I understand your point with the pet-people comparison 11b, but when it comes to comparing Schiavo (or any other person in vegetative state) to someone who's paralyzed, deaf, blind and mute but still has brain activity you're wrong.

The two just aren't the same...that's why there was such a fuss about whether she's in a vegetative state or not. If she still showed any sign of intellectual activity i'm sure they would have never let her pass away. And of course, we can't know for sure what she is or isn't feeling/thinking, but modern science has provided us with all the means of being near to certain about that. Besides, if you're going to talk certainty principles you could also say that God's existence isn't certain and that there's absolutely no reason to say for sure why she should have lived. Apart from as a piece of furniture with a feeding tube in it. It might be a crude way of saying it, but that's really what she was.


As far as the ppl go: 80% of the American people were backing Michael Schiavo in this matter; according to a recent poll. So I would agree with Arathron and his noisy minority theory.

I don't see the difference 11b. A person like you describe there (mute, blind, deaf, handicapped etc.) would and should be put to death too, because their lives would be living hell. Conscious and devoid of all social contact or ability to do anything...yikes. *shivers*

Of course, without euthanasia someone like that would have the 'joy' of feeling the pain, thirst and hunger when they're starved to death because of lack of euthanasia.

So 'plant' persons and persons like that are both in the same predicament: they are both inable to do anything anymore. What's the point of living? For another few months, even a year, sure. But for the rest of their lives?

The question if someone still has a point going on living (or in this case, being kept alive) depends from person to person and how severe their problem is. In schiavo and the hypothetical dude's case it's pretty clear-cut, in others it isn't. But I'm not gonna explore the nuances of every single case here.


@judges: again, the point of laws is that they are adapted and changed where necessary. Besides, these judges didn't change the laws as such, they set a precedent by making a different interpretation of them. A case such as Roe vs. Wade did exactly the same thing: they called for a re-interpretation of the original law, not for it to be changed.