Daughter’s Right to Die Is Weighed Against Family’s Wish to Keep Her Alive

[rug]

By ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS
Published: October 4, 2012

In a video uploaded to YouTube on Thursday, a man in a black baseball-type cap tenderly strokes SungEun Grace Lee’s forehead as she sits propped in her hospital bed.

Then he asks if Ms. Lee, a 28-year-old financial manager who is on life support with terminal brain cancer, would be willing to let her father, who does not want to let her die, make her medical decisions for her.

“So, are you willing to sign over your medical proxy to your father?”

Ms. Lee, paralyzed from the neck down and unable to speak, clearly mouths the word “Yes,” and then again, “Yes.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/nyregion/in-sungeun-grace-lee-case-right-to-die-is-weighed-against-a-familys-wishes.html?_r=0

This is how the story was reported yesterday. This afternoon the appellate court ruled in her favor.

Grace Lee Wins in "Right To Die" Case. Religious Parents Worried She'll Go To Hell

By James King
Fri., Oct. 5 2012 at 2:43 PM

The Appellate Division of State Supreme Court ruled today that a terminally ill Manhattan woman has the right to die -- despite her devoutly religious parents' concerns that she'll go to hell if she makes the decision to pull the plug on the ventilator that currently is keeping her alive.

Despite her parents' concerns, 28-year-old Grace Lee has made it very clear that she wants to die rather than live with the pain and suffering that is the result of her current condition -- she's currently paralyzed from the neck down after suffering a stroke last month, and has been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer.

Lee's parents, however, waged a legal battle to prevent their daughter from directing doctors to yank the ventilator, which ultimately will lead to her death.

Again, they're worried she'll end up going to hell if she decides to essentially take her own life.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/10/grace_lee_wins.php

Her father is the pastor of the Antioch Missionary Church in Flushing, Queens and her parents have indicated they will appeal to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court. This has all the makings of another Terri Schiavo case. I wish the family well.



Grace Sung Eun Lee (credit: Facebook)

[rocktivity]

1. She's over 18, she seems to understand what she's deciding, and it IS her own life.

Besides, who's to say that heaven or hell even exists.

I hope that the father isn't seeing his daughter's decision as a blot on his clerical prowess. It sounds to me like she's in hell right now.


rocktivity

[dkf]

2. Every time I read this I can't help but cry. So sad.

It's all out of love...

[skepticscott]

11. what's "all out of love"?

[dkf]

13. Her parents desire to keep her tube fed...

It's futile though. She is going to be able to make her own decision.

[skepticscott]

15. No, it isn't

It's about ignorance, and the need to control her the way their religion controls them.

[rug]

20. That is about the stupidest, inapposite, insensitive and bigoted remark I've seen in a long while.

And, to my dismay, I've read most of your posts.

That you can draw that from this story is stunning.

[skepticscott]

23. Yes, I know your "education"

requires you to fling poo instead of address issues. As a competent adult, she has the right to make the decision to die. Period. A court upheld that right (and that they even had to decide in the first place because of her family's fear she would go to "hell" is a travesty). And now, her family is APPEALING (gee, how WOULD I draw that from the story?), refusing to respect her rights OR the court's proper decision, because of THEIR (not HER) idiotic beliefs.

That you would stoop to defending their actions because of your "education" is a new low for you, which is saying a lot. But no one here is surprised by your knee-jerk response, or has any doubts about where it comes from.

[rug]

38. Your "education" has apparently prevented you from understanding what you're reading.

By all means, show me where I defended the parents' actions, unless you take my failure to say "fuck them" as a defense.

The only knee-jerking I see anywhere in this thread is your automatic, predictable attack over anything concerning religion, even in a case as srrowful, all around as this.

I would say this is a new low for you but that would be as unkind as it is inaccurate.

[skepticscott]

39. Apparently I understand it much better than you

as evidenced by your blatant lies in post 19. And your rushing to defend the family from legitimate criticism (with only snark and no substance..surprise!) in post 20.

As far as this case being run-of-the-mill "anything religious", that lie has already been debunked elsewhere in the thread. And gee...YOU itching to argue on the wrong side in a right-to-die case? WHERE in the world could that inevitable, knee-jerk, deeply conditioned reaction be coming from? Hmmmmmmmm...maybe you're the only one in the room who doesn't know...

