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