Oh, I tried to keep the story simple so it wouldn't be confusing but in the episode of 24 that brought about the "discussion," some guys tried to kill the president because they thought he was making a poor decision and they wanted the vice president in charge. But he didn't die, he was just in a coma. But then the vice president was going to send a nuclear bomb over to a country who was helping the terrorists which other people thought would just start up WWIII so they wanted the president back in charge and woke him up. Now, I realize that this post makes me seem way into 24, but I am not really, it is a little too violent for my tastes, but I was just so appalled that Craig would just kill me off like that. That is precisely why I am never going to run for President.
Craig and I had a little disagreement last night over a moral/ethical hypothetical situation. We thought you, our loyal readers, might like to chime in with your views. (If any of you have seen the last season of 24, this story might seem vaguely familiar, and in fact, it did serve as the impetus for the discussion - but don't let how that story turned out affect your decision one way or the other please).
Okay, say one's wife is in a induced coma that is allowing her to survive the swelling due to severe brain trauma. Taking her off the medicine that is keeping her in a coma would most likely kill her or at least cause severe retardation. But she needs to be awakened because she is the only person that can stop the U.S. from launching a nuclear attack on the middle east that could quite possible starting World War III. You, the husband, are the only person with the legal ability to override the doctor's decision to keep her in a coma. Would you wake her up and risk killing her in order to save the lives of the many people who might die in the future or would you let her heal and risk another world war? Is your obligation to save the life of your wife more or less important than the lives of a larger amount of people you haven't mad vows to?
I will withhold both of our views until the people have spoken. Then whoever dared to disagree with me, even unknowingly, will never be called my friend again - just kidding, we really would like to know what you think.
I think this is a question that would be answered differently depending upon the couple. If I were the one in a coma, I would want my husband to wake me up to save the world, and I hope if I married the guy, then he would know that to be my desire. But I'm assuming some women would rather live, and the husband would know that, too. I guess I'm putting a lot of faith in the fact that the husband should know what the wife would want done, but I guess that wouldn't always be the case. But for me personally, wake me up! Then again, there's always the thought that if the woman has brain swelling, other trauma, and has been in a coma for a while, would she even be able to think clearly in time to remember the world saving info?? Probably not, but who knows.
ReplyDeletei vote for saving many...
ReplyDeletebut i don't know if i could make this decision if i had to...
I think you wake her up, because it only *might* cause brain damage. And beforehand I'd tell the doctors to give me an outside estimate of how long she could maybe be awake before it would slide toward *definite* brain damage. The government would get that much time and that much time only to question her, and if it didn't work out, well then they'd have to find some other way to avert war.
ReplyDelete