I posted a video on Youtube on the subject of a Living Will. I have a lot to say about naming an Advanced Medical Directive a "Living Will" but that is for another rant, I mean post. Th e correct name of the document should be "Yo! This sucks! Pull the plug already" but lawyers a hosipitals prefer the term "Directive to Physician", which is legalese for "Don't sue us, tell us what you want before we withhold life-sustaining treatment and kill you."

Last night, someone posted a comment on this dry video I made years ago and had forgotten.

He wrote: "Is w Hearst forced to be on vegatatibe state still for the availability of controlling there empire" Quote. Unquote.

Here is my reply:

Absolutely! But, may I rephrase your comment/question? You see, the Law has the same goal you do. Everyone has basic rights. Some believe these rights are God-given. The Law does not. The Law has noticed that bad people will disregard what God has given and rights from anyone who stands in their way, including the right to live if push 'em far enough.

To solve this problem, the Law invented itself to stop bad people from doing bad things (criminal law) and prevent good people from killing each other when one party breaches a contract (civil law) with one goal: to make as many people happy as possible.

To complicate your question even more, all humans also have the same needs. Rights are what the Law entitles you. A need is what your body must have to continue. Thus, the right to speech is different than the need for air.

Have you noticed I have been capitalizing the word "Law"? I did so out of respect. Law, to me, is a term to describe all rules of law wherever situated. This would include statutes, i.e., little "l" as in "laws", court opinions, court rules and rules form agencies like IRS and "Medicaid."

The Law has one little problem. It is actually quite stressful. One of the rights all humans possess in US law is the right to privacy, especially as it relates to health care. The problem conflicts with the right to keep the government out of our doctor's office and a human’s need to have a heart beat. See the problem? How does the government stay out of a person’s deeply personal decision about medical care, which the government would screw up anyway, while also preventing undue suffering? Your example is on the extreme limit of that dilemma. In the hypothetical you pose, should the government decide FOR a person is breathing and has a heartbeat but that is about it when she did not articulate her preferences before being stricken?

Can you imagine? Think about that. The government care barely handle renewing people’s driver’s licenses. I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty but not on moral grounds but on the practical sense grounds that the government is completely incompetent to handle something as important as human life taking. The Law will kill you in Texas if you are convicted of certain crimes, especially if you are poor and not white, but the Law has opted out of causing the death of brain dead people who did not bother to sign a simple and FREE directive. Does that speak to your point?

Here is a link that the most boring video on the Living Will ever produced.