Re: Mary Ann Lindley's editorial Of Jeb's unfortunate, sh
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Mary Ann Lindley's editorial Of Jeb's unfortunate, sh
- From: LAndrews1@aol.com
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:07:57 EST
In a message dated 12/09/2003 7:48:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
the government needs to stay out of these
private, family matters
If she has no brain, she is not suffering.
The point you are missing still is that "most" of her family wanted her to
continue to receive nutrition. Basically only the husband who had already
started a life and another family with another woman wanted it removed.
I remember a case I had in my work some years ago. A guy was in a coma and on
a respirator. If he lived he would be paralyzed at least from the neck down.
The wife insisted that he would not want to live like that and wanted the
respirator turned off. Other people resisted-there was some legal action--but
eventually the man came out of his coma before the respirator was turned off. I
next saw the case a year or so later. The guy had returned to work, had
completed what Social Security calls his "9 month trial work period" and so, even
though his impairment was usually considered "permanent", we had to review his
case to be sure he was still disabled. Yes, he was stiil paralyzed from the neck
down--I don't remember if he needed a respirator, feeding tube. But, he was
working full time making good wages and he had left Wife 1 and married his
mistress. He definitely considered his life worthwhile.
With the spousal homicide rate and the divorce rate being what it is, I just
don't see that a spouse should have the ultimate say-so in these cases. It
becomes more of a "duty-to-die" than a "right to die" case.
Post a Message to arn-l: