Declining it's continued use, for myself, if the improvement effected was only from a "vegetative state" to a "cognitively severely disabled state", and declining its use entirely if such improvement was then likely to be used as a justification to keep me alive in such a state.
Nobody KNOWs how cognitively disabled anyone is. That's what makes me so mad... The brain has astonishing abilities to reprogram itself. But, I'm pro-life, and I think euthanazia smacks of the third reich, so you can see where I'm coming from.
While there can be debate about whether it's better to live in that state or not (and that should be up to the individual), I think the main blessing of this drug is that it exposes the pro-death crowd for what they are. They will not like this drug.
"Declining it's continued use, for myself, if the improvement effected was only from a "vegetative state" to a "cognitively severely disabled state", and declining its use entirely if such improvement was then likely to be used as a justification to keep me alive in such a state."
Yup...I agree 100%.
That's not such a bad idea. i would think most living wills would accommodate that - i.e., try anything as long as there's a chance of near full recovery. if no chance, then no heroic measures. I wouldn't consider Ambien a particularly heroic or expensive measure, however.
And Flowers for Algernon/Charlie are the best illustration I've seen thus far of what this phenomenon entails.