[TheOtherOne]

You asked about why I used the word probably. It was in reference to her wishes and what might motivate her husband. You questioned whether I knew the facts of the case due to my use of the word probably. I explained quite clearly why I would use that word. I am not in a competition about who knows more about the case. As for the central fact, we both know the same, nothing about what she may or may not have communicated to her husband. You think it is right to presume something contrary to what her husband indicates was her wishes. I chose not to make that presumption, I think it is dangerous. I see no end to where the state or third parties could question private medical decisions.

[agrace]

You don't think circumstantial evidence should have any bearing?

You don't think what her parents and family have to say should have any bearing?

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I see no end to where the state or third parties could question private medical decisions.

I say you better have those wishes witnessed by a LEGAL witness. Otherwise a husband or a spouse could say they "told them so" and this could be abused like it is in this case. It would be more ethical to error on the side of life, than to error on the side of money. We don't even know how far we can rehabilitate her, because NO ONE has tried!! She could have a full functioning life, if someone would give her a try!! This young precious woman is being thrown away.. and is even going to be allowed to suffer!!