Personally, I'd like to see a provision in the law that a person with a conflict of interest can't make life or death decisions for an incapacitated person, or at least that there is a way to remove them from that status in the event that a conflict of interest becomes patent
I wouldn't disagree with that - it's just that I would put the bar at what constitutes a conflict of interest higher than "he stinks". A spouse may have a conflict of interest, but it is equally true that many or most parents have a very strong conflict of interest - their wish not to see their child die, and their wish not to see their child pass before them. That is why I say parents are not objective in such situations, because they are just as likely to act out of their own selfish, and understandable, desire to preserve their child's life as they are to act in accordance with the wishes of their child, or the child's best interest. A parent is apt to disregard their child's wishes out of paternalistic instinct.
So who should be regarded as the deciding voice? The one with the legal right of guardianship, or the ones without such legal rights? You know where I sit.
Your ethical position make sense if, and only if, we assume that spouses share ethical values. Having handled hundreds of divorces, I think that assumption is touchingly naive
My position makes sense if we assume the spouse is in the best position to know each others ethical values. It is my experience that parents are usually as aware of their children's ethical values as they are aware of King Tuts'. Not everyone is a good spouse, but just as few are good parents.
Derek |
