Dad had a living will...all paperwork in order and the doctors had all been advised. He still had his wits about him when he refused any further treatment other than an attempt at pain control.

I still had to sit with the doctor in charge and tell him that's what dad wanted.

When it's in writing, by a person who is of sound mind at the time of the writing, that should be that.

Not having a living will and ending up in a life-threatening situation the decision passes to the family or person with medical power of attorney (who could be the same person).

This is a case-by-case thing and doesn't need a sweeping law that can be misinterpreted by medical professionals.

Let those closest to you know what you want - in the event - and inform your doctor too. Get whatever legal docs make it easier to enforce depending on where you live.

(October 5, 2022 at 2:19 pm)Duty Wrote: That policy would be great and should be in place, agreed, but it does nothing for the many thousands of people already stuck in physical and communicative paralysis without their consent.

So your solution is to kill them without their consent? Reflect on that.

Boru

(October 6, 2022 at 4:48 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 5, 2022 at 2:19 pm)Duty Wrote: That policy would be great and should be in place, agreed, but it does nothing for the many thousands of people already stuck in physical and communicative paralysis without their consent.

So your solution is to kill them without their consent? Reflect on that.

Boru

Allowing somebody to die is not the same as killing them. You've used the word "murder" in this thread too. Your use of such hyperbole does you and your position no favours.

(October 6, 2022 at 11:07 am)Duty Wrote:

(October 6, 2022 at 4:48 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So your solution is to kill them without their consent? Reflect on that.

Boru

Allowing somebody to die is not the same as killing them. You've used the word "murder" in this thread too. Your use of such hyperbole does you and your position no favours.

If I chain someone up in my cellar and stop feeding them until they die, what would you call it? More importantly, what would a magistrate call it?

What, exactly, do you think my position is?

Boru

It's sort of interesting, in a not very interesting way, that Duty asks for opinions then gets his ass is a knot when those opinions aren't the same as his.

Don't ask if you don't want an answer that doesn't align with yours.

(October 6, 2022 at 11:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(October 6, 2022 at 11:07 am)Duty Wrote: Allowing somebody to die is not the same as killing them. You've used the word "murder" in this thread too. Your use of such hyperbole does you and your position no favours.

If I chain someone up in my cellar and stop feeding them until they die, what would you call it? More importantly, what would a magistrate call it?

What, exactly, do you think my position is?

Boru

That's a pathetic attempt at an analogy:

1. YOU chained them up in the cellar AND
2. There is a real possibility of their being released, by YOU even

I have no clear idea what your position is, just that it is wrong due to having no grounding in logic nor rational morality.

(October 6, 2022 at 12:49 pm)Duty Wrote:

(October 6, 2022 at 11:31 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If I chain someone up in my cellar and stop feeding them until they die, what would you call it? More importantly, what would a magistrate call it?

What, exactly, do you think my position is?

Boru

That's a pathetic attempt at an analogy:

1. YOU chained them up in the cellar AND
2. There is a real possibility of their being released, by YOU even

I have no clear idea what your position is, just that it is wrong due to having no grounding in logic nor rational morality.

If you don’t know what my position is, how can you say what does or does not support it.

Please DO tell me more about logic…

Boru

(October 5, 2022 at 2:24 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I like you guys just fine, but keep your hands of my corpse.

Here's logic 101 on this one then for you then Boru: If 95% (or even 55%, not that such an absurdly low rate is plausible, but rather for the sake of argument) of people say they'd far rather die than be rendered permanently (in all likelihood) utterly paralysed, double-incontinent and unable to eat, drink or communicate in any way, it is fair to decide that helping such patients to die rather than fitting a peg and tube feeding them as the default position, is the correct and moral way to behave, if they have not explicitly stated they would want to live on in such a condition in a living will.