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?Okay; hell is a lifetime of chronic pain and disability. — Brett
taken it out of America — tim wood
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
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
So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband? — Brett
Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her? — Brett
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
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
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
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.