In Michigan, what the patient may do in his lifetime, those who represent him after his death may also do for the protection of the interests which they claim under him.[291] In Missouri the representatives of the patient may waive;[292] and where the dispute is between devisees and heirs at law all claiming under a deceased patient, either the devisees or heirs may call the attending physician of the testator as a witness regarding information acquired by him in his professional attendance.[293] In Nevada it has been said that the parents of a seven-year-old infant, may waive for the infant.[294] _Objections to the Admission of Privileged Communications; When and by Whom Made._—Having considered who can waive the privilege, it is material to discuss also the question who may insist upon the enforcement of the law. If the protection were only enforced on the claim of privilege by the patient, the very object of the statutes would be defeated in the large majority of instances because of the absence of the patient and every one interested in his behalf to assert his right. It rests, therefore, with any party to raise the objection and assert the prohibition. But it seems that the physician himself, unless a party, cannot make the objection.[295] It seems to have been thought in some of the cases that the right to insist upon the enforcement of the law is coupled with an interest derived from the patient. This idea started from the language used in the early cases enforcing the privilege at the instance of those claiming under deceased patients;[296] and it led to some confusion where the right of representatives to waive the privilege was denied; but it seems to be clear that the right to object differs from the right to waive in that the latter is necessarily and logically dependent upon the relation between the patient and his representative, while the former is obviously suggested as the best method of enforcing the law. In Indiana it has been said that the statute gives to the representative of a deceased patient the right to object;[297] but that this is not by reason of the relationship appears from another case in the same State, where on an application for a new trial the Court voluntarily refused to grant one for newly discovered evidence disclosed to it by a physician’s affidavit, on the ground that if the patient should object in the new trial the evidence would be excluded.[298] In this State it has been held that the widow of the patient cannot object to the disclosure, if his administrator with the will annexed waives the privilege.[299]