[malakhi]

Seven-year-old second-hand hearsay?

It wasn't second-hand, and it wasn't, legally, 'hearsay'.

Assisted suicide. Illegal, immoral, a denial of basic civl rights under the US Constitution.

That's your opinion. I happen to think that the right to refuse medical treatment is pretty fundamental. There is no qualitative difference between the state forcing a person to have a feeding tube, and the state forcing schoolchildren to take ritalin. Either both are acceptable, or neither are acceptable.

[bvw]

It was legally hearsay. Thea application of the legal term "hearsay" was like the application of the term "clear and convincing" by the Judge. Arbitrary, sunjective and questionable.

[bvw]

Quick fixes to last:

It was legally hearsay. The [non-]application of the legal term "hearsay" in this case was like the application of the term "clear and convincing" by the Judge. Arbitrary, subjective and questionable.

[Earthdweller]

"There is no qualitative difference between the state forcing a person to have a feeding tube, and the state forcing schoolchildren to take ritalin. Either both are acceptable, or neither are acceptable."

Your argument would be valid if the the states were forcing people to have feeding tubes put in but since a few states are forcing feeding tubes to be removed (passive euthanasia) and advocating assisted suicide right now it makes your point mute.

There is no qualitative difference between the state forcing a person to [remove a ]feeding tube, and the state forcing schoolchildren to take Ritalin. Either both are acceptable, or neither are acceptable.

There. I fixed that for you.