{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016222479721900347, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002317497103128621, 'mean_word_length': 4.574193548387097, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In re Swan.


 Chad Swan was 17 years old at the time he suffered a head injury that left him in a persistent vegetative state. He had been fed by a gastrostomy tube that was removed when his body rejected it. A gastroenterology specialist recommended that Chad be allowed to die. Chad's parents agreed, stating that prior to the injury Chad had voiced his disapproval of artificial life support. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine supported the decision of a lower court and ruled that, because Chad had expressed his views in the context of serious discussion with family members, and because the state recognizes different ages at which a person may attain capacity to consent, the lower court committed no error in respecting Chad's desires, voiced shortly before he reached the age of majority, and in not ordering surgical reinsertion of the feeding tube.
