It is just so sad when those on life support are kept alive even though they will never have a conscious life again. So we should not keep people on feeding tubes. Actually, not eating or drinking is one of the kindest ways to die if one is already depleted, and she should not have been made to stay alive physically and possibly in pain.
While I can understand the family's drive to save their daughter, the autopsy's results were conclusive in stating that she would not have re-entered a normal quality of life. Her brain had deteriorated beyond hope and she would have been rendered blind and incapable of normal brain function. She also specified that she did not want to live off of unnatural mechanical means and her husband respected her wishes.
1) It is inhumane to starve and dehydrate someone to death
2) She was Catholic and would not want to have committed suicide preventing God's will from being done.
3) She was able to breathe, maintain her blood pressure, have a heart rate, move her limbs and eyes, make sounds and most importantly follow instructions. Which this all clearly states she was not in PVS (persistent vegetated state).
4) She was improving with therapy, even though it was slowly, she was improving.
5) Feeding is a type of care. The feeding tube should have not been treated as an artificial life support.
6) Her husband should not have been able to decide her fate because:
a) There was marks on her neck-a sign of strangle
b) He asked for money to take care of her and pay for her treatment and after receiving millions of dollars he stopped treatment.
C) He had another family and was constantly changing his story.
D) When he visited her there would be marking on her arms of a sign of injection-that the medical team did not know how those markings got there
I'm not saying that people should not be able to refuse life support. I'm saying someone unfit made the decision for her. She was also in a state that the feeding tube was NOT an artificial life support.