But then you seem to have backed away with the zero conclusion. — Brett

What does "backed away with the zero conclusion" mean?

I thought it meant both parties have zero rights over the victim.

Isn't this @schopenhauer1s thoughts in action, not just theory.

oh ok sorry. That's what you meant

But then you seem to have backed away with the zero conclusion. Which still leaves the victim caught between — Brett

Yes it does. I don't know what to do in the scenario you posited. I just don't

What would be stopping them from ending their life (or having it ended by doctors) after they regained consciousness?

What if they wish to continue living despite the pain? Examples of people living with pain are many, so this should be considered.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, consider that this person has never had the chance to say farewell to their loved ones. If I had to trade a day of suffering to be given that chance, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Because by that point there is no way out of the pain they've been given. You have knowingly rebirthed them into a world of pain. — Brett

Lots of people end up in a world of pain and are entirely competent to decide their own future. Most people actually choose to go forward, pain and all. Some opt for suicide, but most don't.

In your OP, you ask who should make the decision? Spouse trumps parents for adults.

These are very difficult issues for people to sort through once they are faced with the question of what to do. That's why, as Hanover said, one should establish what one's preferences are before one is comatose. There are preferences such as "Do Not Resuscitate", "No 'heroic' efforts to maintain life", no intubation, and so on. If you don't want to be resuscitated, intubated, or have the crash cart rushed to your bedside to get your heart going again, then you will most likely be allowed to die. But... you have to make these preferences clear to those who are close to you (and can act on your behalf), and your doctor (who might be on hand when the accident happens, but maybe not).

Have you prepared a living will? I have not -- I should definitely get it done.

Spouse trumps parents for adults. — Bitter Crank

Are you quoting law or your own feelings?

What would be stopping them from ending their life (or having it ended by doctors) after they regained consciousness? — Tzeentch

If euthanasia was available to them it could help. If they were Catholuc it would not. (Not totally sure on that, though).

If they were very religious ending their life while in a coma would not be an option either.

Imagine this; a woman of 40 years is severely injured in an accident, so severely that if she recovers then her life will be hell.

Her parents want her taken off life support to be allowed to die. Her husband wants her kept on life support until she recovers.

Setting aside legal positions, who should have the final decision? — Brett

A situation that's a reminder for us all that we need to make our choice under such circumstances known beforehand to save your loved ones, if you have any, the agony of making life-and-death decisions for you. It's unfair on anyone's part to put others in moral dilemmas like this when a one page note expressing your decision can be written in five minutes and given legal force much much earlier than it'll ever be required.

That said I think the scenario doesn't do justice to the actual issue at stake in euthanasia which is a dilemma between living with severe pain or murder (disconnect life support). Perhaps the husband represents the intuition that removing life support amounts to murder and the parents stand for our belief that death is better than a life of pain.

Your scenario pits the husband against the parents as if one of them has greater say in the decision. That this is false is betrayed by your inclusion of the condition "her life will be hell" and "until she recovers". These conditions of her future state are the true determinants of what the choice should be and the relations of being wife or child have absolutely no bearing on the decision except in the capacity of an executor. The decision depends on one and only one factor - the quality of her existence in terms of how much suffering will be a part of it.

In some ways I may be making this as difficult as possible so that we have to dig deeper. Yes there is only one factor to consider, the quality of her existence. Which is unknown and cannot be taken back once committed to.

I understand that there are people who overcome the pain and live a life as best they can. I don’t know how many find it intolerable or end up taking their life.

Just to dig a little deeper. A mother’s love for her child is unconditional, not always but generally. A husband’s love for his wife is not nearly so unconditional. It’s conditional on a number of things, one being that she love him back. Would he still love her the same way if she said she did not love him and loved another and was going to live with that man?

Can the mother of the victim be sure the husband will commit himself to his wife whatever the circumstances or how long they went on for? Would he be prepared to put himself second the way mothers do with their children? Dos he understand the sort of commitment made by mothers, which is what would be required from him? I don’t know what it’s like to give birth to a child and watch it grow. That’s something that perhaps is impossible to be explained to me. So the depth of feeling for a mother about the suffering of her child may be something that is beyond the law.

I think that's the law in many states, applying to married adults, or adults who have designated a person to have power of attorney for them.

As for spouse vs parent, I don't have any feelings about it one way or the other -- just that it needs to be clear who has the power to decide, in the event of incompetence, medical emergency, coma, etc.

In some ways I may be making this as difficult as possible so that we have to dig deeper. Yes there is only one factor to consider, the quality of her existence. Which is unknown and cannot be taken back once committed to.

I understand that there are people who overcome the pain and live a life as best they can. I don’t know how many find it intolerable or end up taking their life.

Just to dig a little deeper. A mother’s love for her child is unconditional, not always but generally. A husband’s love for his wife is not nearly so unconditional. It’s conditional on a number of things, one being that she love him back. Would he still love her the same way if she said she did not love him and loved another and was going to live with that man?

Can the mother of the victim be sure the husband will commit himself to his wife whatever the circumstances or how long they went on for? Would he be prepared to put himself second the way mothers do with their children? Dos he understand the sort of commitment made by mothers, which is what would be required from him? I don’t know what it’s like to give birth to a child and watch it grow. That’s something that perhaps is impossible to be explained to me. So the depth of feeling for a mother about the suffering of her child may be something that is beyond the law. — Brett

Oh! Thanks for the clarification. This isn't about euthanasia as I supposed. All I know is love is invariably associated with what maybe called high expecations and, paradoxically, with poor performance. When you love someone, you have high expectations from yourself but, at some point, you realize that the world exerts a certain amount of stress on everyone and it doesn't take long for the last straw to gently float down and break the camel's back i.e. people usually have a poor performance record in love. True love would and does recognize the limits of how much a person can give/take in the real world and true love exists within those limits.

