Grease star's life support tug-of-war- the war caused over living wills.

The family of Jeff Conaway have decided to turn off his life support machine, but the decision has been blocked by the 'Grease' star's ex-girlfriend, according to reports.

Vicki Lizzi claims to be a guarantor of a living trust from 2007, which would grant her power of attorney over the 60-year-old star. If true this means that she has the legal right to decide on healthcare matters when he is unable to issue instructions himself, usurping the rights his family would otherwise assume.

Conaway's ventilator remains on while the hospital investigates the matter. Conaway has been in a deep coma since taking an overdose of painkiller earlier this month. His family have maintained a bedside vigil after the former 'Taxi' actor was admitted to a Los Angeles hospital on May 11, but doctors have told them there are no longer any signs of brain functions.

“Doctors advised the family that Jeff has had no brain function since he was brought into the hospital,” a source tell website Radar Online. “The feeding tube has already been removed.”

Conaway is best known for the role of Kenickie in 'Grease' and a stint on TV series 'Taxi'. In recent years however he was seen on 'Celebrity Rehab', the US TV show that focussed on his addiction to drink and drugs.

His manager, Kathryn Boole, told MailOnline that his struggles with substance abuse date back to the 70's, following injuries sustained on the stage while performing in Grease.

In 1980 Conaway married Grease star Olivia Newton John's sister, Rona, but the couple divorced five years later.

This is the flip side of a living will instruction. Despite his obvious condition and the medical advice Jeff's ex-partner who has full power of attorney over his medical etc wishes has stepped in and stopped the life support machine from being switched off.

Wether she done this action through spite or devotion it shows the complicated nature of a living will.

Should the living wills be more carefully monitored and give medical practices a stronger vote to terminate life in situations like this?

I think that in such a case , where he is braindead as well as clinically , then why let the machine run ? It is taking a machine which some-one else might need .

inuit wrote:

I think that in such a case , where he is braindead as well as clinically , then why let the machine run ? It is taking a machine which some-one else might need .

Logically yes it is. If it is the machine doing all the work only then they should withdraw it. All it is doing in prolonging the inevitable.

In his case the motives for prolonging could be malicious or fear of letting go. You neve know people until those times when they reveal themselves fully. His ex might turn out to be a cow or a very frightened woman.