Knowing from first-hand experience how gut-wrenching it can be to have to stand by idly and watch someone you love slowly expire from a debilitating disease, I have to say that I find the Florida court's recent decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube appalling and downright frightening.

Let me present a few brief arguments and counter-arguments. First, Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state" and cannot feel the pain associated with symptoms of starvation and dehydration. Whether you believe this or not, the fallacy with this argument is that no patient with such neurological damage has ever come back from such a state to dispute or verify such a claim.

Therefore, I think it important to assume for the time being, until evidence can prove otherwise, that, even though she lacks upper brain function, she can feel pain, and therefore starvation and dehydration is inhumane.

No person in his or her right mind would starve his or dog, so why is it acceptable to starve a human being?

When cancer took away my grandmother's ability to feed herself, we as a family took it upon ourselves to provide her with food.

We simply didn't "pull the plug." It seems that Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo should have the right to care for their daughter at their own expense, instead of slowly and probably very painfully allowing Terri to die.

Finally, to anyone asserting that starving or dehydrating Terri to death is acceptable, I challenge you to deprive yourself of water or food for a period of 24 hours.

If she must die -- which will take slow, agonizing days -- surely a better way can be found that would not compound her suffering. Certainly Terri's life lacks quality, and the possibility of her recovery is slim to none.

But it's scary when we begin to believe that a life with little to no quality is not worth fighting for.