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: Ilaine who wrote (107543)	4/4/2005 10:57:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

And it restores some of my faith in humanity To hopefully avoid LB's wrath, I shall respond without elaboration to your point. <g> You may be reading too much into those responses. I would answer that question to your liking despite the difference in our POV. Phrasing matters.

To: Ilaine who wrote (107543)	4/4/2005 1:59:38 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793914

To me, the key phrase in the poll was "if a person becomes incapacitated and has not expressed their preference for medical treatment". Well of course you care for the "incapacitated" - which covers a very large area, most of which still involves consciousness and/or full mental capacity - if they have not expressed a preference concerning their medical treatment. That's different question from a person in a vegetative state who had told her husband or in-laws that she never wanted to live like that. That was the court's finding in Schiavo case. Thus, the court found that a preference concerning medical treatment had been expressed. I think that ABC ran a poll that was tipped in one direction, and Zogby ran a poll that was tipped in the other. Neither addressd the question for the rest of us - what are the parameters for personal autonomy in right-to-die cases?