First question: what's "hell"?

Implicit though not stated is that the victim is not now nor ever will be conscious. On the other hand, there's the notion of recovery - which is it? And can you kill someone who has a chance of recovery? And does it make a difference that it's a husband and not a wife? How about age and family?

And you've mentioned wants. Is it ever really that simple?

All these make a difference. Without detail, it's really unanswerable..

Okay; hell is a lifetime of chronic pain and disability.

The victim is unconscious but could become conscious on the basis of ongoing medical care.

Assuming someone can be killed even though they may return to consciousness.

No children. Husband or wife; I don’t see any difference.

Okay; hell is a lifetime of chronic pain and disability. — Brett

If the victim is unconscious, then what pain and disability? And if you're willing to assume people can be killed, then how, why, on what basis, on what authority?

I'm not exactly sure what the question is. As stated you've simplified it to the point where there is no question. As to husband or wife, it might make a difference in a Moslem country.

If she recovers she will live with chronic pain and disability.

Being killed on the basis that euthanasia is legal.

Being a Moslem it might, so let’s say it’s not a Moslem.

The question is quite clear.

The question is quite clear. — Brett

"Should" is never clear. Tell us what you mean by it.

Who has the right regarding the victim to decide her future if it is to be between the husband or parents?

No one. In limiting it to parent and spouse, you've effectively taken it out of America, where, I believe, even the comatose are entitled to representation. There is the issue of competency. The victim first has to be ruled incompetent. If incompetent, often such people are assigned a lawyer to represent their interests. That is, even if all the family on all sides are in agreement, that's not by itself enough. I said no one; maybe I "should" amend that to the court with jurisdiction.

Are you asking who should as in: "In any given situation should the spouse or parents take priority" or as in: "Which do you side with the spouse or the parent"

If it's the first: idk
If it's the second: I am leaning towards the parents but it really depends on how hellish hell is

taken it out of America — tim wood

Did anyone ever say this was in America in the first place? I can't find that. Not that I think it would matter

I did say "imagine this", and "set aside legal issues".

it really depends on how hellish hell is — khaled

A life you wouldn't chose for anyone.

As an antinatalist I wouldn't choose any life for anyone so this doesn't tell me much

To be honest, I think there should be an official way to deal with these situations in the first place. People should be able to write a "bearable life standard" where they specify the degree of injury overwhich they want their lifesupport to be unplugged. Just remove the whole sticky ethical dilemma by making them take the decision beforehand. And maybe introduce a yearly reminder to update the standard so people don't forget

This is not about law but a moral decision, without the aid of a legal system to help.

So you're asking who I side with, the parents or spouse? Again, depends on how hellish hell is and what I know about the person. Though I side with the parents on this one

Though I side with the parents on this one — khaled

Any reason why?

I think in this scenario you should try to act as you believe the patient would have acted and I think most people would want their life support cut off in that scenario (which is why I said depends on the person)

So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband?

Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her?

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

Could there not be different right answers depending on the specific person in question? Some people might be motivated by religious ideas, others by empathy, others by selfish reasons.

In general, how can we ever know that we are doing the right thing? Especially when it comes to the welfare of others. Should people be given what they want, or what they need? Who knows best?

In the end, the best you can do is to be brutally candid with yourself about what your own motives are, then proceed from there.

Ideally, the victim has signed a power of attorney prior to her injury that sets out her wishes if she becomes incapacitated and sets forth who has the power to decide for her. Assuming she has opted not to affirmatively clarify, she has effectively deferred to whatever the law states. My assumption is that it would be the spouse and not the parents who would then decide because upon marriage, one is generally considered fully emancipated from their parents' control.

I know your question was a moral question and not a legal one, but I think the morality is tied to the fact that we're trying to express the wishes of the victim, and I do impute some responsibility upon the victim for their decisions prior to victimhood, which would include their decision to allow the law to decide for them in the event they didn't otherwise specify a different course.

