And her point may be valid. All relationships are different. Some spouses are in it for the long haul and some, well, ain’t.
But if there is to be a default next-of-kin, I say it has to be the spouse, as it’s the only family relationship the person chooses. (We’ll ignore adopted children for the moment!)
So, who should be the default? Should parents have a say in issues concerning their married child? Do we assume people are more aware of their spouses’ wishes than is really the case? Does it matter who knows the person best?
That said, regarding the Schiavo case, Mike has another woman and two kids with that woman. I don’t fault him for that; it’s only natural to move on after so many years. But how can you act in the ‘next-of-kin-because-I’m-your-spouse’ capacity, when quite obviously you have another ‘spouse’?
Regardless if a marriage fails I’d wager that more often than not a spouse knows their partners wishes better than most anyone else. Of course, that is painting with a large brush and there can certainly be exceptions but when formulating broad laws that say who has first say over another person’s status you have to make a sweeping stroke at it all.
I am divorced but I would bet anything that I know what my ex-wife’s wishes would be in most situations far better than her parents would know. And in this case she has a very good relationship with her parents (practically the Brady Bunch). You simply have a far more intimate relationship with your spouse (usually) than you do with most anyone else and you get to know that person well.
Now, if a family thinks a spouse has ulterior motives to advance themselves at the cost of their child they can and should go to court and make their case. No doubt such things have happened. Nevertheless I think the default position must be that the spouse knows best as to their partner’s wishes in a given situation and trumps everyone else unless the parents/family has compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.
I agree that puts him in a suspect position but near as I can tell he has only remained married to Terri in order to see what he believes would be her wishes carried out. If he divorced her the decision makers would, I believe, become her parents and Mike has been fighting against them pretty much the whole way. He has in no way, that I am aware, gained advantage from any of this (even the money he won in a court settlement for his wife’s predicament I believe is gone). I’d say he has stayed the course in a genuine belief that what he is doing is correct and not because he merely wants to move on. If all he wanted to do was move on he could have done that long ago.
Brutus He’s also acting as her advocate and the best position to do that is as her next of kin. I think we really need to stop thinking of marriage as a romance novel and realize that there are great legal responsibilities involved as well.
So while Mike has another “spouse” he still has a responsibility to Terri; no different than if I was to get a divorce and re-marry. I still have a legal responsibility to my first wife. I don’t get to stop paying alimony or child support, because I “moved” on and have new wife and kids.
If I were having an affair, heck if I were actually living apart from my husband, with another man, he’d still be my next-of-kin.
And since there is no way Terri’s mind has changed during her incapacitation, why should Michael’s behavior regarding his vows mean anything? Terri chose him.
Next Of Kin
n. 1) A deceased’s nearest blood relative, including a surviving spouse. 2) The person who through the laws of descent and distribution, would receive a portion of an estate if a will does not exist.
But hasn’t he been advocating “pulling the plug” on her behalf for a time longer than he’s been involved w/ the other woman?
Aslo, IIRC in this case, it’s not so much that Mike can automatically pull the plug. Terry didn’t have a living will, so there is no way to be 100% certain what her wishes were. Mike couldn’t override her wishes if she had made it clear that she DID want extreme measures taken to keep her alive, right?
Dropzone, I think we all agree that a spouse is someone’s next of kin. I took the thread to be a discussion of whether that state of affairs is good and right.
And in my book, yes, that’s exactly how it ought to be, for exactly the reasons others have stated. My parents and brother love me because I’m family, whereas my husband is family because he loves me.
Yes he has. He only started dating after Terri was in a PVS for five years, and after he went to court and clarified the right to remove her feeding tube.
Looked at realistically, Terri’s been dead since her cortex dissolved into goo 15 years ago, but it took 5 years for Michael to admit to himself she was gone. Now he’s just fighting for the woman he loved, and her right to pass away and, as a devout Catholic, meet her maker.
He was apparently dating Cindy Shook within 18 months of Terri’s collapse, and (according to this biased source) had Terri’s cat euthanised in preparation to move in with Shook although the move never eventuated. Cindy Shook claims to have been stalked and terrorised by Schiavo.
Well, I feel certain that my husband would not want his mother, who by the way is evil, to be allowed to act as his next-of-kin. I do have another relationship, but that does not remove my responsibility to my husband, and neither would his entering a PVS. As long as he is alive, I have a duty to him.
This is one of the things at the heart of the gay marriage debate. Parents of gays who have spouses that are not legally recognized sometimes use their status as next-of-kin to deprive access to the spouse, or to make decisions against the wishes of their child and spouse. I have heard tales of parents not allowing the spouse to even know where they buried their child, or moving the child from a health facility and not telling the spouse.
No, it can’t. Otherwise every single time anyone ever died or entered a coma or PVS, there would have to be a full blown court case about who knew the person best, filled with evidence of a type that’s particularly dubious and ephemeral. You have to have to point at which you can just assume the answer to avoid huge transactional costs. That’s the purpose of a default next-of-kin. If a particular individual would rather someone other than her spouse make these kinds of decisions, she can of course so specify in a will and/or living will.
Does anyone know if the VT or CA civil union laws allows same sex partners who form civil unions to be each others’ next-of-kin? If not, that would be a significant deficiency.
Here here. Support the sanctity of marriage, while doing so support Mr. Schiavo.
What a horrifying situation, but it is not our place to second guess the husband. If they have criminal charges BRING IT ON (as Bush would say). They ain’t got it.
I was utterly sorrowed by the images of Terri. I am saddened at this moment of the prospect of her dying. I am tearing in the eyes at the prospect of her dying of thirst. I hope the doctors are right. However, we must rely on our judicial protectorates and their interpretation of her will.
If our society wants to “claim” that marriage is “sacred” they better start understanding the full ramifications of that declaration.