You shouldn't try to push what you morally would or wouldn't do on anyone else. It simply isn't your business.Unfortunately, what Caiomhe actually said was:
... this story made me sick from the start. I made sure my husband knows that under no circumstance am I ever to be kept alive artificially as an incubator.
Do only the "pro-life pro-choice" people get to express personal opinions about things?
There's nothing about saying that something makes one sick that supports the conclusion that the person who says it is seeking to "push" anything on anyone else at all. And I didn't see any evidence that Caiomhe was doing any such thing. She followed her statement of her feelings by saying what *she* had done about *her own* life.
This is the same fight that Michael Schiavo fought. The rights of the legal next of kin.And that really is a bizarrely simplistic statement, in this situation as it was in the Schiavo case.
Nexts-of-kin really just don't get to do whatever they want to their kin when the kin are unable to make their own decisions. There really are rules.
Some of the lines that are rules are based on aren't crystal clear, and competing interests arise in these cases as in the rest of life. One next-of-kin may focus on preserving the individual's dignity, as an expression of the value placed on him/her; another may focus on prolonging his/her life for essentially the same reason, just from a different perspective.
But if we don't imagine that society would, and think that society should, step in if someone were intent on keeping a completely brain-dead and non-functioning, and constantly deteriorating, body alive on life-support week after month ... particularly if that individual did have an obvious personal interest in doing so, whether that be to have an heir or to inherit the brain-dead individual's dying aunt's estate by having him/her outlive the aunt ... well, I think we're denying reality.
I like the security of believing that people close to me will carry out my wishes -- but also the security of knowing that society is watching over them to make sure that what they do to me really is in my best interests.
And whether what that man did was in the woman's best interests is a very serious question, that simply is not answered by facile homilies about families' rights.
Nonetheless, in this instance, when you say:
Legally it is the surviving spouse's decision what to do, whether or not you agree.... I just see someone tilting at straw folk (and someone else busily "agreeing"), because Caiomhe didn't actually say that the decision is not, or should not be, the spouse's to make. Whether one agrees with that decision is a separate issue, and we are all quite at liberty to express our agreement or disagreement.
Me, I thought that the husband was quite obviously unable to see the forest for the trees in that case, and engaging in some serious wishful thinking. He seems to have just got hit on the head by a falling branch, and unfortunately it also hit the child that was born, whose interests he does not seem to have adequately considered either.