[MadIvan]

I'm absolutely terrified as to what this will mean for us. The bar to having the plug pulled is substantially lowered. Suppose, for instance, someone had a stroke and couldn't speak. A relative who overheard that person saying they didn't want to live under these circumstances, is enough to have that person's life support - even if it is just food and water, taken away.

Regards, Ivan

[EX52D]

I agree with you...and it terrifies me as well...

[Rutles4Ever]

If food and water are hereby deemed extraordinary means of sustenance, what then for an infant dependent on a bottle?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

"I'm absolutely terrified as to what this will mean for us. The bar to having the plug pulled is substantially lowered. Suppose, for instance, someone had a stroke and couldn't speak. A relative who overheard that person saying they didn't want to live under these circumstances, is enough to have that person's life support - even if it is just food and water, taken away.

Regards, Ivan"

And yet on NPR this morning the "ethics" board from some hospital in NYC was bellyaching that the law passed by Congress on the weekend would somehow keep them from making these life-and-death decisions within the "privacy" of the family and ethics board's recommendations.

This is what the new media is giving us: it is shining the light of truth and justice on a world we previously did not know of or understand. And the god-doctors and god-lawyers don't like it. They want to be the gods of our lives.

[Dave S]

I'm absolutely terrified as to what this will mean for us.

YOu worry too damn much. No new judicial precendents have been created by this case. Peolpe have been free to refuse medical care for years. All of the Federal courts just refused to give Terri a temporary stay to allow the feeding tube to reinserted. The Federal law passed Sunday night was clearly unconstitutional and would have been struck down. No new legal prescendents have been set. This whole thing would have been moot if you could have gotten three or four more votes in the Florida legislature. Suggest you go back there later and get the law rewritten and insist that your state legislature do the same.

[KDD]

The laws that pertains to forced feeding are written into the Florida Constitution which itself is one of the most malleable constitutions in all the states. To amend it takes only a petition signed by a very small representation of the voters of Fla. The issue is then voted on in the general election. This is how we ended up this past election with a new law by constitutional amendment to protect pregnant pigs. The local GOP offered to Randal and other Christian activist organization that were here back in July or August their resource's to collect enough signatures to get nutrition and hydration stipulations which are written into our constitution modified. Their offer was rebuffed. I believe because they felt it wouldn't pass. So they opted to go this route.

I'm not sure they didn't take this route to stir up a media circus but that is what it looks like.

[Darnright]

>Suppose, for instance, someone had a stroke and couldn't speak. A relative who overheard that person saying they didn't want to live under these circumstances, is enough to have that person's life support - even if it is just food and water, taken away.<

You bring up a very good point, Ivan. Let's say, I am very wealthy, and my extended family stands to inherit a large estate. Should your example happen, if 2 or more greedy relatives get together, and testify they heard me say I wouldn't want to live "with tubes", the precedents set in this case would give them the perfect way to get that estate more quickly.