Considering that one of my own parents who is known to have followed the divine command view and has expressed the desire to have this active treatment carried out, I will definitely consent to his/her wish particularly while in the comatose. This stand is motivated by the biblical command that all children should honor their mother and father so that they can live longer. In the Old Testament, children are required to honor their parents no matter what.
Therefore it is a divine command to support what the patient and a fellow “believer’ had declared because it is the will of God that all children must honor their mother and father (parents). In a plain term, respect for the parents is right before God. Fully aware that the parent made such a decision while in good health, it would be a disgrace to overturn their wishes. Ruling against their wishes is going against God.
In this scenario, the parent’s will is not yet known concerning the active treatment therefore morality of the divine command theory will be based on God’s command. Even though the parent is in a comatose, I will not support the execution of the active treatment in the parent(s) since none of the parent made such an advanced directive. Although the divine command view does not support making of this choice on behalf of another believer, some exceptions to this rule exist particularly when the two share a common faith.
This rule can change in the case of parent-child relationships because the bible considers the children as entities similar to their parents. “Children are the fruit of our labor and a heritage to the future generations (Helm, 2005). In a different version, grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and glory of children is their fathers. The existence of the parents’ spirit in their children gives the latter freedom to choose for their parents under the wider divine command theory.
In a scenario whereby the parents and children hold different orientations of faith, the divine command theory might fall out of place because the religious and personal moral views are divergent. Once the child-parent relationship exists, it does not matter whether the parent is a believer or not for the children to support his/her declaration or not. The Godly scriptures assert that all children and the precious gift of life are all given by god. Therefore they have a divine mandate to make a declaration on behalf of their parents. For the same reason, “it is god almighty who gives children to their parents” (Helm, 2005). On this basis, his divine authority surpasses all the human faith and belief systems. The children must honor their parents just like if they would have held the same faith. So they are under an obligation to support their parents’ declaration.
Finally, in the scenario where the religious and personal moral views significantly differ, do not match any of our theories (divine command theory), and the parent has made no advance directives at all, the divine command theory does not support for making this choice of active treatment in parents. After a careful decision, I will not make a decision of his/her behalf simply because we don’t share the divine group.
The divine command theory requires that one should not make a decision for the other (a non-believer for this matter). Taking this situation into consideration, it is irrelevant that the patient is my own parent. The spirit of brotherhood in faith takes pre-eminence in the divine command theory. As such, its principles cannot operate as anticipated into the systems outside the divine theory.