But such fears will be assuaged by bureaucratic assurances that this is an isolated event and that strict procedures will be implemented to ensure only those truly desirous of being killed will be terminated and only after all efforts to find viable alternatives have been completely exhausted.

Heh, heh.

People don't like to think about death. 2 years after I was married, we had a will and medical power of attorney.

And announced to family and friends, pull the plug.

Sandy:

The problem though is that the quality of life a healthy young person considers intolerable often ends up being acceptable to those who find themselves in those conditions.

Though he likely battles some depression, it seems unlikely that Christopher Reeve wishes he were dead.

Mr. Reeves can tell people whether or not he wishes to live, and can even do something about it, should he not.

He is not an example of a bedridden, unresponsive person.

Michael:

Yes, them we can kill far more easily.

In OJ's world you may never have a choice about whether you will continue to exist under such circumstances.

That is a very interesting approach to freedom.

You can always kill yourself. You can never ask another to kill you. Your soul is your concern, theirs is not.

I can ask another not to keep me alive against my wishes.

Or do you wish to oulaw DNR orders?

In a post on this subject last week, several thoughtful people gave me some very good advice: make a living will.

I found out this morning that in Michigan, no matter how clearly I detail my wishes, it just doesn't matter. The state has decided I am incompetent to decide for myself.

Jeff:

Asking someone not to initiate an extraordinary action is qualitatively different from asking that they not continue a routine one. Of course you aren't capable of making the decision because you have no idea what the decision is--do you want to be killed if you're just crippled? if you're blinded? if you're mildly brain-damaged? if your prognosis suggests you'd live just two weeks longer, but that period will include the birth of a grandchild? ........

Nice, Orrin.

Actually OJ, I am perfectly capable of making that decision, and it involves circumstances involving PVS/comatose situations--the ones where I am no longer able to communicate my decision, and don't look like ever regaining that ability.

And it involves nothing more than directing health care providers to stop doing for my body what it should be able to, but no longer can, do for itself.

Nothing extraordinary about that.

Whose life is it anyway, Michigan's, or mine?

Jeff:

It's not about you. It's about your fellow men and our society. You can kill yourself. You can't make others kill you.

oj:

You're equating killing, with stopping, or not providing, aid.
Surely you don't want the passive to be equated with the active in all areas of life ?
Under that standard, Americans are guilty of "killing" all in the world who die of starvation.

Stopping, not not providing. Where, as in South Vietnam, we essentially took over the functions of the state, we are morally responsible for abandoning them. Where we start feeding people and stop, Somalia or wherever, we're responsible for the starvation when we quit.

What if you start against my will, or without my permission ?

OJ:

When I, or anyone, make a personal decision, it is about them. That is the essence of freedom.

A living will or DNR is an assertion as to when, and under what circumstances, nature be allowed to take its course.

You are right. I can't make them kill me. But I ought to be able to stop them keeping me "alive."

Jeff/Michael:

Obviously you have a good point in the era of medical "extremism", but why are you so sure that an opinion you hold today will be the same in twenty years? Orrin's point about the imminent birth of a grandchild was masterful. I might well want the plug pulled on me in the abstract, but if I knew my daughter was praying for me to hold on until her child was born for her own emotional or spiritual reasons, then duty calls and all is different.

Jeff:

The essence of freedom is your right to bind others to an immoral course of action?

Thanks for settling that for me OJ. I'll know better next time to look to you for what constitutes a moral decision.

After all, how could I possibly make a moral decision for myself that differs from yours?

Peter:

That's wonderful. It is still a decision. The only question is who gets to make it.

Your point is a good argument for keeping living wills, like the old-fashioned inheritance kind, up to date. But it doesn't seem a good argument against them.

Jeff:

Life isn't static. Nothing you write now should require your death even a minute from now.

Jeff:

You don't seek to make moral decisions--which require standards beyond yourself. You seek to make personal decisions--which make you alone the standard for all beyond. The two are antithetical to one another.

OJ:

Thanks, all the same. When it comes to making personal decisions, I'm going to consult my morality first.

Your sense of perishibility is also wonderful. But it isn't mine, and I can't think of a single reason to use yours.

But then that is a freedom thing, isn't it?

Jeff:

No, freedom requires shared morality. What you seek is license to do as you please. That's called anarchy when applied across a society.

Peter B:

Then put in a clause about waiting until any pregnant daughters give birth. Otherwise, as Jeff says.

oj:

Rather, you want to impose your morality upon me. You would no doubt acknowledge that you have no right to pummel me to death, under most circumstances.
Yet, if someone else were to do so to me, you maintain that you have the right to force me to live.

Michael:

Why don't I have the right to pummel you to death if I feel you're leading a life not worth living but do have the right to unplug you for the same reason?

OJ:

You don't. But as a health care provider, you have the professional obligation to accede to that person's previously stated desires under pertinent circumstances.

Hence, DNR orders, and, in most states, living wills.

For someone who is an avowed anti-statist, you sure invoke the power of the state a lot. Especially when someone uses their freedom (which belongs to them, not you) in a way that doesn't meet your approval.

Jeff:

The state exists to preserve life, not take it. If you believe that freedom is vindicated when you exercise control over others by causing them to take certain actions, I'm really not sure what the difference between such freedom and oppression is.

Jeff/Michael

Most of us here are in agrement about the living will. Terri doesn't have one. So why aren't you fighting for her on that basis?

Peter:

Speak for yourself. A piece of paper signed some time before, when you were healthy, can no more be a guide to whether you life is worthless than can a Ouija board.

Orrin:

I'm not happy either, but humans have to find imperfect solutions to intractable problems. Frankly, I'm not too fussy about the idea of a brilliant, religious doctor taking heroic steps to me going for years, which I understand is medically possible in many cases. Three score years and ten is what we should hope for and the rest is a gift of uncertain purpose or value if we are in that state. "All my trials, Lord...". This ain't abortion.

Peter:

The point came about because several people gave some good advice on getting a living will, considering my point of view. Two days later, I discovered it to be an empty exercise because Michigan doesn't feel I am competent to make that decision for myself.

The point of contention is OJs assertion that living wills are de facto wrong, and I should have no power to direct health care providers how to proceed should I be in the apparent position of being permanently incommunicado.

So I am fighting for the freedom to make ahead of time a decision I can't possibly make or enact in the actual event. OJ may prefer to make himself a hostage to fortune and intrusive life support. That is fine. But that is absolutely no reason for me to decide the same way.

His is a very interesting outlook on freedom.