I'm not a doctor. I'm not a lawyer but I am Sue Lawrence's sister and seems to me we talked about several issues here. He have to bear with me. I just came up from the south and we're used to warm weather. So my brain is a little Frozen. But these all do relate together. So let me ramble for about 1 minute and we'll tie it together. I think okay. I believe Mr. About indicated that it's easier to accept death instead of disability. And he also alluded to equal protection under the law. The indicated it's not who decides but what is decided? well a couple things that you might want to be aware of is when they have the hearing to replace the first temporary limited Guardian the proposed successor temporary limited Guardian an employee of mr. Bats organization. Mr. Daniel Avila Will understand and he stated now. I'm I wasn't there but it's my recollection. This will be close to a quote with something like he saw no difference between a persistent vegetative state and a disability. Bear with me please. It seems to me that based on what happened in our case and also from talking with other families. It seems to be a matter of equal protection under the law. The families have gone to court and got in court permission total family agreement generally Total Medical agreement and it seems like no one is objecting in the vast majority of these cases and it seems to be an issue of equal protection under the law only when they don't agree with you, sir. Bear with me I'm getting there. Okay, you makes it about choosing death instead of when the medical community indicate that the cause of death was the underlined accident or whatever. The precipitating event was in suitcase massive cerebral hemorrhage. She died immediately due to the pneumonia, but the underlying condition wasn't persistent vegetative state massive Hemorrhage. The question I have sir is According to the expanding you had it was my understanding was to pursue to determine whether it made sense to pursue an appeal. In a Press Club interview earlier this year up in Indianapolis with our attorney. Mr. John eckloff a very good attorney. You indicated something. Once again, it's been a long time since I've heard the tape, but something to the effect that the Indiana Supreme Court decision which indicated strangers need not apply. basically What's Tubi bemoaned? Not to be celebrated. I guess it's because I'm from the south grew up in the Indianapolis area. But you know, maybe it's the heat of the summer stare, but I don't quite understand. Could you please explain? I don't have 30 minutes to answer all of the points that you made. Let me let me suggest a couple of things that I think are important in and first I want to say to George that I just a second time that I've played Daniel and and he's played the lion in the next time next time you will go first and I will go second. So anyway, the the Just a distant address your last point. I think that's that is part of the cracks of the debate. It seems to me which is what is the reality of death? And what's the cause of death in these circumstances? And there are those that argue that because an illness or an accident has has created a quote fatal pathology in the quote. That is the inability to swallow that is that quote fatal pathology in the quote the witch is which caused the death What I think that ignores is the whole concept of Duty and omitting care to someone in analogy would be that a child fell in the swimming pool and didn't know how to swim and you were standing next to the pool. The question would be did the did the child drowned because of inability to swim or or drown because you and let's assume you were a parent and had a duty to rescue a because you failed to pull the child out of the water. well disease in these cases the the the patient will live if provided ordinary care specifically food and water the immediate cause of death is denied as denial of food and water that's readily available. So we are looking for information. For those of you not aware of my sister. There was a point made about disability of t-shirt to choose disability than death. My sister was disabled at the age of 9. She lived until the age of 42 and a very healthy family environment and a very happy situation. We did not choose death over disability and there seems to be an underlying current with several people that seem to have agendas that sing to Bb8, they tend not to want to open your eyes to certain things like that. And then we had several people. So I'm not picking up several comments to that statement. I agree, but I do not believe it was your family's or any families motivation that our desire to have the death of their other family member. I think what I'm what I'm talking about is the effect of the decision the effect of the decision to withdraw nutrition hydration is death. And and then the question is authentic be authorized by the law. I have some sympathy with mr. Bob's concern about this Abel people not being respected soap and that there are Helen Keller's there are people who are quadriplegic you can use computers with their teeth. There are severely mentally disabled people who enjoy television may be at the level of Gilligan's Island, but they enjoy it just the same. You began by talking about a life worth living or we might sail life worth prolonging. My concern is it all the cases? We've talked about our people in permanent vegetative state now, they may be worth living for us because utilitarian we can we can treat them. Nobody in that will make us feel more noble. But from their perspective if you cannot consciously say. Lee even at severely retarded level participate or engage your environment. What's worth living about that particularly since almost all of these were religious families who believe in the Hereafter? So if it was this life or nothing this one might say well better this than nothing this but if they believe in the Hereafter then why is it worth living non consciously, what's the what's the worth living about that for the patient. I think the premise of your question is is that you would doubt that it that it is and I would just simply say that's totally subjective. No, I'm asking you why you think it is. What what is what is valuable to the patient about being alive non-conscious? Because I think that life has intrinsic value that it it did life. The value of life is not conditioned on the extent to which it is lived in a quality way Meeting those attributes of Life, which we most enjoy or most value but it is intrinsically valuable to the person.