Replies

Here's my first-draft solution to that dilemna:

First, living wills should be considered null and void on the basis that there is no way to know what one really wants until they are actually in that position.

Second, a person should be free to refuse any treatment, if their will can be established beyond any doubt. In the case of refusing a treatment where such a choice could reasonably be considered life-or-death, it should be recorded in either signed or otherwise recorded form with affidavits signed by three unrelated adult witnesses (the standard for capital punishment in Texas is my reference here).

Third, if a person is not capable of expressing their will, no reasonable treatment on which his life is dependent should be refused or denied to him under any circumstances.

I'm sure there'll be holes in this, it's a first draft. But I think it will help to get the idea, in preserving the right to life while also retaining the other rights of free men.

The more I think about it, the more I find the very concept of a "living will" to be repulsive, with little purpose other than to be an instrument for justifying euthanasia. It also makes sense, that the least questioned, most generally accepted element in this entire equation is also the most insidious. It seems innocuous, but almost all scenarios in which a person is unjustly put to death depend on a living will OR (especially important) the absence thereof having legal weight, for the absence case is being defined towards death.

"First, living wills should be considered null and void on the basis that there is no way to know what one really wants until they are actually in that position.
"

I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. I have a living will, and I know exactly what I would want in that position. I've actually been in a coma. Fortunately I woke up. My living will provides a long enough time after being in a coma before it comes into effect.

But, here's the deal: Had I not woken from that coma, I would have known nothing about it. When I did wake from that coma, I knew nothing about it.

Don't presume to tell others what they know or do not know about their own wishes. That kind of nannyism is not wanted.

Here's my first-draft solution to that dilemna: First, living wills should be considered null and void on the basis that there is no way to know what one really wants until they are actually in that position. Second, a person should be free to refuse any treatment, if their will can be established beyond any doubt. In the case of refusing a treatment where such a choice could reasonably be considered life-or-death, it should be recorded in either signed or otherwise recorded form with affidavits signed by three unrelated adult witnesses (the standard for capital punishment in Texas is my reference here).

Okay.

I'm not sure I understand the rejection of living wills, though. Certainly having something written down is preferable to relying upon verbal testimony. Further, if someone changes his mind, the old will could be rescinded.

If you reject living wills entirely, then you are going to end up with a lot more of these types of situations.

"First, living wills should be considered null and void on the basis that there is no way to know what one really wants until they are actually in that position."

Ok. No living will may be honored. In the absence of effective living wills, the State will decide the fate of a terminally ill patient based upon (presumably) your remaining rules.

"Second, a person should be free to refuse any treatment, if their will can be established beyond any doubt."

Uh-oh. We're already in trouble here. You've declared living wills null and void, so if the terminally ill patient is comatose or in a persistent vegetative state, the State cannot determine the "will" of the patient. This problem will be (presumably) resolved by your next rule.

"Third, if a person is not capable of expressing their will, no reasonable treatment on which his life is dependent should be refused or denied to him under any circumstances."

So the State will decide what is "reasonable" treatment. And the State, being benign and limitlessly wealthy, will therefore keep the comatose or PVS patient alive indefinitely (so long as doing so is "reasonable").

And the State will, of course, not require the patient's relatives to pay for this perpetual care, thereby preventing the specter of bankruptcy. Indeed, the State will not require the patient's relatives to care anymore one way or the other. Or express any opinion. Or, god forbid, disagree.

And finally, we know that the State would adopt your definition of "reasonable" treatment, and would never change that definition in the future (say, when the economics of the deal got a little dicey).

I am comforted.