I did not say that, thank you. I don't need words stuffed into my mouth -- too many in there already.

You? Too many words?! ...well, maybe...but I generally like the artistry you show in the order in which you put those words - even if I don't agree with the conclusions you draw!

Why, then are you proposing heroic measures to prevent the natural process from occurring?

I'm actually not. All I've contended is...

1. If Terry had had an actually living will this whole thing would never have happened (and that a court's determination of what her will was/would have been is not the same thing).

2. That our justice system and rule of government has not suffered -- unless you, like me, worry that the steps that have, through this case, been made in the legal right to euthanize pose a future threat. That, after all, is the special interest-political side that actually, practically, pragmatically won this case (not the "religious right" -- they LOST). Terry is going expire.

We are not talking about killing her -- her disease did that long ago. We are talking about turning off an artificial intervention which according tot he medical experts has no hope of improving her condition.

And those artificial means are used to keep many others alive -- many others who are a burden to their caregivers and it would be far more convenient to let them expire as well.