[Torie]

What is so horrible about just requiring a living will to carry it all out? Isn't that the message? I am going to do one next week. If one doesn't, well then the courts need to sort out all the little complexiites, which in Terri's case are not really that complex. The robes just had a mission. It is the duty of every citizen to have a robe proof document. Trusting the robes to get it right is a very serious judgmental error. Of course, in my case, my concern is that I would be kept around wasting my estate, when my little nest egg could be more usefully deployed elsewhere.

And there you have it.

[cajungirl]

You are right. If there were a living will, this would have been avoided, I think.

I plan to give everything away before I start to get in the death age if I hold out. I don't want my children thinking about my estate dribbling away.

I have wondered if people really truly comprehend what they are signing when they sign it. How can one contemplate death when it is not upon one? I cannot tell you how many people change their minds and go through hell to live. Dying is not easy, it really isn't for most people.

[billbears]

So how many people heard of a living will in the late 80s, early 90s? Granted it's the standard now but how many jumped on the bandwagon back then? Does that mean anyone who doesn't have a living will by default revert all their rights to the national government? Do you even hear what you are saying?

Trusting the robes to get it right is a very serious judgmental error

Oh good, we can't trust the 'robes'. When they decide we just go around it, is that it? No matter what. Who should make the decisions in a court of law in situations like this then? You know, I agree, let's just scratch out Article III to the Constitution. Better George Bush and whatever Republican 'we' worship deem what's best for us than some judge.