-=d=- said:
You guys are topic-jumping:
Does a Husband/Wife have the 'right' to make the hard choices for a spouse, in spite of parents' wishes?
vs
Is Terri's husband doing the right thing?
Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that the husband is in fact doing the "right thing" and that he is indeed attempting to implement the wishes his wife expressed. If I were subject to such circumstance, then I would no doubt do whatever I could to assure that my wife's wishes were honored.
Problem is, we (society) only have the word of the surviving spouse for that. Therein lies the obstacle.
Let's abandon the specifics of the Schiavo case in favor of broader issues that relate to this. First, we as a society maintain that killing another human being is wrong. It is punishable as murder or manslaughter. Second, some evidence of intent is required to act on behalf of a spouse in some very mundane things. If a spouse owns property of any kind which is in his or her name only, the other spouse needs a power of attorney to dispose of that property. Yet some in this discussion seem to think that society should accept the death of a human being on faith - with no evidence other than the word of the surviving spouse. These same people seem to resist the idea of a living will which would enable them to legally carry out the wishes of a spouse unable to act for him or herself. Apparently they take the attitude that this is an issue in which society has no say.
Well that is simply arrogant and unrealistic. One of the most fundamental and legitimate functions of government is to protect the helpless from the depradation of the powerful. What is more helpless than a comatose person or an infant in the womb? Society has a right to demand certain standards of conduct. Society has an obligation to protect the helpless. These two principles go hand in hand.
So while I have no basis for being suspicious of the husband's motivation, I believe that in order to end a human life, we as a society have an obligation to assure that the actions requested by the surviving spouse are indeed those requested by the spouse who is in the coma or in the near-vegetative condition. We need to make sure that the comatose spouse desired certain actions and that the surviving spouse is not seeking to end the life of the other simply as a matter of convenience - or worse.
Both my wife and I have living wills which outline our desires should either or both of us find ourselves in a condition similar to Terry Schiavo. This serves several important purposes. First, it takes the pressure off the other spouse in regard to making an extremely painful decision. Second, it provides tangible proof that these are the wishes of the comatose spouse and not the desires of the other. And finally, if both of us were to become incapacitated simultaneously, it would provide guidance for our doctors as well as legal protection for them.
So we need to separate the emotionalism from the legalisms. We need to separate spousal obligation from spousal "rights". Each of us has a right to say what kind of medical care and life support we want for ourselves. But none of us has the right to say what kind of medical care anyone else should receive. If a spouse is critically injured and requires surgery, or requires an operation to remove a malignant tumor, the other spouse has no "right" to decide whether that operation will be performed or not. But yet we want to assert that a spouse has the right to make a decision regarding life or death. I believe that only one person can make such a decision.
So yes, I believe that a surviving spouse has an ethical and moral obligation to assure that a promise made to the other is carried out. But society has an obligation to assure that those wishes have in fact been expressed by the person who is unable to act on his or her own behalf. A living will is the bridge between the two competing obligations.
