[Greybird]

Well, where's the massive FReeping of the House of Commons? The picketers camped out across from 10 Downing Street? The (political) death threats to Tony Blair for doing nothing about this?

After all, consistency is important around here, isn't it? Principle? Upholding "life," at all hazards? ...

Oh. His politics aren't acceptable, therefore, he's dispensable. I forgot the rules. Never mind.

{/sarcasm OFF}

[Qwinn]

I see a few real differences.

1) He put it in writing. I can see something like that in a diary as a reasonable substitute for a living will. I -cannot- see the say-so of a conflicted spouse as a reasonable substitute.

2) It says he was hooked up to a life-support machine. If it really was extraordinary measures keeping him alive, that's a whole lot different from just a feeding tube.

3) Far as I can tell from the article, no one in the family is disputing that that would be his wish.

Now, if you took back those three big differences - nothing in writing, the "life support" was just a feeding tube, AND there was a family member disputing his being taken off of it, then yes, I would agree that the tube should not be removed.

But those 3 differences are very big differences. I don't think someone protesting one and not the other shows a clear inconsistency.

That said, I do admit that some folks here seem a little too pleased at what happened here. I don't ever see pulling the plug on someone as a happy occassion, or something to be made light of.

Qwinn