Greg Swann kindly takes time out to reply to my last: ...but my view is that Richard's take falls apart because consent can only be expressed--or revoked--in real-time, not in advance. If I understand and am restating it accurately, Greg argues that you cannot rightly hold someone to something they have consented to in advance—if—either they revoke such consent later—or—are in a state where they are unable to affirm or revoke consent later. Assuming I've treated his argument fairly, then I'd have to say that I just don't agree, in general. The whole point of this exercise is about being in a predicament where one cannot affirm or revoke consent (otherwise moot). What Greg seems to be arguing is that you should not have the moral authority over your own disposition to lay out in explicit terms, that: "If I ever end up incapacitated, cannot communicate, and the mediacal prognosis is for no material improvement, then kill me, no matter what, by any means you choose." I understand Greg's argument to be that if I were to do that for myself, and were then to end up in such predicament, then it would be morally wrong for someone to carry...