Why not sign a living will instead of the will to live?

Many people who simply do not want what they see as a lot of medical technology prolonging the last few hours or days of their lives when they are terminally ill sign living wills. If you do, in many states you may not know what you're really signing.

Webster's Dictionary defines "terminal" as "of or in the final stages of a fatal disease." And this is what the ordinary person thinks: that somebody who is "terminally ill" is someone who will inevitably die, whose death cannot be prevented by medical treatment.

But in many states, that is not what it means. Instead, for the purposes of the living will you are legally in a "terminal condition" even if your life could be saved - - so as to live indefinitely - - by medical treatment, as long as you have an incurable condition or disability that would lead to your death if denied treatment.

If you sign a legal document you ought to be able to expect that the words in it mean what they are generally understood to mean. If you sign a contract selling your "car" you should not later discover that a legislative act has defined "car" to include "house" and that you're now homeless. But that is exactly what the laws in many states have done with the wording of their living wills.

Another example: Many people who would not want what they consider the extremes of medical technology would be horrified at the idea of being starved to death. But the laws of most states define the medical treatment that is refused by their living wills to include food and water. While a few states at least have a "check-off" so you can choose whether or not to be ...