If that is true then why do you oppose State legislation that would take away a doctors right to assume I would want to die if it is not in writing? There should NEVER be anyone who is allowed that right. Not the government or any doctor, They are not God.
Did you even read the proposed legislation in post#149? You did not comment on it. It covers right to die AND right to live.
If you think this thing about doctors assuming that people would want to die is a joke just look at the UK. There is a man who has written down that he wants to live if he is incapacitated. He is of sound mind right now and he is fighting for his right to keep the doctors from killing him later. This is what we will get to if we continue on the current path. Rationing of medical care by doctors with government approval. Talk about your leftist government interference. Is that the kind of Republic that we can be proud to defend?
Leslie Burke wants to live; the National Health Service has a second opinion
London—The most important bioethics litigation in the world today involves a 45-year-old Englishman, Leslie Burke. He isn’t asking for very much. Burke has a progressive neurological disease that may one day deprive him of the ability to swallow. If that happens, Burke wants to receive food and water through a tube. Knowing that Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) rations care, Burke sued to ensure that he will not be forced to endure death by dehydration against his wishes.
*snip*
"..Burke, who is fully competent, worries that his wishes will be ignored precisely because he wants food and water even if he becomes totally paralyzed. Receiving food and water when it is wanted certainly seems the least each of us should be able to expect. But, it turns out, whether Burke lives or dies by dehydration may not be up to him. According to National Health Service treatment guidelines, doctors, rather than patients or their families, have the final say about providing or withholding care.
...which is totally contrary to what I have been advocating. Therefore, I fail to see why you bring up this straw man, except to confuse the issue or cause discord.
As for the proposal you posted, of course I read it, and I see that it would step in and create a presumption rather than allow a specific-case decision by those closest to the patient. Of course, I don't like the way things stand now, either (with no civilized means of relief), but I don't want to make it worse!