Terri Schiavo's Death Sentence continued

I posted this as a response to an earlier posting where I describe people who have feeding tubes, in particular a 7 yr. old boy who is a student in my sister's class that must wear a backpack at all times because he is tube fed.

The point I'm trying to make is having a feeding tube is not enough reason to let someone die. The examples I gave, especially the young boy, show it's possible to live a relatively normal life with a feeding tube. If this boy's parents said they did not want him on life support (feeding tube), he'd be dead right now. The feeding tube is not the problem. The rest of her condition is the problem. Let's say she didn't have a feeding tube but she was in the same physical condition otherwise, we wouldn't hold her food back and let her starve to death. She can breathe on her own and her heart beats on its own. I can understand pulling the plug if she could not do either of those things. That's brain dead. The bottom line is that the feeding tube is the only thing she needs to live, just as the people in my examples. Whether she can get better or what type of vegetatative state she's in is meanlingless. Are all the courts wrong? Yes. Why? Ask yourself this: why is it illegal to give her a lethal injection (which is not assisted suicide since she wouldn't be participating) but it is legal to let her die slowly? How can I have respect for the court decisions when they make such contradictions? The other point I was making with repent, the end is near, is that a collascapy bag is another means of life support, just as a pacemaker is so why is that any different than a feeding tube?