I like the idea of pulling the plug if I fall beyond a reasonable "response threshold"..or if significant irreversible brain damage occurs.
So, unless you're a neurologist, you're leaving those same people the decision of exactly what "response threshhold" or "significant irreversible damage" means.
Not exactly. I, in my living will, will spell out what I determine to be an acceptable "response threshold", if I can no longer meet it, I want to die. Significant irreversible damage can be measured along very subjective lines, without involving a murky moral compass. But I think response thresholds are better since it's up to me to meet them.
It's a no win situation. Someone other than you will be forced to make that decision no matter what your living will says.
To me, the living will is the best "good faith" effort I can make to help them make that decision. To just assume that because they may have to pull your plug anyway, it's somehow worthless to provide them a standard by outlining your wishes just seems like a defeatist attitude to me.
Don't think for a second that if you are a target of political opportunity that your little document will keep them off of you. They're pissing on the Constitution of the US right now, what is your living will in comparison to that?
Yes. They are aren't "they." I'd rather have them fight a battle that included my living will, then give them
carte blanche to do whatever the hell they wish.
The way you argue reminds me of a friend of mine. He often advocates doing
nothing, since
something will always off-set it anyhow. He doesn't do much of
anything because of it.

mrC