cvillehog wrote:So, what about the things we can do to stop people from dying of starvation or lack of health care every day? By your post here, I would think that the christians in government would see feeding and clothing the poor, and providing health care to everyone would be a priority.
This brings up the only point that I'd really interject into the debate. I can't speak for whether or not the government should force the hospital to keep ehr on the feeding tube, or whether or not the husband's decision should override that of the parents. As far as I can tell, there aren't any impartial judges as to what constitutes personhood.
But what I can say is that I don't think that anyone should be talking about her "right to life" in as much as it pertains to the hospital keeping machines going that allow her to live. By definition, you can't have a right that infringes on the rights of others. Rights don't come in different tiers, you either have them or you don't. . .so if I have a right that by nature impedes on one of your essential rights, chances are that right doesn't actually exist.
Otherwise, we can start using language like having a 'right' to a warm coat in winter, food in the pantry, a car to get to work (or roads to drive on), health care by licensed professionals, complicated surgery if needed, having children even if one is not able to, a house, etc. There are things that are essential to survival, but the mere fact that they are essential does not mean that they are (or even should be) guarenteed.
Here's how I'm thinking of the situation. Redeemed, imagine that Terry's heart attack rendered her even less conscious and more vegetative than she currently is. For instance, she could have excessive (and non-stop) internal bleeding, her body could require expensive 24/7 machine maintanence just to keep her brain from decomposing any further, etc. Assume temporarily that they had gotten her to the hospital in time to keep her body alive, but the cost to the hospital is $80,000 dollars a day. . .and not only is she not paying for it, but neither is her husband (who claims that her wish was to die if in such a vegetative state), and I'm guessing that the insurance company can't be too happy about it, either. I know that I sure as heck shouldn't have to pay for it.
Forget for a moment any precedents that are being set because of the media spotlight, and consider for a moment whether she really has a "right" to a functioning body (thanks to the hospitals) simply because our technology has progressed as far as it has. 100 years ago, she would have died. . .was her "right" violated back then? I think that there are problems with talking about a right to life in such a way that she is included in the list--her natural capacities for life have ceased.
This is why I think that BTP and cvillehog's arguments are more or less irrelevant to the debate at hand. Why should Terry have a "right" to a functioning body (at someone else's expense in a non-natural way) over hungry children being fed? Well, she shouldn't. But personal needs are not actually "rights" to be protected, as popular as it may be to talk about them in this way.