[grassboots.org]

absent reasonable proof that the patient is suffering severely and/or would not have wanted to be kept alive. You lost me there, bud. You are arguing you can't use private money to care for someone who is suffering severely, even if they wanted to live. (That is what your and/or must mean). Amazingly, many people use the money argument as to why they would not want to be a burden on their families. Ultimately even the children ought to be allowed to spend the money on mom's care though she didn't want them to because she was concerned about her children.

[GovernmentShrinker]

No, I didn't mean that. If there is clear proof that someone would have wanted to continue living, despite severe suffering, then there should be no government interference with private money being used for that purpose. However, in the absence of such proof, I think it's appropriate to let nature take its course, and not let family members who may be harboring unrealistic hopes of recovery and/or trying to impose their beliefs on a relative who is not known to have shared those beliefs, force that person to endure suffering much longer than nature intended. However, the law needs to clearly spell out what proof of "severe suffering" is required for such intervention, and who makes the determination -- currently it doesn't do so anywhere that I'm aware of.