So, now you want to change the definition of brain death to be whatever you think it is?
For her, they were entrusted to her husband. That is the law. For me, they are written down.
Actually, the law was changed AFTER her injury. Terri NEVER could have requested to be starved to death.
Do you know what Schaivo’s were? Or do you want Big Government to create them from whole cloth? Like you are.
No, in the ABSENCE of written wishes I think we should presume that a person wants to live.
Thanks for making my point. 15 years is even more than 2 months.
My point which you obviously missed (perhaps a "higher brain function" issue) was that the woman in the article had the benefit of SIX years of rehabilitation, Terri Schiavo DID NOT.
Therein lies the irony of the deathbots' manifesto. They can't meet their own artificial standards to qualify for life. Under their own rules, they'd be starved and dehydrated to death.
>>So, now you want to change the definition of brain death to be whatever you think it is?<<
No, I want it to mean the ability to think.
>>Actually, the law was changed AFTER her injury. Terri NEVER could have requested to be starved to death.<<
The final provisions of a person has always been held with the closest family. There is no legal relationship closer than spouse.
>>No, in the ABSENCE of written wishes I think we should presume that a person wants to live.<<
You can presume all you want. Many of us want to be let go when we are are vegetables. Your presumption and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks.
>>My point which you obviously missed (perhaps a “higher brain function” issue) was that the woman in the article had the benefit of SIX years of rehabilitation, Terri Schiavo DID NOT.<<
She wasn’t married. Schaivo was.