not alive now -- she's a breathing piece of meat that can't even eat on its own. I just want them to LET HER MEAT GO.
Well, if she was just a breathing piece of meat, and I was sure of that, I'd have had no objections to her being kept alive.
I don't *think* she was in any way aware of what was going on; if we have a soul (or whatever), I *think* it would have left already.
But I don't *know*.
That makes following her wishes all the more necessary. I mean, if Terri Schiavo had been completely dead and gone, but her parents didn't realize it, and wanted to keep her body around, well, I don't like it, but at that point, no one besides Michael would be hurt by it.
But if Terri *was* still in there, it would have been horrible to disobey her wishes, and keep treating her.
I sincerely hope you're right, that anything that was Terri Schiavo was long gone, but I can't deny that niggling worry that there was something left, and I don't even want to imagine myself in that situation, with someone trying to hold me back.