To: nickcarraway
Does anybody know how many people in Florida, right now, are being treated this way??
I would like to point out that refusal or cessation of feeding tubes is part of some of the most common Living Will/Death with Dignity forms. Presumably passage of this so-called Terri's Law will interfere with many of the Living Wills.
82 posted on
10/20/2003 4:39:32 AM PDT by
DonQ
To: DonQ
I would think that removal of feeding tubes would be different than Do not resusitate. People should be specific in what they do or do not want in making their living wills.
To my understanding, Terri had no living will, so no violation of her 'so called' wish. It is her so called husband that is claiming she would have wanted it removed.
Do all states consider co-habitation for 7 years to be common law marriage? And if so, then wouldn't Terri's so called husband be guilty of bigamy?
Just curious.
83 posted on
10/20/2003 4:54:26 AM PDT by
ET(end tyranny)
( Deuteronomy 32:37 -- And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted,)
To: DonQ
Too bad. It is a gruesome death to force upon someone and Illinois outlaws it.
100 posted on
10/20/2003 7:06:20 AM PDT by
MarMema
(KILLING ISN'T MEDICINE)
To: DonQ
"I would like to point out that refusal or cessation of feeding tubes is part of some of the most common Living Will/Death with Dignity forms. Presumably passage of this so-called Terri's Law will interfere with many of the Living Wills."
If they include a clause that states that if declining sustanence is specifically indicated in the living will, it would still be valid. I think that would eliminate that problem.
108 posted on
10/20/2003 7:37:07 AM PDT by
iowamomforfreedom
(Why is it illegal to starve an animal but not a human being?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson