[Teacher317]

The basic and undisputed situation:
1. The patient is not on life-support, but has brain damage.
2. The patient's spouse says that she said that she would prefer non-resuscitation at one point in her life.
3. The spouse has no actual proof of this statement, other than his word.
4. The patient's blood relatives dispute this claim.
5. It is possible that the patient may have changed her mind in the meantime.

The court is being presented with a choice:
A. Forbid the feeding tube, thus starving the patient to death (a very unpleasant demise by any standard)
B. Allow the feeding tube until the patient's wishes might be more firmly established (which could mean never, of course, abd expiration occurs from other natural causes).

Why on earth would any rational judge select choice A? The mere possibility of an unjust or unwanted termination of life should easily outweigh the unsubstantiated no-resuscitation wish. This decision violates numerous basic tenets of law: unclear estate wishes are typically voided, err on the side of caution when lives are at stake, prohibition against state sanction of unwarranted cruelty to citizens (even the worst of the worst), etc.

[Ohioan from Florida]

You have presented this so well and fairly succinctly, too! Props! If anyone cannot understand the logic here, perhaps they need to have their own *life support* withheld from them while being unable to retrieve it on their own. We are living in sick times!