Re: Mary Ann Lindley's editorial Of Jeb's unfortunate, sh

[LAndrews1@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/09/2003 7:48:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
robertsj1@marion.k12.fl.us writes:
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. 

Linda