*opens another potential can of worms*

Hrm. I heard on the radio today about a lady in Texas (whose name I don't know) who has been in a coma for thirteen years. Her husband is finally trying to allow her to die, as the chances of her coming out of the coma are next to none. Unfortunately, she isn't on life support (as far as I can tell), so the only way to let her die is to remove her feeding tube. To give her lethal injection or anything would be murder, right?

Well, practically all of Texas appears to be protesting this man's decision. They call it "a death sentence." (This is ironic to me as Texas is one of the few places where they still use the death sentence, but that is neither here nor there.) My question: How long should a person be kept alive before he/she is allowed to die?

My opinion: Let her go. That may sound really callous, but at this point, even if (miracle of miracles) she came out of the coma, she'd never be able to move on her own again. Her muscles would be completely atrophied. Also, she would have missed thirteen years of her life. She's essentially been dying for the past thirteen years. Let her finish and go with a little dignity.

Of course, she's not my daughter/sister/mother, so my opinion really doesn't count for much. I'm very interested in hearing what other people think on this issue. All I know is that, if it was me, I'd rather go than rack up hospital bills on the off chance that I'd wake up and be a constant burden on those around me.

Also, this makes me think of euthanasia. I agree that euthanasia needs to be majorly legislated and so on, but...there are hundreds of elderly people who commit suicide in nursing homes every day. They simply stop eating and starve themselves to death. It's sad, but it happens. I'm not sure if I even agree with euthanasia and assisted suicide, but it's definitely something to think about. Life at all costs, even if that "life" doesn't allow the person involved to do anything? Or a "dignified" death? And what happens if the person involved has no way to make his/her wishes known? Who should be able to make the decision?

Once again, I have a lot of questions, but no real answers. What do you think?

While you're thinking, enjoy these ( quizzes: )

And now, I have homework to do. As eternalfire would say...FLEE!

EDIT: After honchi commented and told me the lady's name (Terri Schindler-Shiavo), I went to do some more research. First of all, she doesn't live in Texas; she lives in Florida. There are conflicting reports about her. Some people (her parents and friends) say that she is actually awake and responding to those around her. Others (the federal judges and her husband) say that she is in a vegetative state and there are no treatments to help her get better. I don't know what to think...even all this information is not enough for me to make a judgement. I have to say that certain elements on both sides are highly suspicious. The federally-appointed doctors, as well as the doctors that Terri's husband appointed, have all said that Terri is not going to get better. Meanwhile, the doctors that her parents have appointed (and only those doctors) have said that, with therapy, Terri's situation may improve. On the other hand, Terri's husband stands to gain a lot of money if Terri dies, and he's apparently already engaged to and living with another woman. See what I mean by suspicious? Still, I don't know. Does her husband only want her money, or is he just finally letting her go? Do her parents really believe that Terri can make it, or are they just keeping her alive as long as possible? What is really going on here? I'd hate to see anyone die needlessly, but, if they're not really living, then what do you do?

I think, in the end, it really boils down to who makes the decision. Is it her husband's right, or her parents' right? It should be her right, but no one really knows what she wanted. Her husband claims that she would never have wanted to live this way, but her parents say that's impossible. Who to believe?

In any case, the way she's going is inhumane. They've removed her feeding tube, and she's going to starve to death. Not a pretty way to go. In my opinion (and I know this sounds harsh), if they're going to let her die, they should let her die humanely--lethal injection or something. I'm not saying that murder is good or anything, but that way she won't suffer.

On the other hand, if she learns to eat in the meantime, she'll live anyway. Not much chance of that happening, unfortunately, as her husband has apparently denied any attempt at treatment to help her feed herself. Opinions? I'm just confused as Hell right now, pardon my language.