Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wanginst.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!wanginst!traite
From: traite@wanginst.UUCP (Paul Traite)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: life insurance and disconnecting life-support devices
Message-ID: <616@wanginst.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-May-85 09:41:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: wanginst.616
Posted: Thu May 23 09:41:38 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 24-May-85 22:24:06 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 29


	 I've had these thoughts for a while, but publicity on a recent
	 case got me to thinking (dangerous, I know) about the topic
	 again.  A man has been in a coma for two years, medical diagnosis
	 is no hope for recovery (brain dead).  The man's wife, the man's
	 brothers, the family clergy all agree that he wouldn't have
	 wanted to remain connected to life-support; they want the
	 hospital to disconnect all life-support, including feeding.  The
	 hospital (I'm not sure if any of the doctors are involved) are
	 refusing to disconnect.  Obviously (this is America), its in the
	 courts now.

	 My question is this:  suppose that the courts rule that he can be
	 disconnected.  If he has life insurance, will the company pay up?
	 The reason I think it is open to debate is that I believe that
	 life insurance policies exclude pay-off for 'suicide'.  If the
	 courts allow disconnection because the man would have wanted it,
	 might this be construed as suicide?

	 Delving further into the gray area of debate, what if the reason
	 for the man's coma was that he attempted to commit suicide?  (In
	 the case that sparked this article, the man's coma was due to a
	 burst anurism in the brain).

					Paul Traite
-- 

		uucp	...!decvax!wanginst!traite
		csnet	traite%wanginst@csnet-relay