[rug]

43. If you think I have been taking the parents' position throughout this thread, you have

greater problems that simply reading comprehension.

I will say this to you one more time. And one more time only.

Any person, religious or not, who has the capacity to make decisions about his or her health and who has the capacity to express those decisions is the only one who can make that decision. That is black letter estblished law.

I will also say this to you directly. To immediately resort to saying "fuck her family" and using this case as a platform to spew your usual tired antireligious blather is to invite well deserved and warranted disgust.

[skepticscott]

48. What her family is doing is absolutely despicable

And is an interference in the most basic and fundamental right any human being has. And now they've doubled down on their arrogance and religious presumption (and make no mistake, this is ALL about their religious beliefs), by appealing, and trying yet again to wrest control of their daughter's life and death away from her. I stand by my statement, and don't give a rat's ass what you think.

You, of course, will never say anything negative about what the family is trying to do here. You simply fall back to the cowardly "it's the law" position, and pretend (fooling no one) that you don't secretly hope they succeed.

[rug]

49. What you are writing is absolutely despicable.

You can stand by your statement all you want, it is still the product of hateful venom. Wallow in it.

[skepticscott]

61. And of course, you have nothing

absolutely NOTHING to back that up. Just your knickers in a twist and spewing pap.

Rounds are over.

[rug]

62. Oh I have something indeed. Your posts.

They remain in all their oozing glory.

[quakerboy]

3. I wish the family peace

But this is not their decision. This is her life, her pain, her decision.

[virgogal]

4. It's her life. It's her choice.

[HERVEPA]

5. I wish the daughter well, I wish her selfish parents hell.

And yes, I'm a parent, and would put my child's wishes over mine.
Their version of their religion is stupid and sucks.

[hrmjustin]

6. I saw this on the local Wabc news last night , and was heart broken.

Last year i took care of a friend with brain cancer, so i know what it can do. This is just so hard for these people. I do not see this as suicide at all. She is refusing treatment, not killing herself. She has decided to hold-off for now.

[exboyfil]

7. Toward the end my dad asked why could he just not die

I wish I had the guts to ask him what do you want me to do? I should have helped him.

No merciful God would want someone to go through this pain. I wish this woman the best, and I am in shock that her parents won't let her make this decision. Let her move on.

[catbyte]

56. My dad did too. He had Lou Gehrig's and he & I st down & did his living will

It was the most difficult conversation I have ever had because we did it after his diagnosis. I suggest others do it when these steps are hazy concepts and not brutal reality.

That said, it made my dad's death as easy as possible because there was no question whatsoever about invasive, extraordinary treatment when his diaphram muscles began to die. One day he just said, "ok, that's it", requested comfort measures, and 3 days later he was gone. It would have been 2 if a fucking ignorant night nurse didn't give him his morphine because she "didn't want to kill him". I threw the fit of my lifetime and threatened to sue the shit out of the facility and took steps to reprimand that nurse & complain to the state licensing board. Dad got his morphine, but not before I had to hear him beg me to not let him suffer any more. His words haunt me to this day.

It is YOUR choice and no one else's.

[exboyfil]

59. Amen to that

My mom was also very upset because the pain killers for at home hospice were not nearly good enough (something else that needs to be changed). I was only with my dad for a few hours before he passed at the end (I lived at worked a 13 hr drive from him). I just made it down in time, and my work still harrassed me about the time off.

I will never let my wife or children go through what my dad did. If they want to put me into prison so be it.

Sorry for your loss. My dad was in pain about 2 years with 1 of those years still good quality (sit by the pool and watch his grandkids play - that was good time). I took him to his chemo several times, and I treasure that time with him. It is hard when families live so far apart.

[Happyhippychick]

64. My dad died from ALS as well

[skepticscott]

8. Fuck the family

It's her life and her choice, solely. If their misbegotten religious beliefs won't let them cope with that and support her decision, tough.

Just one more issue that we'd be centuries ahead on if not for the meddlings of religious troglodytes.

[rug]

9. Your sensitivity and openmindedness is a wonder to behold.

[skepticscott]

10. My sensitivity is to HER needs and explicitly expressed wishes

Would you like to argue that they aren't paramount here? Or that you or her family know them better than she does, or have a right to substitute yours for hers?

Bring it on. But I suspect your level of Catholic "education" will make that impossible.

