More apologetics and fuzzy edging to enable torturing patients like Terri Schiavo to death. Congratulations, Jeneen Interlandi, you're now not just a NY Slimes hack, you're also a deliberate enabler of mass murder. Make sure it gets on your resume' - to paraphrase Rahm, you don't want to let any slaughters of the helpless go to waste.
I think I read that differently than you did. It seems like she is describing background.
I don’t understand your reaction. There was nothing in that article that led me to think the writer supported euthanasia for brain-damaged people. On the contrary, the article was written with sympathy, restraint, and grace. The conclusion I had to draw is that pulling the plug would almost always be a bad idea because someone is still in there.
Au contraire!
This fluidity makes diagnosis a challenge. If a patient follows every command you give them, you know that, says Dr. John Whyte, director of the Moss Institute and lead investigator on the zolpidem trial. If a patient has never, ever followed a command, you know that too. But if you tell a patient to wiggle their finger, and they do it occasionally which is the case for most of these folks how do you figure out if that occasionally means something or not?
Whyte has spent his entire career trying to answer this question. His first job after his residency was at a facility with a large number of vegetative patients. While working there, he was struck by the amount of contention over diagnoses. For all their experience with this population, clinicians could not seem to agree on whether any given patient was actually conscious. Family members also argued, with one another and with staff, over the meaning of every wince, twitch and eye flutter.
It turned out that a lot of people staff members included were drawing their conclusions from pure coincidence. Whyte told me about one mother who insisted that her son would point down toward his feeding tube to indicate that fluid was leaking onto his stomach, causing irritation. He did it while I was there, Whyte says. And she lifted his shirt and said: See, doctor, theres the liquid. Hes communicating with us. And I said: How often do you look under there when he isnt pointing like this? Never? Not even once? It was possible that the pointing corresponded to the leak, Whyte explained. But it was also possible that the leaking was constant and the pointing was random. There were countless other examples. Behaviors would be exceptions if they happened at the wrong time, and evidence if they happened at the right time, Whyte says.
To help eliminate this bias, Whyte developed what he calls the single-subject assessment, in which doctors design a set of tests specific to each patients idiosyncrasies to determine whether the patient is vegetative or minimally conscious. It is painstaking work, but the information it yields is significant. Patients who achieve minimal consciousness early tend to have a better prognosis, Whyte says. And you can at least try to build a communication system with them, because you have a foundation to work from.