XPost: sci.med, sci.med.cardiology, misc.kids   
   XPost: soc.culture.usa   
   From: tiredofspam123@comcast.net   
      
   Michelle J. Haines  wrote:   
      
   >For a man who has money in a trust for her rehabilitation that she   
   >never received, who just had a baby with a new girlfriend, and   
   >suddenly it's time to end it all, even though she's been in this   
   >state for ten years?   
      
   Her doctors and the court apparently see it quite differently.  I'm   
   extremely skeptical that political activists, the news media, and a bunch of   
   politicians are in possession of more accurate information.  I'm also   
   extremely skeptical that they have her best interests in mind.  Frankly, I   
   doubt very much if they give a damn about her or her husband.   
      
   >He's been neglecting his wife, at best.   
      
   His wife has been dead many years.  That's the part you don't seem to grasp.   
      
   >And how about insisting her feeding tube is removed, but then not   
   >allowing her to be given communion, because she might choke?   
      
   A feeding tube is not a choking hazard, but *anything* by mouth for an   
   unconscious person most certainly is.  Would you prefer to kill her by   
   airway obstruction or aspiration pneumonia?  Do you really think that's   
   better somehow?   
      
   >Her parents are probably way overstating her ability to recover and   
   >her recognition of her mother, but he's just as far over the edge the   
   >other direction, IMO.   
      
   Ask yourself why her doctors would be "over the edge."  You seem to think   
   this decision is all his.  It is not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)