The problem is that we can keep bodies alive indefinitely.
A post on K5 illustrates the [link|http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2005/3/23/204359/812/184#184|problem with hard and fast rules] about who is alive and who isn't. There, in practice, is some subjectivity in talking about brain death. That's another reason why a person's wishes should be respected.
The problem is that we have the technology to keep bodies alive indefinitely. Bodies can be put on heart-lung machines, dialysis machines, etc., and be kept alive for a very, very long time. Most would agree that those are artificial machines, and many would argue that G-tubes for food and drink aren't in the same class. But if a person indicates in "clear and convincing" terms their wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means, I think their intent should be honored. If not, when should such patients be allowed to die?
Death comes to everyone. Interfering with the death of those who are in a PVS robs them, and us, of liberty, IMHO.
What's your alternative? If there's a chance that a person in a vegetative state might have changed their mind, then their plainly expressed wishes when they were well should be disregarded? Family members should be allowed to violate the plainly expressed wishes of a person past the age of majority? The state should have the right to interfere with a person's dying liberty? I don't think so, but I would like you to elaborate on your opinion on what a just alternative should be.
Thanks.
[edit:] tyops
Cheers,
Scott.
