My previous article explained why Jewish law condemns the removal of Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube. But that does not imply that treatment must always be provided in every case. The Terry Schiavo case is particularly egregious because the main proponent of removing her feeding tube is her husband, who serves as a very poor surrogate for her. He has far too many conflicts of interest, both monetary (a large malpractice settlement) and personal (he is living with a girlfriend whom he cannot marry as long as Terri is alive) to be trusted to protect her best interests.
The question arises, were she to have had a living will clearly spelling out her desires in case of incapacitation, would that change how Jewish law (Halacha) approaches her case? Additionally, are there any patients for whom provision of nutrition, hydration, and oxygen is
Read more at: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48945071.html