These cases are pretty tough. As much as I respect life, I still find myself questioning the logic of prolonging a life, (that really is not much of a life - rather a mere existence) while possibly racking up huge medical debt for the family.
It's a tough line to draw, and I hope I never have to do it. How do you reconcile a situation when it becomes apparent that someone's condition of existence will NEVER improve, and/or their time on this Earth is very, very near its end?
For me, it comes down to this (in MY living will): When my condition is such that cognitive brain/neurological function ceases to exist to the point where I cannot provide for MY OWN sustainance - I wish to be removed from artificial/external life-prolonging procedures.
I call it common sense. I guess that's a personal concept though.
Interesting thoughts. What do they have to do with this story?
"when it becomes apparent that someone's condition of existence will NEVER improve, and/or their time on this Earth is very, very near its end? "
"For me, it comes down to this (in MY living will): When my condition is such that cognitive brain/neurological function ceases to exist to the point where I cannot provide for MY OWN sustainance"
"Furthermore, Mae's Living Will provides that nutrition and hydration are to be withheld only if she is comatose or vegetative. Mae is in neither condition. Neither is her condition terminal."
Objectively speaking your post is unrelated to this article.