[Luis Gonzalez]

Your statement is not true, the decision to remove or continue life support, in absence of explicit documentation from the patient, falls on the next of kin.

If no document exists stating Terri's wish not to live being sustained by artificial means, then no document exists to the opposite either.

[Cboldt]

Your statement is not true, the decision to remove or continue life support, in absence of explicit documentation from the patient, falls on the next of kin.

I asked MineralMan (godless atheist) for a cite for that proposition, and he hasn't coughed one up yet. Maybe you are able to.

[Cboldt]

Here is the exchange and URL I referred to earlier:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1367855/posts?page=1401#1401 <-- Link

MineralMan: It depends where you are. In most states, the next of kin can cancel life support after consultation with the physician. It happens every day. A young person is in a car accident and is brain dead. Parents have to make a decision about maintaining their body in a lifelike state. Most decide to let the son or daughter die and remove the life support. Same with parents. Every day, in hospitals all over this country, children make decisions about life support for their parents, whether there's a living will or not. Surely you know this.

Cboldt: The subject isn't brain dead people. It is PVS (and as you know, that diagnosis is contested .. but even if it was not), and the law is different then. As far as I know, the law looks for an Advance Directive from the living patient. THis is different from looking for the advanced directive of a brain dead patient. Cboldt: So, do you have a cite for the proposition that somebody other than the PATIENT has a legal right to decide, when the PATIENT is in PVS? I understand that state laws may differ on that point. State law in Florida give the power (to decide) to the PATIENT and NOBODY ELSE

Thought you might find that useful, because we are not looking for a general proposition about "removing life support" for an otherwise terminal patient. We are talking about provoking the demise of a patient based on our perception of their mental capaicty and our belief about whether they would choose to commit suicide because they are in that diminished capacity.

[GovernmentShrinker]

the decision to remove or continue life support, in absence of explicit documentation from the patient, falls on the next of kin.

True. But:

1) The definition of "life support" is a little fuzzy here. Her parents are asking to be allowed to take her home and feed her. They are not asking for ongoing care, at great public or hospital expense, involving high-tech life support equipment, operated by medical professionals who believe the effort is futile and ill-advised. I fully agree with Pres. Bush's position on the Texas law he signed, that allowed withdrawal of life support in those situations, regardless of the wishes of the patient's relatives.

2) I have a good deal of trouble with a state law that defines a husband -- even one who is living with another common law wife and has children with her -- as the "next of kin", while giving no legal standing whatsoever to the unanimous opposing view of the subject's parents and siblings.