You seem to be suggesting that the default position is to end life when a person is in a persistent vegetative state.
I didn't mean to suggest anything, just asking you to clarify.
It is my understanding that the default position is to take all necessary measures to sustain such life, and that ending such life requires an express written directive or a court order.
That is my understanding as well. The Slate article posted earlier today made the point that the court typically looks to the spouse to speak to the wishes of the patient when there is no written advance directive. That default makes sense to me, although I'm receptive to suggestions to improve it given the stakes and the risk of conflict of interest. In any event, that's the protocol that was followed in the Schiavo case.
It sounded to me like you were "suggesting" that, in the absence of a written directive, all patients should be kept alive, period, rather than appointing a family member to speak for the patient regarding removal of support as is the current default and as was done in this case. You said:
"If she wanted to die, she should have written out a living will stating this clearly and unambiguously. What she is alleged to have told her husband is hearsay. As events have shown, he has a conflict of interest."
I asked:
"So would you change the current protocol to one that mandates that all measures to be taken in each case to sustain life unless there is an advance directive? Or are you speaking just to the Schiavo case? "
I couldn't tell if you were finding fault with the choice of the husband in this particular case. Or whether you would change the default to keep patients without advance directives alive regardless of hearsay evidence that that's not what they would have wanted. Or whether you're just saying that it's too bad she didn't put her wishes in writing. Or what.
My own opinion, as I stated earlier, is that the current default is appropriate, in general, and that what happened in the Schivo case, although ugly, was the correct procedure that was inappropriately interrupted by the Florida legislature. This is a difficult example because the husband seems to be such a jerk and the parents seem so hopeful. But we don't know all the details and perhaps after thirteen years of dealing with this he's just worn out and cranky and they're just dreaming. I'm assuming that the court knew the details and would not have abetted a murder... |
