b, filed by Republican senator John Loudon, would "change the laws regarding a legal dispute over custody of a person in a persistent vegetative state. Loudon's proposal would give custody to whichever party wants to continue care."
This says that whenever there's a dispute, completely ignore the patient's wishes or perceived wishes, ignore the character of those involved in the dispute, and just keep the patient alive, because, uh, because, we said so. Consider a polar opposite case: Joan Doe wants to keep her brain-dead feeding-tubed husband, Joe, alive, while the husband's parents want to let him die, because Joe has told many people that he would not want to be kept alive like that---so many that no one disputes it. Joe's a millionaire. Joe and Joan didn't get along in recent years, and Joe left Joan practically nothing in his will. Joan wants to keep him alive against his well-known wishes because when he dies, she loses his money. But because Joe doesn't have a living will and because there's a dispute, due to this law Joe's custody would be given to Joan. It's an extreme and fabricated example, but it reveals the fundamental problems with this proposed law.
It's not wise to base legal authority and custody by the position of the people involved---to unconditionally say the life side is the right side. Again, I propose legal authority based on character and intention. If the Does went to court with my proposed law, Joan would lose custody because the husband's parents could bring a convincing case that Joan had selfish and corrupt reasons for her position.
I do not support SB 547 and will also try to contact my representatives and tell them so.
Edmond the Hun
No comments:
Post a Comment