Posted on 04/03/2005 2:09:33 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Do you think it is murder if the respirator of a brain-dead person is turned off? I don't. And do you think that people who are of sound mind can put their wishes in writing in the event that some accident or medical event like a massive heart attack or stroke causes massive, irreparable and irreversible brain damage, resulting in being on a ventilator? Imagine that is the case, there is no brain activity, the cerebrum is basically gone, and said hypothetical patient can't breathe without a machine. Is it murder to turn off the respirator in such cases? Is it not reasonable for people, like me, for instance, to direct in advance that if I end up in such a circumstance, that I want the electricity turned off? And since I wouldn't want to be kept "alive" in such a circumstance, does that make me not "in my right mind"?
Terri Schiavo was not brain dead.
"Do you think it is murder if the respirator of a brain-dead person is turned off? "
Terri was NOT on a respirator and she was NOT braindead.
Do you think people whose diagnosis has a 40% chance of being wrong, who left no instructions, where there is no clear evidence as to their wishes, should be denied food and water, even by mouth, i.e. summarily murdered?
"Persistent Vegetative Status" discussion ping for all interested
Thanks!
I never mentioned Mrs. Schiavo. I never suggested she was brain dead. I was speaking hypothetically. I guess that's not allowed.
So why don't you answer my specific question?
Do you think people whose diagnosis has a 40% chance of being wrong, who left no instructions, where there is no clear evidence as to their wishes, should be denied food and water, even by mouth, i.e. summarily murdered?
Terri was a real person, who was murdered, using exactly your hypothetical claims of cases, which had no relevance.
I'm sure that makes your family happy.
The only thing that might make you of questionable mind, would be to let a doctor (or several doctors) who spend less than 30 minutes "assessing" you, decide from an cat scan that they know your cognitive status, prognosis, and worthiness to live....better than the people who love you and have known you for much of your life, and who ALL sense that "you" are still there....and who all sense or know innately that "you" want help to live....and that "you" are wanted and will be cared for by them, even if your disabilities are severe.
In fact, that wasn't my hypothetical, but oh well. You'll do as you please. I don't where you got the 40% number as a chance of a diagnosis being wrong. Is that a hypothetical? However, I don't think it is ethical to withhold food or water from someone if their wishes aren't known in advance.
Multiple medical journals mention that the diagnosis of PVS is something like 35-43% inaccurate.
"However, I don't think it is ethical to withhold food or water from someone if their wishes aren't known in advance."
Now we are getting somewhere -- but do you think, it's "legal"?
Apparently, it is legal in several states, including California, not that I think it is ethical. That's why, in a previous post a whole lotta days ago, I dared suggest that we check to see what the laws are in our respective states, and work to change them(and I got soundly blasted for such a revolutionary concept). I also believe we need to understand what the current thoughts of ethicists are, because they have a lot of influence. We need to look long and hard at what the bioethicists have proclaimed as "ethical". For example, bioethicsts believe that it is not ethical to withhold a heart transplant from a prisoner on death row if his medical condition is such that he might need one. We are looking at a major cultural change (that's a news flash, eh?).
It's also why we need to have an advance medical directive, make it as specific as possible, and review it every now and again. It's also a good idea to have a durable power of attorney in place to allow a trusted loved one to make those difficult medical decisions for you should you be incapacitated. In my case, I don't want to be starved and dehydrated to death, but if I've suffered major brain damage, neither do I want a feeding tube installed so that I can be mainted for 20 or 30 years. No thanks.
Medical science has advanced greatly over the past decades to the point where people who would have died can now be rescucitated and/or maintained. That includes people who have had no pulse for many minutes, and have suffered serious, irreversible brain damage. Medical technology can get the heart going again in many cases, but I question whether or not that is always wise. I know that if I've been without a pulse for 10 minutes or so, I don't want anyone anywhere near me with those jumper cables. After 5 or 6 minutes w/o O2, the brain cells start to die, and they aren't going to grow back. If my cerebrum is gone, then I'm gone, never mind if some hotshot EMT gets my heart going again.
This horrific chapter has shined light on the fundamental fissure that divides mankind: is man God, or is God God?
If the former, then the chief and highest end is an Epicurean pursuit of pleasure. Any incapacitation against that end, and the purpose of life is gone: "Pull the tube!"
If God is God, and is the God Who gave Moses two tablets of stone on which were written the words that form the basis for all civil law, then the chief and highest end is the glorification of God, and His glorification through honoring all people by reason of their creation in the Divine image.
I believe it really is that simple at the archon, the most fundamental level: Cain and Abel, the seed of the serpent and the Seed of the woman; evil and good. To divide by liberal/conservative would be naive.
It's not perfectly fine with me for the State to make decisions about Schiavo.
It is perfectly fine with me for her husband to make decisions for her when she couldn't.
She obviously didn't care much about her own wellfare, so why should I?
She failed to make out a living will and durable power of atty, and married a creep, well, that's Evolution in Action.
So9
Regarding your point about brain cells: Each organ has unique properties. The liver, for example, has a remarkable ability to regenerate. Only the skin shares this special property. A young, healthy person can even donate half his liver to a biological match, recover, and lead a full and normal life. The lungs, too, while completely formed at birth (all bronchi are present), can heal after years of abusive smoking and toxicant inhalation.
One of the important features of the brain is its functional plasticity. It was once thought that functions were restricted to specific regions of the brain. We now know that this is not true. Taken in light of the fact that we only use about 10% of our brains, this makes sense.
While ultimately only you can express in an advance directive your wishes for treatment in a tragedy like you described, I would urge you to consider these facts. Your life is valuable, and you, along with all of us, have special meaning and purpose. I would not want this view to become the default, however, in the absense of a written directive; life is too precious, and this decision too important to err on the side of the irreversible.
No you are perfectly fine with the state deciding that it was her husband's decision and then enforcing that decision with all the violent power of the state even to the extent of imprisoning children.
Well it's perfectly fine to me for someone else to make decisions for you since you care so little for your own life and your mental illness makes you unable to decide what's best for you.
No you are perfectly fine with the state deciding that it was her husband's decision and then enforcing that decision with all the violent power of the state even to the extent of imprisoning children.
I think the parents of those children who were shoved forward to "take water to Terri" should be prosecuted for child abuse for putting their kids in Juvenile Hall for the night in order to make a political point they were too cowardly to make themselves.
I notice that one of the fathers is already a registered child molester.
SO9
If you knew or cared the first thing about loyalty, you would know that.
You want the state to enforce decisions made for other people. You would have wanted adults who tried to feed Terri against the wishes of the violent and oppressive state to be arrested just as the children were.
You are fine with the state enforcing decisions on the behalf of others as long as it fulfill your political agenda to MURDER the innocent and defenseless. After all what good are they? That's evolution right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.