Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: walden
no one person should decide on the life or death of another
Are you saying that every person who is on the verge of death [I'm not talking about Terri] would have to undergo a court process to decide about whether their treatement should be ended?
12 posted on 03/25/2005 9:46:56 AM PST by Clara Lou (Hillary Clinton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Clara Lou

"Are you saying that every person who is on the verge of death [I'm not talking about Terri] would have to undergo a court process to decide about whether their treatement should be ended?"

No, I phrased my reply badly. The obvious course of action is that all close family members confer together, preferably with information and opinions from more than one doctor. In the vast majority of families, agreement will easily be reached. Only if they cannot reach agreement would litigation occur, and if that litigation does occur, it should be decided by a jury trial.

Thinking of the issue on a personal basis, if I was ever confronted with such a decision for my husband, I would definitely consult with his sisters (my husband has no children.) Conversely, I would want him to include my children in such discussions about me. This would tends to bind the family together and avoid later acrimony or guilt feelings, as well as be likely to produce a better decision. One person can be too close to the problem and feel overwhelmed, or be too influenced by a doctor, or whatever.


21 posted on 03/25/2005 10:16:26 AM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson