[wisconsinconservative]

In absence of a living will, even if she did express her desire not to be kept alive artificailly, did she intend for that to be the withholding of food and water.

Not to mention that in the year she supposedly made these comments about not wanting to be kept alive artifically, food and water WAS NOT considered extraordinary means. It was not considered extraordinary til 10 years after she supposedly made that comment.

(woohoo! I finally figured out how to italicize a quote!)

[The Red Zone]

Not to mention that in the year she supposedly made these comments about not wanting to be kept alive artifically, food and water WAS NOT considered extraordinary means. It was not considered extraordinary til 10 years after she supposedly made that comment.

YES!!! Shouldn't the controlling definitions be what existed at the time the document was executed? Oh wait, that would just KILL our "Living Constitution."

[The Red Zone]

[YES!!! Shouldn't the controlling definitions be what existed at the time the document was executed? ] (Assuming there was a document, which there WASN'T in this case)

[sweetliberty]

"in the year she supposedly made these comments about not wanting to be kept alive artifically, food and water WAS NOT considered extraordinary means"

I think you make an important point. Who'd have ever thought, even that recently, that it would ever be okay to starve and dehydrate people to death?

[fiesti]

(woohoo! I finally figured out how to italicize a quote!)


tell me how !!!

[Ladysmith]

LOL

(heh heh heh!)