[rug]

17. Your sensitivity is limited to using this sad example for your routine bashing of anything religious

Frankly, I doubt you give a shit about this woman beyond as a talking point.

The issue in this case is not whether the patient's rights are paramount but whether she has the capacity to express them. Here, the Appellate Division determined there was sufficient capacity, expressed through her guardian. Period.

Now, as to your callous remarks about this woman and her family: do you actually think her decision did not consider her family's feelings? Do you think a bozo blowing hard on the internet posting "fuck her family" either adds to this situation or respects what she's going through?

Since you brought it up, I will put my education and perspectives, Catholic and otherwise, up against your bigoted, insenstive and disgusting posturing any minute of the day.

Go, on, bring it on.

[skepticscott]

22. The fact is

that this situation would never have hit the courts or made the news at all if it hadn't been for the religious idiocy of her family. Neither I nor anybody else would HAVE to pay attention to something like this or make any comment on it at all if there weren't people out there who thought that their religious beliefs gave them the right to interfere in other people's life decisions, and use the instruments of public government to try to impose their beliefs on everyone else. Nobody would have to worry about being the next Terri Schiavo (or her husband) if it weren't for such religious presumption. That presumption to impede other people's rights takes this FAR beyond your idiotic characterization of this as simply "anything religious".

And I made no callous remarks about this woman, so your saying so is a lie (what a shock). I have expressed nothing but support for her right to make her own decision, which cannot be said for her family (who deserve callous remarks) or for you.

And yes, I'll bring it on. With a couple of simple question that we all know you'll do anything to avoid answering directly. Should a competent adult have the right to take steps to end their own life, and to seek help in doing so? And is the Catholic Church wrong to oppose every law attempting to allow that? My answers are Yes and Yes. Simple and direct. I'm betting your "education and perspectives" will run and hide from answering in the same way.

Only in your weird little world would arguing for a competent adult's right to control their own life and against other people's attempts to override that control be called "bigoted, insensitive and disgusting".

[rug]

40. You cannot possibly know that as a "fact".

These cases are frequently in court because they concern a person's capacity to make these decisions, not because of "religious idiocy". And they are almost always brought out of deep love and fear for their loved one. You are so blinded by bigotry against any religion you cannot grasp that simple fact.

No, you did not say anything directly against this dying woman, you simply said "fuck her family". Had you been even a pimple in her consciousness, I'm sure she would have appreciated that. Fortunately you're not.

The answer to your first question is, that is the law, it's not a matter of "should".

Your second question is both bogus and a diversion, bespeaking once again a lack of knowledge on the subject that is filled by your antireligious bigotry. The pastor here is not even Catholic and, even if he were, you have incoorectly framed that Church's position on terminal illness.

Now your last sentence is outright laughable. You, in your rage against religion are reading an argument that I didn't make. Read it again. Slowly.

But what is most laughable is this: "arguing for a competent adult's right to control their own life and against other people's attempts to override that control be called "bigoted, insensitive and disgusting". That phrase was directly squarely and entirely against your post which you typed with your fingers That you equate your venemous bigoted post to "people's attempts" to defend this woman is not simply weird, it is bizarre and repellent.

[skepticscott]

47. Yes and yes were my answers

As expected, you twisted yourself into knots to avoid giving simple and direct answers to either. How typical.

As far as question 1, I didn't ask what the law is..I know what the fuck the law is and should be...I asked what YOU think. Should a competent adult be allowed to take steps to end their own life, and to seek help from others in doing so? Yes or no?

As far as question 2, the Catholic Church HAS opposed EVERY proposed law allowing assisted suicide (along with other religious groups). That's a simple and unarguable fact. I asked whether YOU think they are wrong to do so. I didn't say that the people involved here were Catholic (though they are operating from the same religious arrogance and presumption that their god beliefs give them the right to control other people's life decisions-it's all part and parcel of the same religious idiocy). It's a simple question...yes or no?

And my last sentence is right on point. All I've done in this thread (other than make you look foolish) is to argue for personal autonomy and control of life decisions, and against any attempt to let religious idiocy override that (as the family is attempting to do here, otherwise why would they be appealing, even AFTER a court clearly found her competent?) You referred to that as "bigoted, insenstive and disgusting posturing". As I said, nice weird world you live in.

