Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (106392)	3/28/2005 2:18:00 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

I agree totally with your thoughts here CB. For whatever it's worth. This will be a watershed event. Because death is something that every one of us will go through, it becomes a personal situation, and thus emotional. I've always thought it was so very sad to hear of stories that people who have been married for 45 years and many more, come to where one of them is severely incapacitate. Sometimes the spouse of the ill person kills them at the request of the ill spouse. Then that person is called a murderer. In the Schiavo case, the husband didn't divorce, and certainly didn't adhere to "till death do us part" for the better part of the last 12 years till present.... He had the feeding and hydration tube pulled, and yet, he isn't called a murderer.

To: Ilaine who wrote (106392)	3/28/2005 2:21:23 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

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

To: Ilaine who wrote (106392)	3/28/2005 2:34:23 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

You would eliminate any spouse or parent from the decision making pool because they may have to pay some of the medical bills . 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,

To: Ilaine who wrote (106392)	3/28/2005 2:46:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

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 don't see how that could be made to work. The spouse always has an interest in whether his or her partner dies. Often do the adult children, as well. If there is a conflict of interest, you are not likely to know of it in a timely way. You can't possibly hire a PI and accountant and launch an investigation of the parties sufficiently timely for most life and death decisions, not to mention the cost of that. And, if the conflict becomes patent, it would be after the decision, which, in the case of a choice for death, would be too late. I think you'd be trading in one set of problems for another, and a less manageable set, to boot. The spouse is in the best position to know. I think you have to trust the spouse and adult children as the default unless some conflict just screams at you. In a case that drags on like the Schiavo case did, the judge might want leave room to assign a neutral guardian once questions were raised. I don't see how you could go further. Add to the morals of this story: marry with care or sign an advance directive. I think this is a watershed event in our history I agree.