I think there is more to this story then is being told.
The hard feeling between the two must have come from somewhere.
Of course... but what kind of monster refuses to help someone in such a situation?
I've done an advanced care directive giving my brother the power to make medical decisions for me in the event I'm unable to do it for myself. I've VERY nice to my brother!
We never knew how resentful my sister in law was against my husband until my father in law died and left my husband as executor of his estate, and trustee of his trusts.
My sister in law severed direct communications and insisted that all communications go through her attorney. She objected to court accountings and denied receiving household effects and funds that she had received. Her complaints were unfounded, but it took a great deal of time and money to prove it.
Most of the estate went to the attorneys, who spent seven years answering her many many claims. She is still bitter and hateful toward him.
Methinks you are right.
There is not enough accurate information to make judgment on either party.
The important fact is that the sister MAY refuse. Leftists want to install a situation where she would be forced to donate, and it should be the goal of those on this board to prevent that from happening. The Evil sibling is less important than the Evil government.
Yep.
"I think there is more to this story then is being told.'
Could be that she has something like AIDs and doesn't want to admit it.
Bingo!
Even though this Daily Mail story is intended to portray the sister as selfish and uncaring (even cruel), it unwittingly portrays her brother and his wife as self-pitying grandstanders, dragging their family feuds into the public square.
It also occurs to me that Helen may have legitimate reasons to decline being a donor -- such as an undisclosed HIV-positive test or other confidential medical condition. What the Daily Mail has said about her almost amounts to libel.