[rug]

50. This is is not about assisted suicide. Do you know the difference?

[skepticscott]

60. I do know the difference

Though it is not all that large, from the standpoint of religious people trying to usurp the rights of competent individual to control their own lives and deaths. Religious people fight assisted suicide laws in just the same way and for the same reasons they fight to take people's rights away in situations like this, and like the Terri Schiavo case. They claim to be concerned for the individual concerned, but they are not. That someone else's actions violate THEIR religious beliefs is something they just won't allow.

And I see that you are, as predicted, unable to answer my questions honestly. And never will. Rounds are over.

[rug]

63. Then you should know this is about terminaing treatment in a terminal patient.

Not that this stops you from you monomaniacal agenda.

[HockeyMom]

32. You would not have like my Mom

Did she consult me? Nope. She DICTATED to me what she wanted. Spelled it out ABC, XYX. Put the papers before me from her attorney before she went into the hospital. She even made her own funeral arrangements down to the dress and flowers she wanted.

I totally agreed to everything she wanted because I would want the same for myself. Mom did not want to be kept alive artificially (including a feeding tube) and become a vegetable. She did say to me, and this is a quote from 20 years ago, "If you try to block my wishes, I will come back to haunt you and make your life a living hell." Yep, "consult" with family member.

I am 64 and told my own kids what happened with Grandma, and that I feel the same. They have said they feel the same way for THEMSELVES. I have also said that as a FORMER Catholic (if you can even BE that today), I do not want the Catholic Church, or any priest, anywhere near me. MY WISHES.

My kids (28 and 33) have said, "Don't worry, Mom, we will follow your wishes". "WE will fight anyone who tries to go against your wishes".

I love my kids, but it's my life to live, and to die.

[rug]

41. Why not?

It sounds like she had prepared an advance health care directive including boht a living will and a health care proxy. That is exactly the right thing to do. It eliminates virtually all questions about capacity and decision-making authority when the time comes.

This is basic elder law planning. It has nothing to do with religion, Catholic or otherwise.

In the meantime, I wouldn't worry about having priests hovering around your deathbed.

[FloridaJudy]

65. Even many Catholic clergy

Have stated that refusing life support in cases of advanced illness with no hope of recovery does not constitute suicide. It could be interpreted as turning the decision over to the hands of God. Many also believe that measures intended just to make the patient comfortable are justified if necessary to relieve pain, even if they shorten the time left.

I'm not a Christian, but anyone who claims Jesus wants us to suffer unnecessarily probably isn't either.

The woman is an adult. Decisions as to whether or not to accept certain types of medical care are hers and hers alone: not only ethically but legally. Any medical professional who refuses to honor that can be brought up on charges, and should be.

[rug]

66. Succinctly stated. I agree.

[Angry Dragon]

12. So what do you think should be done??

Should the parents' religious wishes trump the daughters wishes??

[rug]

18. No, and that's not the issue because that is settled law.

It is solely her capacity to make and express her wishes. The video shows how difficult it is to make these determinations.

[cbayer]

14. This is such a difficult case and her medical team is really in a bind.

Both a court and a psychiatrist have deemed her competent to make her own medical decisions, and she certainly should have the right to decide. But it's got to be really tough to be on the team that is actually going to withdraw life support.

[skepticscott]

16. No, it's not a difficult case at all

Not for anyone not hamstrung by religious insanity. She's a competent adult with the right to refuse care, treatment and life support. The medical team's ONLY obligation is to follow her directions in that regard. They owe nothing, legally or morally, to any other party here.

[rug]

19. No it's not difficult if you have blinders, a closed mind and an axe to grind.

And perhaps if you read the post more closely, it might dawn on you that it is hardly clear what her "directions" are. If they act, either way, without ascertaining her capacity, there will be an avalance of legal, not to mention moral, consequences.

[skepticscott]

24. "Hardly clear"?

Here's a direct quote from what you posted:

Despite her parents' concerns, 28-year-old Grace Lee has made it very clear that she wants to die rather than live with the pain and suffering that is the result of her current condition

Read your own damn post and stop lying. It's a sin, you know.

[rug]

42. Watch the video.

That was the Village Voice reporter's comment on the appellate decision.

I do not expect you to know this but the Appellate Department's decision was made on a record generated in the trial court some time earlier. The video, not before the appellate court, was made two days before the decision was made.

