Quote
averagefellar said:
Why doesn't this person speak for themselves?

I'll be the first to admit that I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand your line of argument given the factual data of this woman's medical condition. What I have have tentatively concluded is that your opinion is based upon a different definition of "clinically dead". Would this be a fair conclusion? Some of the criteria, it seems, that you are using is:
  1. The inability for an individual to feed themselves.
  2. The inability of an individual to articulate their thoughts and/or feelings as can be done typically by "normal" adults.
  3. Others?

However, if one accepts the current accepted definition of "clinical death", then based upon the observable evidence, this woman's condition doesn't qualify. If, on the other hand, I use your definition, assuming that it is different from the current accepted definition, then not only could one justify denying this woman sustenance, but hundreds of thousands of other people in the world who meet your criteria could be justifiably denied medical care. In fact, without any forcing of the issue, would it not also have to apply to infants?

I'm just trying to understand your position on this issue in relation to the facts of the case.

In His Grace,