Replies

It wasn't meant as an attack. I'm sorry if you took it that way. This case just really has my nerves frazzled. There is such a clear right and wrong and most of the side arguments and discussions around this case, while interesting and having need of being considered for the purpose of possible future cases, do not alter in the slightest what the right decision is here. It is just that the wrong one is wrong at so many levels.

OK, sweetliberty, no problem. For me government's role in this is a big issue, not just a side issue as it is for you. I have only marginally more trust in the legislative branch than I do the judicial, ultimately I like the government to stay out of personal decisions as much as possible. This case will end up in the courts again and the decision may have far-reaching implications that I do not welcome. Once government gets a foot in a door it's very unusual for it to decide to back away, generally they will continue to encroach.

Most of the time in a decision such as this a family is able to come to a decision replicating what they believe the patient would have decided had she been able (most of the time death is fairly imminent - this case is different I know). What I do NOT want is the government or courts making a "one size fits all" decision, taking away the decision making from the family.