Wow. Talk about non sequitur. LOL. What does my informed and consious decision to see a doctor have anything at all to do with this discussion?
Also, you make a point to say "They can only do this IF you're already dying and IF nothing else is working" as if this is already decided. Who knows what liberties a doctor may be allowed to take under the "final" decision?
Bottom-line: Humans are capable of horrendous actions in the name of "science" and I want myself and family to be protected as much as possible. I'd like to have someone ensure my living will is followed. Maybe I'm just getting more synical as I grow older . . .
Well, after all, since you fear those who perform abortions and you're lumping all doctors together, you must fear doctors and never go to them. Q.E.D.
It *is* already decided. This was decided back in 96, and the Feds are just reviewing this now to see if it needs to change (after the PolyHeme brouhaha). The original hysterical article posits that it's something totally new, and it's not.
And, by the way, if a doctor deviates from this by experimenting on you in other than the very specific conditions mentioned, you or your estate gets to sue them for malpractice (deviation from standards), and they would probably lose their license.
Denying immediate aid, even experimental, to someone who is dying and in need of that care because you need to get permission from someone is inhuman and worse than what the Nazis did. At least the Nazis thought they had a purpose; this would be cruelty for the sake of bureaucracy!!!!