Another reason to oppose mandatory living wills is that they are just plain hard to write. The last time the Schiavo train wreck was crashing through the media, I looked up the applicable laws, and sat down to do my good duty and write one for myself. After I'd spent an hour or so developing my philosophy of life and end-of-life care, and starting to realize how much research would be required to actually set out what I'd want done in various circumstances, some more interesting or important activity came up and it got set aside. The problem is not just that I feel certain that I'm going to live forever, or at least a long time anyway, nor that my opinions are likely to change over the years. The big problem is that such a document is irrelevant unless your mind and person are permanently destroyed, are effectively (though not quite legally/medically) dead, never to return. The purpose of the document is to tell your survivors what to do with your dead corpse. Do whatever's cheapest / easiest / makes you feel better, I won't care, I'll be dead. And if my lack of a living will creates havoc on an international scale? Well, that's too bad, I guess, but I will still be (quite literally) unable to care.

The right thing from a policy perspective is to ensure that there are reasonable defaults, with some procedures and case law surrounding how to deal with the difficult cases. That was my other problem -- once I understood what the default was, I was perfectly happy with it, and felt no need to modify it. There are areas where the defaults are so dreadful that the law effectively bans the default (US estate law eg), but I don't think this is one of them.

Today is the last day of our non-vacation vacation. We are flying back tonight.

Sunday afternoon we met with a lot of college friends and had wine, fruit and cheese in the courtyard; then we grilled chicken and sausages. It was so yuppie I could die; and yet it was so... appropriate. I guess age, such as it is, has finally happened to us.

The next morning I was reading work emails on the laptop while my daughter played on the floor. After about fifteen minutes, I couldn't take it anymore: I picked her up went to the park where we kicked the soccer ball for a good hour. It was just too beautiful a morning to waste on work.

Of course, an hour later, a client's mail server was having problems.

Apparently there are six inches of snow at home. Bleah. I think I'll go back to the park.

I can't really say that I don't care about the Terri Schiavo thing, but I don't have a clear opinion either.

That aside, I was not at all pleased with Bill Hobbs' suggestion:

And I would like to see Congress pass and the President sign a second law - call it the Terri Schiavo Living Will Act of 2005 - that would require all Americans age 18 and up have a signed, notarized, legal living will, and update it every five years. The law also would require courts, doctors and families to follow the directives of a patient's living will without deviation.

Might as well call it the Terri Schiavo Estate Attorney's Full Employment Act of 2005. Why would this be needed? Most people die without the need for a living will -- why should the government force everyone to get a living will? Just to prevent another national media circus? Furthermore, which section of the Constitution or federal law empowers Congress to require every adult to prepare a living will?

I would suggest instead a change to federal law such that in the absence of aliving will, the guardian for an incapacitated person would be allowed to file a civil petition for euthanasia, and a jury verdict be necessary to approve it.

This would address my main concern, which is that I want the power to end a patient's life to rest not with the spouse/family, not with the state, and very certainly not with the doctor or insurer. Ideally, of course, the decision should rest with the patient through the patient's living will. But in the absence of the patient's clear wishes, I would like to see the decision to euthanize approved by a body of disinterested jurors. After all, it takes a jury to impose capital punishment; why should it be any easier to end an innocent life?