Replies

And if you don't and your family want's to pull the plug after oh I don't know, say 20 years. Then it's the government's decision? No thanks.

WRONG! Unless it is contested in court it is your family's decision to starve you to death, if in fact, that is what you mean by "pulling the plug"

"WRONG! Unless it is contested in court it is your family's decision to starve you to death, if in fact, that is what you mean by "pulling the plug""

Hmm, contested by whom? The government? A Freeper like you? Somebody who doesn't believe that a person wasting away in a coma for 20 years should be allowed to die if it's their family's wish? Do you realize how many hundreds of people are either in a coma or persistent vegetative state?

actually the way the law reads is that some substantive evidence has to be show to overcome the rebuttable presumption. Judge Greer said the evidence is not enough.

Part of the issue here is whether or not mothers and fathers have standing in these situations. What if it was adult children fighting a father's wish to pull his wife's plug?

If she was able to speak and be cognisant and said she wanted to die, the law would not allow it. (no suicide)

I think we should all not loose site of the fact that this is just putting the federal courts in play to review the, as you correctly say, CONTESTED right to die cases.

I would put forth to everyone here that the root cause of this getting so ugly is the fact you have a lawyer involved who is unwilling to advise his client to compromise. Most of these guardianship cases do end in a reasonable compromise.

It is sad to say that no matter how noble the effort to keep this woman alive, it has now reached beyond her life and into greater causes. I even saw a mention on FNC that somehow this might impact the abortion debate. (?!)

Have any people here been temporarily incapacitated? Car accident? Comas? Do you remember any of it?