Dazzle me with your wisdom, Blackburn. Explain to me what that "big, big difference" is that I'm so obviously incapable of grasping.
From the encyclopedia entry on Euthanasia:
"Euthanasia, either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma. The term comes from the Greek expression for good death. Technological advances in medicine have made it possible to prolong life in patients with no hope of recovery, and the term negative euthanasia has arisen to classify the practice of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary means (e.g., intravenous feeding, respirators, and artificial kidney machines) to preserve life..."
Seems to me that she was both euthanized and starved to death, and that there really isn't much difference at all.
If Schiavo had been capable of expressing her own opinion in the matter, and she had clearly and indisputably voiced her intent to suicide, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I wouldn't care.
But she never did express her own opinion. Not after her accident (she was unable to then) and not before her accident (she never documented or recorded any opinion one way or the other).
The only opinion they considered was that of her husband [sic]. "Yup, Your Honor, she wouldn't want to live like this. That's what she told me twenty years ago. I remember it clear as day. Honest."
That's all the government needed to hear.
But hey, her brain was mush, right? She wasn't really a person any more. More like a cucumber. Her husband said it was OK, so what's all the fuss about?
This isn't disturbing to anyone else?