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: KLP who wrote (106236)	3/27/2005 3:49:07 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793691

Do you have a link for the specific law you are referring to? You want to read the law? My hat's off to you. No, I don't have a link. I have no appetite for searching for and reading it. I'm talking about the Florida law based what we have learned about it from the Schiavo case. We know that, when there is no living will, the court will appoint a guardian and that the spouse is the default guardian. We know that the law allows pulling the plug based on clear and convincing testimony that the person didn't want to be kept on life support. We know that the law considers feeding tubes to be life support. Those are the things about which you and others have expressed disapproval. Several people, in response to my questions and independently, have expressed comfort with pulling the plug when there's a living will. So I infer that you and others would want the law changed to not allow the person to die unless there is a living will. That would take care of the problem of assigning guardians, hearsay testimony, and feeding tubes as life support to which you object. It really doesn't matter what the current law is. That's just a jump-off point for determining what new law you'd like the Florida legislature to enact in place of the current law, which you do not like.