To: Lone Voice in the hinterlands
In absence of a living will, even if she did express her desire not to be kept alive artificailly, did she intend for that to be the withholding of food and water. Not to mention that in the year she supposedly made these comments about not wanting to be kept alive artifically, food and water WAS NOT considered extraordinary means. It was not considered extraordinary til 10 years after she supposedly made that comment.
(woohoo! I finally figured out how to italicize a quote!)
To: wisconsinconservative
Not to mention that in the year she supposedly made these comments about not wanting to be kept alive artifically, food and water WAS NOT considered extraordinary means. It was not considered extraordinary til 10 years after she supposedly made that comment. YES!!! Shouldn't the controlling definitions be what existed at the time the document was executed? Oh wait, that would just KILL our "Living Constitution."
To: wisconsinconservative
[YES!!! Shouldn't the controlling definitions be what existed at the time the document was executed? ] (Assuming there was a document, which there WASN'T in this case)
To: wisconsinconservative
"in the year she supposedly made these comments about not wanting to be kept alive artifically, food and water WAS NOT considered extraordinary means" I think you make an important point. Who'd have ever thought, even that recently, that it would ever be okay to starve and dehydrate people to death?
653 posted on
11/06/2003 6:34:45 PM PST by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: wisconsinconservative
(woohoo! I finally figured out how to italicize a quote!)
tell me how !!!
To: wisconsinconservative
1,008 posted on
11/07/2003 3:10:47 PM PST by
Ladysmith
(Low-carbing works!! (223.0 (-37.6)))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson