[coffeecrazy1]

Okay...fair enough point about the "culture of life" thing...whatever that phrase means(I'm suspicious of most sound-biteish catchphrases).

And again, not to sound callous, but isn't there a reasonable degree of grayness to this particular case? Let's say I buy the notion that no one with a life-threatening condition should be denied based on money...wouldn't it be more, I don't know, in the spirit of the law to specify the condition as being emergent, rather than a longstanding condition such as this? Isn't there a quality of life argument somewhere here, i.e., she would die in a place without the machines, but, since she's on the machines, does she now have a right to those machines?

Believe me, I'm not saying I agree with pulling the plug, despite this woman's pleas...that seems to be overly harsh, even for a libertarian such as me(hey, I'm a human being, too). I'm merely debating the principle at hand.