I would tell you to stop lying about what I wrote but a basic element of lying is that you have to know what you're doing. You don't.

[skepticscott]

45. Ah, I get it now

There are a lot of falsehoods in what you deliberately posted as true, and when it's pointed out how they directly and explicitly contradict your position, you backpedal wildly and say those parts don't count. Nice dodge, but nothing less than I would expect from you.

[rug]

51. No you don't. You simply popped off without knowing the facts and choose not to aknowledge it.

[okasha]

21. Clearly Ms. Lee has and should have the right to determine her own fate.

She's a mentally competent adult.

But her family is also in exteme pain, and it's understandable that they would want to hold on to her as long as they can. As anyone who's been through it, or knows someone who's been through it, is aware, losing a child is devastating. Her family aren't monsters; they're responding normally to the threat of a terrible loss, whatever their rationalization.

[cbayer]

25. Agree. I have seen this happen many, many times when it had nothing to do with religion.

[skepticscott]

28. Oh really??

Please tell us about a few of those times when a family NOT motivated by religion took their loved one to court to keep them from exercising their rights, and then APPEALED that decision when it didn't go their way.

I call bullshit. Total and complete bullshit.

[skepticscott]

26. "Normally"??

How many families go to court out of fear the person they're going to lose will "go to hell"? And then APPEAL??

Not surprising that your notion of "normal" is anything but.

[okasha]

67. These people are grieving.

It is normal for grieving persons to want to hold on to a beloved child or parent or friend or whoever for as long as possible. It seems you've not had such an experience. When you do, you will understand.

[skepticscott]

70. Thanks, I got that they were grieving

And yes, I have gone through it myself (you know what you can do with your ignorant presumptions). So have many people I know. In none of those situations did things end up in court, or was such a thing even contemplated.

But please, tell us how it's "normal" on the planet you live for people to go to court to force a loved one to stay alive for as long as possible, against their own wishes, and then when that doesn't work, to go to a freaking APPEALS court. In how many of the cases when expecting the death of a loved one have you or people you know done that? 25%? 50%? 75%? Come on, okasha...convince us that you're not completely full of shit here.

[okasha]

71. I've already explained what I meant by "normal."

That you choose to misinterpret--or pretend to misinterpret--is your own problem, not mine.

[skepticscott]

72. You tried, but your explanation was bullshit

Last edited Wed Oct 10, 2012, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's what you said:

It is normal for grieving persons to want to hold on to a beloved child or parent or friend or whoever for as long as possible.

Uh, no...it's not. Relatives of terminally ill people agree to DNR orders all the time. Is that abnormal? Or is it normal for a family to say to caregivers, after their 93 year old mother has coded 6 times in the past week, "keep reviving her as many times as you have to"? Is it "normal" to go to that same 93 year old mother and tell her "Mom, the doctors say you have liver cancer, so we're going to start you on a full regimen of chemo...it will keep you alive 3 months longer", and then when she refuses, to go to court and have her declared incompetent, and force chemo on her, to keep her alive "as long as possible"? Hell, with a ventilator and a few other attachments, you can keep almost anyone "alive" for "as long as possible", as little more than an animated corpse. Apparently you regard that as "normal" too, but I doubt many people you know would agree.

As I said before, your sense of "normal" is deeply sick.

[longship]

29. Nobody wins in these cases.

My sympathy is with this woman and if it were up to me I would defer to her wishes.

I don't know what her parents are about because I don't see where they can interpret anything in the Bible that says that artificially prolonging life is mandatory to save one from hell. IMHO, they are prolonging her suffering for -- there's no other way to put it gracefully -- a delusion.

Yet I also understand their concerns. But, I would ask them to consider what would their daughter's outcome have been if she had been born just a few decades earlier. Would they then have said she was going to hell when the stroke resulted in her direct death without today's life support?

If I were a judge, I wouldn't want this case. There are no winners here.

[cbayer]

30. They see it as suicide, I think.

She's alive and conscious, so her decision to have life support withdrawn is an action that will result in her death. That's different than having an accident that results in death.

She is going to win this eventually, but I feel deeply for her parents. I can not imagine their pain.

[longship]

31. I concur. But, nobody's going to win here.

The daughter will win and her parents will be convinced that she's going to rot in hell.

