[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

[droberts]

That said, I do admit that some folks here seem a little too pleased at what happened here

The Israelis did it, so of course they're pleased.

[Tenya2112]

I agree with your distinctions and would like to add that it appears from the article that his condition (having never recovered consciousness)is what people typically are referring to when they think of a persistent vegetative state. There also appears to be no dispute that he has little or no hope of improvement.

In contrast, Terri is conscious and responsive. Further, there is some dispute among medical professionals that her condition can be improved with therapy.