What would you do?

[Raistlin]

My disapproval isn't with Terri's right to die. I for one feel euthanasia should be legal in certain circumstances. I disapprove with the method in which Schiavo is being executed. When my dog was terminally ill, it was given an instant, painless death to put it out of its misery. Our criminals are given instant painless deaths by the exact same means. I would never even consider for a second, killing a terminally ill dog by starvation/dehydation. It's cruel. While I agree that Terri should be allowed to die, I think the week long starvation technique is barbaric.

Cruel? She can't feel it. The only difference between an instant painless death and a two-week-long painless death is that one is easier on our conscience. There is no difference to the dying person.

But the part i do not agree about, is that it would take her 2 weeks to die after they take out the tube. Thats is just wrong. Even if she is in acoma, she is subconcously alive and may feel the pain of hunger in dreams. If they remove the tube, i think she should remove all equipment aswell.

So what you're saying is...you'd be in favor of it if it only took two days, for example? Two days of suffering is better than two weeks?
Either way, it's a moot point: she can't feel a damn thing. C'mon, people, keep up now.

I think the problem is this: discontinuing medical treatment is a passive choice

Exactly. That's the legal difference. I, personally, see no moral difference, but the legal difference is necessary. Allowing active suicide brings about a possible "slippery slope."

ed: yep. The Republicans are using Terri as a political soap box, completely ignoring the true issue at hand.