Replies

Au contraire. I fight to preserve life everyday in the overwhemling majority of my patients. If a patient doesn't want to give up, I will be with them througout the night to save their life, and have done on many occasions. But if a patient wants to end extraordinary measures I have no problem withholding all treatment.

So why are you so seemingly eager to see the death of an innocent person based on questionable testimony? Why, for this patient, do you not insist on seeing at least written authorization attesting to the patient's wishes, which in a matter of life and death would certainly be reasonable? Hearsay evidence is not normally considered acceptable in cases involving the life or death of another individual. Where there is reasonable doubt there is a good reason to err on the side of caution, on the side of life.

Like I said before, if you or anyone else can show me an irrefutable document, signed by Terri Schiavo in the presence of witnesses, just like any other important legal document would be, attesting to her wishes to be killed by starvation, I will let it go. If you insist on basing life and death decisions on the basis of hearsay evidence from conflicted witnesses, then I will question it.

But if a patient wants to end extraordinary measures I have no problem withholding all treatment.

Herein lies our dilemma. Let's be absolutely sure that this patient wanted that. There is good cause to have reasonable doubt. We can agree to end extraordinary measure in this case. Let's just do the basics, food and water.

And why don't we all calm down, and go get a refreshing glass of water.