Family members, including her mother and uncle, testified that she had expressed this. The court found them credible witnesses ("clear and convincing" evidence of this being Lauren Richardson's wishes was met)
Also from the ruling...
"All the medical evidence supplied by the physicians -- by the independent neurologist and by Lauren's own doctors -- is in agreement: Lauren is not in a coma but is in a persistent vegetative state. A large portion of her brain was destroyed by a lack of oxygen following a heroin overdose of August 2006. She is unable to communicate or experience consciousness. Her continued existence is dependent upon tube feeding and hydration. ... No improvement in her condition can be expected."It seems to me that it's wrong to do anything but put the patient's wishes first. Since when does a person lose his rights when he becomes disabled?
It’s really insane that our legal system permits slow starvation and dehydration leading to certain death, but won’t permit a quick painless injection leading to certain death.
Exactly right.
Insane, and truly sick and twisted...but our lawmakers aren't going to stick their necks out and stop it. The June 1990 Cruzan decision leans heavily toward the State in its language, giving it a bit more power in individuals' lives than I'd like (funny how the State never seems to have a "compelling interest" in its citizens until it's time to take away their liberties). And I think that the focus on nutrition/hydration in that case has distracted people from the fact that we could be more civilized if we wanted to be.
I never have been able to discern how hear say has morphed into
clear and convincing.
With Terri and in Lauren’s case, someone claims they
made an offhand comment and we are willing to
kill them based on another’s supposed recollection?
Utter madness!
Even if a patient says they want to die, no one has the moral authority
to take another’s life.