Replies

No two ways about it, this is a tough issue either way you go. In the Schiavo case, since the husband wants to move on with his life and legitimize his relationship with his current squeeze and the children he has fathered by her, I don't understand why he won't divorce her or, at the very minimum, relinquish all guardianship rights to the family. I think Michael has a lot to answer for in this case because there is no reason to maintain guardianship rights over someone he wants to see dead and the family doesn't. Nonetheless, that's a different issue.

In general, however, I think that this issue will be with us for a long time to come. IMO, it is one thing to make an off-hand comment when we are young that we wouldn't want to live as Terry is currently living but, by the same token, our choices are often different when actually faced with the real situation. I don't believe that ANY legislative body will be able to craft a cokkie-cutter law that will apply in all cases. Therein lies the rub. Because of religious and other differences, each of these cases, IMO, will always have to be treated on a case-by-case basis.

=== The House Judiciary Committee took the first step Feb. 3, proposing a bill that would keep incapacitated people alive regardless of their family's wishes if there are no advance directives.

VOILA!!! I finally get it!!

It's the organs they're after!