I've been in that situation, and I think that if the person has zero chance to wake up, he/she should be disconnected to avoid suffering from both parties.

It's actually an interesting question. Shouldn't keeping someone alive who wants to die be considered as torture?

My wife and I have agreed not to keep each other alive in such a case. Yet that is a clear cut case, wish it would all be that simple.

I have 2 family members with late stage Alzheimers. They can't take care of themselves anymore, don't make sense anymore, can't do anything anymore and their aggression needs to be controlled with drugs. One occasionally relives the horrible things that happened as a child over and over again, the other some times declares not to want to be there yet otherwise only says random words, is wheelchair bound and needs to be fed. Are they brain dead? They don't recognize anyone anymore, don't know who they are anymore, can't communicate and only seem to relive some random early memories.

Is it torture to keep people with late stage Alzheimers alive? It can still take years with no hope of recovery. I don't think I would want to live that way, yet I'll probably not even be aware of what's happening to me if that ever happens. It certainly doesn't seem like they are aware of their situation. Yeah I would prefer brain death and get the plug pulled over living with Alzheimers.

Can't we just dress them up in sexy clothes and take pictures with them?

No, they are not brain dead. Being brain dead means the brain no longer sends or recieves neurological pulses to and from the rest of the body. When that happens, the family members are dead. If they are still alive, they are not brain dead.

As long as the family wishes to how-so-ever. But imho brain dead victims are usually the most eligible donors for organ transplant, should a situation arise and the family inmates approve of pulling the plug.

If they are brain dead, then they are dead.They are not alive anymore, the only difference is that the body still works, but in the same way as a machine, where it does what it is supossed to do, but has no counciosness of it.

Now when you are about to die is a different topic.I would say you can just pull the plug with the concent of the person who is dieng.Otherwise is wrong, even if he is in great suffering.

Braindead is pretty much death to begin with, since you are as alive as the machine that is keeping you "alive". In terminal stages of cancer it should be up to the victim and otherwise family to choose that. But that's the viewpoint of someone who lives in the Netherlands in which euthanasia is more common thanostrich countries.

If I would be in either situation I hope my family pulls the plug the resources and money to keep me alive and suffer a great deal can better be spend on something that cures someone. Nothing as pointless as extending the live of someone who has a terminal condition with no hope on a positive outcome.

From a spiritual perspecitve, we're basically keeping the soul from passing on because we're not letting the body die. It could be a kind of hell being trapped in a body in that way. If whatever god or gods indeeded the person to live, they wouldn't be in that state to begin with. They would already be dead if it weren't for modern medicine. Might as well let them meet their maker or gods.

Looking at it from a more logical or objective perspective, if a person is brain dead, they're more or less dead. It's just a waste of resources to keep them alive for the vain hope that they'll come out of it.

It's really a selfish decision to keep them alive in my opinion but if a family wants to keep the person alive with their money then by all means. Personally, if I end up in a coma with little chance of recovery, let me die.

May I ask why? 

As far as I'm concerned it provides a safe and controlled environment for people to commit suicide instead of jumping infront of buses/trains/buildings/bridges and traumatisiing witnesses'.