No one. In limiting it to parent and spouse, you've effectively taken it out of America, where, I believe, even the comatose are entitled to representation. There is the issue of competency. The victim first has to be ruled incompetent. If incompetent, often such people are assigned a lawyer to represent their interests. That is, even if all the family on all sides are in agreement, that's not by itself enough. I said no one; maybe I "should" amend that to the court with jurisdiction. — tim wood

You're suggesting that the state appoints a lawyer to every person in a nursing home who has end of life treatment decisions to make but are incapacitated to make them? Do you have a cite for that? I'm quite sure it was entirely a family decision when we decided to stop dialysis treatment for my father when he was suffering from many other ailments, including dementia.

Regardless of the dubious factual declaration, it's irrelevant to the question of the OP, which simply asked whether the spouse or the parent was the better suited person to make such decisions, specifically indicating that they were not interested in what the law dictated, but only in what ought to be.

That is, when a person can't decide for themselves, do we defer to mom or spouse? Which stands in a better position to make such decisions?

So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband? — Brett

Probably yeah. (Again, depends on the victim)

Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her? — Brett

Now you're asking the first question to which I answered: I don't know
Under normal circumstances no one would have the right over her future but I don't know about this scenario

So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband?
— Brett

Probably yeah. (Again, depends on the victim)

Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her?
— Brett

Now you're asking the first question to which I answered: — khaled

I don’t think these two questions are the same.

To the first one you answer that you feel the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim.

But the second question is about who has the right over her future, her husband or the parents? Just because the parents are acting in the interests of the victim doesn’t necessarily mean they have the right to decide over the husband. The husband may feel he can nurse her and help her recovery. Nor does he want to lose the person who means more to him than anything. He may also feel he has to commit to an unspoken agreement that they would also always care for each other.

Does the mother have the right to come between the husband and wife?

My assumption is that it would be the spouse and not the parents who would then decide because upon marriage, one is generally considered fully emancipated from their parents' control. — Hanover

I think in terms of law you’re probably right. And it’s interesting that as you say, assuming it’s correct, that on marriage you are fully emancipated from your parents. But a mother may not agree in her heart about that and regard her child as something that can never be taken from her, and regard her responsibility for her child as hers until the day she dies. Her concerns will still be with her daughter, not her son in law. So there is the suffering of the mother.

Could there not be different right answers depending on the specific person in question? ...

In general, how can we ever know that we are doing the right thing? Especially when it comes to the welfare of others. Should people be given what they want, or what they need? Who knows best?

In the end, the best you can do is to be brutally candid with yourself about what your own motives are, then proceed from there. — Pantagruel

Okay, so make the brutally candid decision.

by first question I meant this:

Are you asking who should as in: "In any given situation should the spouse or parents take priority" or as in: "Which do you side with the spouse or the parent"

If it's the first: idk
If it's the second: I am leaning towards the parents but it really depends on how hellish hell is — khaled

I don't think how close you are to the victim should have any effect in the extent to which you should have control over her life. That extent is 0 for everyone

You're suggesting that the state appoints a lawyer to every person in a nursing home who has end of life treatment decisions to make but are incapacitated to make them? Do you have a cite for that? I'm quite sure it was entirely a family decision when we decided to stop dialysis treatment for my father when he was suffering from many other ailments, including dementia.

Regardless of the dubious factual declaration, it's irrelevant to the question of the OP, which simply asked whether the spouse or the parent was the better suited person to make such decisions, specifically indicating that they were not interested in what the law dictated, but only in what ought to be. — Hanover

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? 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? I'd have answered that it depends. On what? On everything. But even to ask the question vests the right in the agent resolving it. Somehow it has the makings of a decent question. It just isn't there yet.

I was trying to find your reason for siding with the parents, which was that they were thinking more of the victim's circumstances than the husband. Is that right? But then you seem to have backed away with the zero conclusion. Which still leaves the victim caught between.

Had it been, of the two, which has the greater right? I'd have answered that it depends. On what? On everything. — tim wood

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

If a fair chance exists of regaining full consciousness, and the patient has never expressed any desire for euthanasia, I don't see how it would be morally acceptable to make such a decision for them.

What is the motivation for not waiting to see if they regain consciousness and let them make the choice themselves?

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.