Are you saying you-all got to kill your father all by yourselves? No legal form observed or judgment made, no prior determination of right? — tim wood

The cause of death was kidney failure, despite your attempt to mischaracterize it as a killing. In any event, you've now taken a different approach, which is to condemn the cessation of medical treatment in all instances as some form of murder. That would be the case from a moral perspective (assuming we adhere to your definition of what constitutes a killing) regardless of whether it was the result of the deliberations of the family or of some judge or whoever it might be that society has designated as the decision maker. That is to say, the relevance of who decides seems as aside if you're taking the approach that the decision itself is per se unjustifiable.

But, as to your question, yes. It was a family decision. That's how it works. I don't really know what you envision actually happens day to day, as if the courts are clogged with thousands of petitioners asking judges to decide the day to day course of medical treatment for the terminally ill. The decision the family made was simply whether to lead a terribly dying man who had no understanding of what was going on back to the dialysis clinic and whether to continue carting him back and forth several times a week. That did not require court involvement. Maybe you think it should, but I don't see from a moral perspective why that ought to be.

As to the question, it wasn't who was better suited, it was, "who should have the final decision?" Had it been, of the two, which has the greater right? — tim wood

That was the question I gleaned from the OP.

It's never too soon to put a DNR order in place....

That's the question. So what is "everything"? There is no one resolving it except us. — Brett

Everything is the nature, quality, and purposes of the relationships, as well as the presence or absence of influencing considerations. And one might reflexively choose parents over spouse or spouse over parents, but both have a say, if either does. If I'm the judge, then I want to hear from both, and I want to know lot about the circumstances and condition of the victim. Google Terri Schiavo.

This is the question now; is the love of the mother greater than the husband?

How is that relevant? And are you thinking that the love of one is always greater then the love of an other? If you want the question to be taken seriously as a real question, then make it real, with real considerations.

I'm asking if one is greater than the other.

In any event, you've now taken a different approach, which is to condemn the cessation of medical treatment in all instances as some form of murder. — Hanover

But, as to your question, yes. It was a family decision. That's how it works. — Hanover

No, I haven't. And no it isn't. It's just not that simple. And I'm astonished if you think it is. If you do, then we can continue, but do we really have an issue here worth continuing?

I'm asking if one is greater than the other. — Brett

My answer is that the answer depends on the individuals. If you think it doesn't, make your case.

Yes, we could say say it depends on the individual. We could compare the love of one husband for his wife to another husbands love for his wife, and we could compare the love of one mother for her child to another mother and her love for her child. But the comparison of the love of a mother compared to the love of a husband is not so easy. So to say it depends on the individual is of no help whatsoever.

Those who are pro abortion insist that a woman can do what she wants with her body, so when does a child no longer belong to her? It’s this aspect I’m alluding to when I compare the love of the mother and husband.

I’m assuming your male, so I don’t know how you can be sure of yourself here. But set me right if you believe you can?

But, as to your question, yes. It was a family decision. That's how it works. — Hanover

And no it isn't. It's just not that simple — tim wood

No, not that simple, but that’s how it happens. You seem to be very dependent on some outside authority to make a moral decision for you, but you don’t say who.

I don't know what to do in the scenario you posited. I just don't — khaled

And yet a decision is required.

I told you my decision already: it depends on the patient but I lean towards pulling the plug. What I don't know the answer to is which of two strangers close to a third stranger should have control over the third stranger's future. I cannot conceive of a situation where I would have to make that decision

I wasn’t meaning to harass you, just agreeing with the difficulty.

No, not that simple, but that’s how it happens. You seem to be very dependent on some outside authority to make a moral decision for you, but you don’t say who. — Brett

Allow me to refer you back to the OP:

Her parents want her taken off life support to be allowed to die. Her husband wants her kept on life support until she recovers. Setting aside legal positions, who should have the final decision? — Brett

Why so determined to misunderstand me? Pulling the plug on anyone living (in this context) is killing them. The community has an interest in who's killing whom and why and how and with what safeguards and on what authority. Satisfying these may be a matter of simple routine, or even a law suit that occupies the national consciousness for weeks. But one way or another, simple or not, the requirements get satisfied, or else.

The moral decision is to an ought or a should. But ought or should by itself never did anything, they being essentially statements about the person making the decision. The decision to kill may be a moral decision - maybe should be a moral decision. But it precedes, is prior to, the pulling of any plugs. Pulling the plug is simply the result of the decision to pull the plug. Two different decisions about two very different things. And useful to be able to distinguish between the two.

To be sure, the person who actually pulls the plug arguably has their own moral decision to make, and presumably they've made it.

In the OP is the phrase, "until she recovers." I am not aware of any way to legally kill anyone simply because their illness is inconvenient, taking the possibility of recovery as meaning that the illness is just inconvenient.

But it's pretty clear that the OP is just a way to ask one question in the form of another. The question you've asked isn't answerable as you would seemingly like it to be answered, unless amputated from any reality. Why not, then, ask the question that's really on your mind?

Why not, then, ask the question that's really on your mind? — tim wood

Which is what?