When you look at it from a practical standpoint your "unnatural" assertion makes sense. Arriving at this decision, however, involves a clash of morals. Do you feel the best way to solve this would be from a legal perspective? For instance, if the family can no longer afford to keep the individual on life support, how long should the individual be allowed to continue receiving assistance?

What "unnatural" assertion?

What is YOUR answer? We'll be glad to comment on it.

State your stance on the Terri Schiavo case, and identify the moral value judgment that influenced you to choose your stance.

An example of a stance is, “Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live, despite her persistent vegetative state.” An example of a moral value judgment is, “No person’s death should be decided by another—people should die naturally

My stance on the Terri Schiavo case is that it was tragic -- for the young woman, her husband, her parents, as well as for all of the rest of the people who got involved.

You must make your own decision about whether people who are in a vegetative state or suffer a fatal and painful disease should be kept alive unnaturally.

My moral judgment is that all death should be met with dignity, if at all possible.

My husband died of ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Shortly after his diagnosis, he told me that he did not want a feeding tube. The disease progressed rapidly and soon he was totally paralyzed, only able to blink his eyes and was in a hospice residence. His mind was still intact, but he used a breathing machine and couldn't eat. He made the choice to go off the breathing machine, with the support of his friends, family, nursing staff and doctor. He died the next day, a peaceful and dignified death. If he hadn't been able to make that decision, I knew him and his desires for life well enough that I would have had to make the same decision.

I agree with MsSue's moral judgement statement. I had to take my wife off of life support 13 months ago, it is a wrenching decision that no one but the family can make.

but she was not on life support. she could breath on her own. Do you feel that was the same thing? life support is where she depended totally on machines to live she only had a breathing tube.

Excuse me I meant she only had a feeding tube.

Certainly, a feeding tube is life support. Food and water are necessary for life.

Read this site to find information about her diagnosis, persistent vegetative state.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/21/1499

Some questions for you to think about as you ponder moral viewpoint.

What is life?

How do you want to live your life?

How do you want to die?

Until 50 years or so ago, very little could be done to keep a person in a persistent vegetative state alive. Are modern life support systems superior to allowing people to die natural deaths?

When it comes to complex ethical questions like the one you've mentioned, different perspectives and values can influence the approach to finding a solution. The clash of morals you mentioned underscores the fact that there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer.

One way to address this dilemma is by considering the legal perspective. Laws and regulations can provide a framework that guides decision-making in difficult situations. In the case of life support, legal systems will often have protocols or guidelines in place that outline circumstances under which life support can be withdrawn or continued. These protocols usually aim to balance the value of preserving life with the consideration of the patient's wishes, medical prognosis, and available resources.

To determine how long an individual should be allowed to receive life support assistance when the family can no longer afford it, various factors would need to be considered. This might involve consulting medical professionals, ethics committees, and relevant laws or guidelines. The specific jurisdiction's regulations on medical care, health insurance, and end-of-life decisions, as well as any advance care directives or legal documents specifying the individual's wishes, would also come into play.

It is important to note that in some cases, disputes may arise between different stakeholders involved, such as family members, medical professionals, and legal authorities. Resolving these disputes may require legal processes, such as mediation, arbitration, or even court intervention.

Ultimately, the goal is to strike a balance between the individual's best interests, respecting their autonomy and wishes, considering the available resources, and abiding by applicable laws and regulations. These decisions are often complex and emotionally charged, highlighting the importance of thoughtful consideration, open dialogue, and seeking professional advice from legal and medical experts.