Quote Originally Posted by Don Corleone View Post
They (and you, apparently) are assuming an editorial bias never evidenced.

They're saying that if she had a living will in place, the daughter would have clear grounds to pull from (or never insert) a feeding tube from/into the mother. Yet nowhere do they ever state that was the mother's wish in the first place, and it's their scenario.

You and they assume that pulling the feeding tube is the correct and only reasonable course of action, all that is required is for people to put together living wills.

I don't want a feeding tube inserted, but I made that choice on my own. If you or anybody else wants one, I wouldn't dream of denying it to you. Well, maybe you, but not anybody else...
Uhm.

In the given scenario, where the mother doesn't have a living will, the daughter will have to make the choice on whether to insert the tubes or not. If she had a living will, the mother would've made the choice herself already. The section I highlighted in your post is just plain wrong. It's not about whether to tube or not to tube, it's about already having sorted the situation out or letting someone else make the hard choices for you while you yourself is incapable. You might want to live. Your daughter might think you wouldn't want to. Daughter makes the call, you die. With a living will, you live. That's the issue here.

Also, take a look at the question posed below the little story. The entire point of the story is to make you think. It's printed there to force you to think about hard choices. The story isn't about pulling some tubes or whatever, it's simply a story heavily biased to show that a living will is incredibly useful. And I have to say, such a bias is very acceptable.

You still haven't answered what the Bush administration's pamphlet was though...