Replies

"Several PVS patients have already recovered."

Then they were misdiagnosed as PVS.

"When food and water is defined as "artificial life support"; so that it can be withheld from PVS patients"

No one is saying it must be withheld. Do you have a problem calling a ventilator "artificial life support"? Do you think people call a ventilator "artificial life support" so it can be withheld?

"is one of the most frightening thing"

What's frightening is that you would be willing to watch 10 curable people die for lack of resources that a severly brain damaged PVS patient is using. And you'd feel noble about it.

"Then they were misdiagnosed as PVS."

The condition is called "persistent", not "permanent" for a reason -- the reason being that no one is certain that it is permanent.

Even if your definition of PVS were correct; so that a person with PVS cannot ever recover -- so what? The issue here is whether or not the woman should be administered a pill, which might wake her up. If it works, then it's obvious that her condition (whatever it was) was not permanent.

"No one is saying it must be withheld. Do you have a problem calling a ventilator "artificial life support"? Do you think people call a ventilator "artificial life support" so it can be withheld?"

Actually, someone is demanding that the food and water be withheld -- otherwise there wouldn't be a court case. If you think food and water are "artificial life support"; please tell us all who should be kept on this life support and who should be taken off?

"What's frightening is that you would be willing to watch 10 curable people die for lack of resources that a severly brain damaged PVS patient is using. And you'd feel noble about it."

You're twisting things again -- the name of the logical fallacy you're using is: "begging the question". The question is: "is this patient capable of any recovery?". You have simply assumed that the answer is "no"; then you jump from that conclusion to red herrings about curable people dying from lack of support.

If she gets the pill and recovers -- then she'll stop being a burden on the health care system.

If she gets the pill and doesn't recover -- the system is out the cost of one pill.

I don't feel "noble" about this. It's a complicated issue. Utilitarianism is helpful -- but, insufficient to make any moral or ethical judgments. No matter what philosophies you chose to bring to bear -- you first need to start from a basis of facts, consistent definitions, and simple logic.