The parents should be condemned for not only putting their daughter through physical agony but also emotional agony. All for what? A belief based on nothing but a delusion, that wanting a peaceful death when death is inevitable is somehow a sin.

Shame on her parents. She has strength which they do not have.

Again, there are no winners. But the parents need some serious reality checking.

I am aghast that they would do this to her. She isn't going to live through this. Why make her suffer?

[cbayer]

33. People come to truly believe that their loved one is going to recover.

I've seen it over and over again, and no amount of telling them otherwise will change their minds.

Remember Terry Schiavo? It was the parents who couldn't let go.

There is nothing more unimaginable to me than losing one of my kids. I think the hell part is only helping them hold on to their position. It's letting her go at all that is the crux of it, imo.

[skepticscott]

34. Careful now

Calling this a "delusion" will get you branded a "despicable bigot" by the religionists and apologists here. Or at least it would if you weren't so well connected. So you won't even get the usual righteous scold by the room's self-appointed scold.

[skepticscott]

37. As far as inducing vomit

you lead the pack here. Calling out arguments for someone to be allowed to control their own life and their own destiny (the most fundamental right that any human being has) as "intellectual posturing" is simply despicable. The family has had plenty of time to allow reason to play a role here, and instead they've chosen to double down on religious idiocy and presumption (as apparently you have too), by appealing the decision to allow their daughter to enjoy her most basic and fundamental right.

[Leontius]

44. If you've ever had to live through this I might have respect for what you think

but I doubt you have, so I repeat myself. Alert all you want .

[skepticscott]

46. And once again, you have no substance to reply with

just more flinging of poo and presumption to know me and what I've gone through.

And there's no need to alert on you...you're making a big enough fool of yourself without my calling more attention to it, and I'm happy for everyone to see it.

[cleanhippie]

57. I'm not sure what is more painful, staring my father in the face while he took his last breath...

Or enduring your hate filled, theocratic blather day after day after day.

[okasha]

68. If you don't know the difference between the proper response to losing your father

and feelings evoked by reading messages that disagree with you on a discussion board, you're seriously overinvolved here.

[cleanhippie]

69. You seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a shit

About what your opinion on this matter is.

You have a nice day.

[NC_Nurse]

35. Her life, her choice.

Sad that her family won't accept her wishes. Sad all around.

[mucifer]

52. People need to be educated that doctors can't cure everything. It's sad but true.

This is a natural process. We live. We die. Yes, oncology research has come a LONG way in the past 100 years. But, people do die.

I like the idea of changing the wording from "DNR Do Not Resusitate" to "AND Allow Natural Death". There is a movement in the United States to do this.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-02-DNR-natural-death_N.htm

[graham4anything]

53. reminds me- I love Charlie Crist of Florida.

why?
Because of many things, but #1 on the charts was he spit in the Bush's face by not agreeing to do what Jeb demanded. Then he did so a second time. Because he is humane.

Right on Charlie.

Terry was dead already. I felt so bad for the husband.

Parents don't own their children.

Reminds me of the zombie freaks that hang out at women's clinics and terrorize anyone outside of them. These parents are the same.

And to the nutty father- your daughter is in pain. She has a right to her own body and life.
It is tantamount to child abuse going against her wishes.She is terminally ill, she will not recover and is only alive because of the ventilator. That is not life. Especially as the woman does not want that. Living wills are legal.

BTW-is the father going to write a book like the despicable Schiavo father did and make money off of his daughter? Watch the father write book, make money and then not pay his daughter's hospital and doctor bills. Father muyst think he is God.

[1monster]

54. I can't see how pulling a plug that is keeping her artificially alive would be in any way

considered suicide.

If she is able to breathe on her own, she will not die immediately; if she is not able to breathe on her own, then her body has already made the decision to die.

I can understand life support if there is a chance that a recovery can be made. I can understand if the person on life support wants to live every possible moment that can be bought with artificial means.

I cannot understand forcing someone to remain on life support when there is no hope for a recovery and s/he can no longer tolerate the misery of being kept alive by artificial means.

[pinto]

55. Heartbreaking all around. Everyone involved faces a loss.

Everyone - Ms. Lee, her parents, her extended family and friends, the hospital staff. Each in their own way.

[tama]

58. Fear of losing

arises from love that attaches to object of love.

Perhaps we can let go of that fear only by loving completely, accepting all.