Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (106107)	3/26/2005 4:14:15 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793690

Maybe we shouldn't have any medical care UNLESS we can provide a Living Will....

To: Lane3 who wrote (106107)	3/26/2005 6:42:01 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793690

By all means.......let's make sure it is voluntary assistance, not some government mandated order. If there is a living will that clearly stipulates the wishes of the dying those wishes must be honored. But in the case where there is no living will many people believe it is right to err of the side of life. This case became more emotional and divisive because there is not a living will and her parents offered/volunteered to take care of Terry. The Shindlers made it clear they were willing to take care of her until she died a natural death. They were denied that opportunity. In the absence of a living will, I believe they should have been allowed to do so. You and millions of others don't. This is a serious question that must be answered. Is it too much to ask that as a nation we address that issue or is that not allowed?