19 February 2005
And should they be called "dying" wills?
The ongoing case of Terri Schiavo has inevitably brought up the case of "living wills," something up to now I haven't bothered to file, and I'm beginning to think that, contrary to the advice of various medical and legal types, I may not want one.
I mean, I can say right now that I'd want a DNR order should the circumstances seem to call for one, but how do I know I'd feel the same way once they do?
A couple of pertinent quotes today by way of The Dawn Patrol, both as comments to this post. First, from Dawn's mother:
The problem with "living" wills is that they rely on healthy people to project how they will feel is they later have a catastrophic illness. The will to live is so profound that we cannot possibly know that we will not want to live under even the most appalling conditions. In many many cases, it looks worse to you than to your dear family member who is laying there.
And following up, McGehee:
Frankly, I would think the presumption should be that in the absence of a living will you assume the injured person would want to live. The judges who have ruled otherwise ought to be tarred and feathered.
Under their irresponsible juris"prudence" it is now necessary to have a living will to ensure that you don't get killed by the state if you're unable to say after the fact that you want to live.
At the very least, should they find me comatose, they should afford me the opportunity to kvetch about it.Posted at 4:29 PM to Life and/or Death