I can't believe she's out!

[downzero]

Unrecorded verbal contracts are considered a bad idea for a reason. They devolve into he said/she said. I agree that the court was left with a nasty choice, but IMO they made the wrong one. Morally, they needed to start with the base presumption that she wanted to live, and require documented proof that this was not the case.

There's at least some movement within the biomedical ethics community to declare people like her as "dead." Obviously the law hasn't caught up. For the record, I don't agree with this, but there's definitely been some discussion on it in peer-reviewed journals.

An incapacitated person must have someone else make decisions for them. Keeping someone "alive" for decades because it's technically possible makes no sense. In our society, the person who gets to make that decision is your next of kin, which for her, meant her husband.

I'm sure we all know how difficult it'd be to make such a decision.

For the record, if I'm ever in that position, please pull the plug as soon as possible. I don't ever want to "live" like that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There's at least some movement within the biomedical ethics community to declare people like her as "dead." Obviously the law hasn't caught up. For the record, I don't agree with this, but there's definitely been some discussion on it in peer-reviewed journals.

An incapacitated person must have someone else make decisions for them. Keeping someone "alive" for decades because it's technically possible makes no sense. In our society, the person who gets to make that decision is your next of kin, which for her, meant her husband.

I'm sure we all know how difficult it'd be to make such a decision.

For the record, if I'm ever in that position, please pull the plug as soon as possible. I don't ever want to "live" like that.

I'm sure it was a difficult decision for her husband to make, being that he was living with another woman and had kids with that woman. If he'd divorced his wife, he would have had to share his estate with her. Swearing that she'd had an unverifiable conversation about an unlikely subject was a convenient way to avoid divorce and get rid of a burden he obviously didn't want to deal with.

And now I have to slap my own wrist for engaging in the same kind of judicial armchair quarterbacking I've accused others of...

 

[downzero]

I'm sure it was a difficult decision for her husband to make, being that he was living with another woman and had kids with that woman. If he'd divorced his wife, he would have had to share his estate with her. Swearing that she'd had an unverifiable conversation about an unlikely subject was a convenient way to avoid divorce and get rid of a burden he obviously didn't want to deal with.

And now I have to slap my own wrist for engaging in the same kind of judicial armchair quarterbacking I've accused others of...

I guess if your wife has a catastrophic accident that leaves her unlikely to ever recover, you won't "remarry." My view is obviously different.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I guess if your wife has a catastrophic accident that leaves her unlikely to ever recover, you won't "remarry." My view is obviously different.

If my wife ever has a catastrophic accident that leaves her unlikely to recover, I plan to honor my marriage vows. I certainly won't father a child on another woman and hope for (or arrange for - as some think) my wife to die so I don't have to divide our estate in a divorce.

 

[downzero]

If my wife ever has a catastrophic accident that leaves her unlikely to recover, I plan to honor my marriage vows. I certainly won't father a child on another woman and hope for (or arrange for - as some think) my wife to die so I don't have to divide our estate in a divorce.

Well obviously either:

1. You fail to understand that this woman, if it were up to God, was already dead. Only by artificial means was she kept alive at all.

or

2. Disagree that this woman's condition was that bad, which people did while she was still "alive." An autopsy revealed that her head was full of water. She had absolutely no hope for recovery.

If wedding vows include permanently forgoing any hope of having children because my wife is permanently and irreversibly comatose, I definitely never want to marry.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well obviously either:

1. You fail to understand that this woman, if it were up to God, was already dead. Only by artificial means was she kept alive at all.

or

2. Disagree that this woman's condition was that bad, which people did while she was still "alive." An autopsy revealed that her head was full of water. She had absolutely no hope for recovery.

If wedding vows include permanently forgoing any hope of having children because my wife is permanently and irreversibly comatose, I definitely never want to marry.

Apparently her family didn't feel that way, no matter what the autopsy revealed. But that has nothing to do with either honoring a marriage vow which one has made (presumably, "until death do we part") or, if that is untenable, getting a divorce and severing the relationship.

 

[downzero]

Apparently her family didn't feel that way, no matter what the autopsy revealed. But that has nothing to do with either honoring a marriage vow which one has made (presumably, "until death do we part") or, if that is untenable, getting a divorce and severing the relationship.

What family? Is her husband not her family?

This man spent a lot of money litigating to make sure his wife's wishes were realized. There's not a shred of evidence that any of it was in bad faith, either.

If you don't want your wife to be making these sorts of decisions, my suggestion is that you don't get married.

 

[dross]

Apparently her family didn't feel that way, no matter what the autopsy revealed. But that has nothing to do with either honoring a marriage vow which one has made (presumably, "until death do we part") or, if that is untenable, getting a divorce and severing the relationship.

I think the point downzero was making is there's a question as to "what is dead?"

I think this is a very complex issue, and I don't see how anyone can be very sure about any of it. I understand some people are guided by their spiritual views, but I don't know of a spiritual code that answers every question in this situation. Dead used to be a lot simpler 2000 years ago in the desert. Now it's complicated.

The fact that we can keep air in someone's lungs and keep their blood moving around and therefore keep their tissues alive doesn't to me automatically mean they're alive.

Am I bound to my wife as long as modern medicine can keep her tissues alive even if there's no mind left? Are my vows to her flesh or her mind?

I can't fault her family, either. I see both choices as horrific. Now what? The only think I think I know for sure is that the answer isn't easy. I look with suspicion on those who say it's cut and dried.