>And even if she was absolutely without a doubt brain dead, what does
>that matter? If the parents wanted to care for her, with their own
>money or whatever they could raise, it was their right, and the state
>deprived them of it.
That raises a few issues for me. Firstly, according to this conception, the right to life appears contingent on doing it with your own money. Presumably this means that the right to life is a luxury, afforded only to those with means. Can't go along with that.
But that assumes it is even even life, which is somewhat far-fetched. Effectively you are arguing that, if you have the means, you should be entitled to keep the body of a brain dead relative functioning. Taking that to its logical conclusion, why should society have any right to interfere with even more perverted inclinations. Perhaps some people would like to have their dead relatives stuffed and mounted on a wall in their house as well? Would this be OK too, assuming they used "their own money"?
And what about the rights of other relatives? presumably the spouse or children of a brain-dead person would be denied the right to inherit the deceased property, simply because some relative had a perverted wish to keep the body alive, or perhaps have it stuffed and mounted? What about any kids that might have to endure the empty shell of their mother or father being kept by perverted grandparents, or perhaps an uncle or aunt. Don't they have some rights as well?
The thing is, corpses are not chattels. Bodies aren't commodities that relatives inherit when our lives end. Just because someone has "their own money", doesn't entitle them to torture the emotions of other relatives by artificially preserving the corpse of a loved one, simply because they are unable to come to terms with the reality of that person's death.
The death of a family member is traumatic, some people are unwilling to accept it. That's tragic, but allowing them to refuse to accept it is not a solution.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas