[Jim Noble]

>>A living will, which tells doctors exactly what kind of care you do and don’t want to receive if you’re terminally ill and incapacitated<<

Almost always, when the wishes of a suddenly and critically ill person can be ascertained, they want to revoke thir "living will" and go for the gold.

People, especially young and healthy ones, routinely overestimate how unacceptable intrusive care would be, and routinely underestimate the probability that such care would lead to meaningful recovery.

It should tell you something that the main pushers of "living wills" today are the government, and HMOs.

[Chemist_Geek]

It should tell you something that the main pushers of "living wills" today are the government, and HMOs.

Enlighten me.

I cannot see how, if the document is clear and unambiguous, it’s not in every party’s (the patient, the family, the practitioners, the insurer) best interest to have documented directives.

[Mr. Bird]

I've been cautious about living wills ever since I read a Reader's Digest account of a teen who was "brain dead", but could hear everyone around him. Terrifying, his listening to doctors counsel the family to pull the plug, while he had a sole uncle who went to bat for him. The kid came out of it, and was actually the person who wrote the account. Riveting.

[geaux]

I always thought living wills were used in the fashion described by Dawn. That's the way I've always seen them -- not to delay certain death, but to allow death with dignity.