[TAdams8591]

"The ruling ignores the fact that she does not rely on life support and is simply provided basic nutrients."

I see that as legal precedent and I agree with you.

Extraordinary means is one thing, but denying people food and water is quite another.

[supercat]

Extraordinary means is one thing, but denying people food and water is quite another.

Especially when the person may be able to swallow, but is forbidden all efforts at therapy to do so. Even if such attempts would entail risks that would preclude their use in other circumstances, even a 5% chance of success would be better than a 100% certainty of painful death.

Unless, of course, that 5% chance of success would translate into a 5% chance of you being sent to prison for life.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Earlier I was questioned about state's rights and mentioned gay marriage. The voters are electing representatives to make legislative decisions. They do so only to have courts overturn them. The legislative process then has been removed from the people. The judicial monkeys step in and create laws to their own satisfaction and if anyone intervenes, including Congress or the President, they hiss (rhymes with) at them. My point was how far medically can we take this decision before genocide becomes the norm?