The Schiavo issue

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But this all started well before he moved on. It should have been done then and there. Next of kin (spouse) should have had the right to make the decission. He was denied that right and has been fighting ever since. So just because his life circumstances have changed due to the absurb amount of time, he should still have that right.

I think this is the key. These aren't easy decisions. And different people may have conflicting views on what should happen. Plug the plug or no? Donate organs or no? Continue extraordinary measures or no?

They're terrible, gut-wrenching decisions. Medical science is a double-edged sword -- on the one hand, medicine gives wonderful hopes of life and recovery that even a hundred years ago could never have been imagined. On the other hand, it requires mere mortals, without the gift of foresight, to make irreversable decisions on whether a particular individual is likely to ever recover. What a horrible scale to balance -- the financial and emotional cost to the living of sustaining the unknowing body v. the terrible crushing guilt that maybe someday they'll wake up.

I sincerely hope that's a decision I will never have to make.

The concept of next of kin is intended to facilitate this decision-making process, as much as is possible, by outlining who has responsibility for that ultimate decision. In some more fortunate cases, the living left behind are in agreement over the proper course of action. In some cases, there are disagreements that are quite literally matters of life and death.

But the court system is not equipped to handle these on a case by case basis. And inevitably there will be situations where good, rational people will hold differing opinions on the proper course of action. And unless there's some obvious, underlying issue, such as a ginormous inheritance, there has to be a system that determines who "wins" in the win-less situation.

"Next of Kin" is supposed to resolve these differences by determining whose voice will speak for the patient. And the first candidate is spouse, if one exists and is competent to make the decision. It is the nature of human frailty that there will be some philanderking jerks or back-stabbing hos who will see an opportunity for enormous personal gain and make what any rational person would see is the wrong decision. Ideally the court system is available to help in these extreme situations.

The instant case appears to be an example of "what happens when this all goes horribly wrong." It should not drag on this long. The husband gets to say yay or nay. We could speculate all day whether or not she feels pain, whether or not she's aware, whether or not she has any quality of life, whether or not she'll ever recover. And the truth is that we don't know. No one knows. We might have our suspicions, but they are, at best, theories.

It's horrible to watch your last hope be extinguished. Her eyes open; it seems like she could snap out of it at any moment. How awful it must be for the parents to watch what they see as marvelous potential wither away. But absent any compelling evidence for future brain activity, it's the husband's decision to make. And barring any compelling evidence to the contrary, we have to assume he's doing what he believes is in her best interest, regardless of what we might think of him or his decision.