Posted on 09/11/2006 8:17:41 PM PDT by aculeus
We have always been told there is no recovery from persistent vegetative state - doctors can only make a sufferer's last days as painless as possible. But is that really the truth? Across three continents, severely brain-damaged patients are awake and talking after taking ... a sleeping pill. And no one is more baffled than the GP who made the breakthrough. Steve Boggan witnesses these 'strange and wonderful' rebirths
For three years, Riaan Bolton has lain motionless, his eyes open but unseeing. After a devastating car crash doctors said he would never again see or speak or hear. Now his mother, Johanna, dissolves a pill in a little water on a teaspoon and forces it gently into his mouth. Within half an hour, as if a switch has been flicked in his brain, Riaan looks around his home in the South African town of Kimberley and says, "Hello." Shortly after his accident, Johanna had turned down the option of letting him die.
Three hundred miles away, Louis Viljoen, a young man who had once been cruelly described by a doctor as "a cabbage", greets me with a mischievous smile and a streetwise four-move handshake. Until he took the pill, he too was supposed to be in what doctors call a persistent vegetative state.
Across the Atlantic in the United States, George Melendez, who is also brain-damaged, has lain twitching and moaning as if in agony for years, causing his parents unbearable grief. He, too, is given this little tablet and again, it's as if a light comes on. His father asks him if he is, indeed, in pain. "No," George smiles, and his family burst into tears.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
In January, 2005, the British Medical Journal leaked official Eli Lilly documents from the 1980s suggesting there was a link between fluoxetine and suicide and psychosis. It was originally claimed that the documents had not been previously disclosed, and they were subsequently provided to the FDA for further investigation. However, Eli Lilly insisted that the documents had been released in earlier litigation.[16] The British Medical Journal ultimately retracted its claim that the documents had not been previously disclosed, and apologized to Eli Lilly.[17]
That para's from wikipedia, BTW, but the two references are a Lilly document and the actual BMJ retraction.
Psychosis, eh...
I am sorry, but I don't follow...
Prozac has been known to be a factor in the psychosis of some patients. Highly unlikely Michael Schiavo was one of them (I don't see him convincing the police his wife "just collapsed" while he's in the midst of a psychotic break) but it's very, very interesting.
Quite true. He has demonstrated that he is capable of murder with or without drugs.
PING!!!!
I don't think Michael was afraid of this sort of therapy. He was probably more afraid that Terri might improve if given such exotic treatments as being taken out in the sunshine, having a fluffy little kitten nuzzle up to her, or generally treated like a human being. Any improvement resulting from that sort of treatment would have been a stronger indictment against Michael than a full recovery resulting from a treatment that had not been previously available. Even if Terri remembered the attack, it would have been very easy for Michael's lawyers to claim that the memories were false and had been implanted by her caregivers.
On the other hand, if she had improved when given sunshine, etc. that would have proven that Michael had been sandbagging her condition for the purpose of killing her. And he'd really have no defense on that one.
Spouses do not automatically have guardianship authority. Further, if Terri had an honest guardian, I don't think Michael would have remained her spouse very long. Guardians are allowed under Florida law to file for divorce on behalf of incapacitated clients. While I would not expect most divorce-court judges to grant such petitions absent some pretty clear malfeasance on the part of the non-incapacitated spouse, I find it hard to imagine that a divorce-court judge would not rule that Michael Schiavo's conduct constitutes a willful renunciation of his marriage.
I think he was afraid she would make a come back. I think he was responsible for her condition.
Right, but if she'd made a comeback when given ordinary decent care, it would have been easy to prove the sandbagging. By contrast, even if exotic treatments improved her to the point of being fully communicative, it would still probably be impossible to prove that Michael caused her condition in the first place.
I'm not trying to harass, but I am curious...do you have an answer to or comment on post 330?
Yes -- they must be right.
Since 264 is gone, I guess we'll never know.
If it was mine, I apologize to whomever I offended.
Mr. Silverback, you always keep the conversation at a respectful level.
I don't know why I fall down the sarcasm stairs so quickly -- perhaps the Crevo threads give me an ornrey streak.
But I will work on more niceosity and less insultification.
Thanks for being a good example -- to us all.
Uh, just to point something out jwalsh07....my paycheck is not a subsidy. Cary on with your argument.
Uh, who said it was?
To: Hildy
What's ridiculous about it? Do you get any subsidies from the government? Social security? Health insurance? A paycheck? Student loan? etc, etc?
Did I just misunderstand your comment?
"One specialist said he had a 5% chance of recovering, another said he had no chance whatsoever of regaining consciousness," says his mother, Johanna. She and her husband, Tinus, spend about £1,000 a month on round-the-clock care for their son in a converted garage at their home, but until June they had seen no sign of awareness in him. Then they asked their doctor, Clive Holroyd, to contact Nel for advice."
The fact of the matter is that Hildy's parents did recieve government subsidies. I imagine yours did as well at some point. Most people do as they get older.
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a conservative which means that I believe in limited government, especially on the federal scale. But the purpose of government is to protect it's citizens, especially those that CAN NOT protect themselves.
If you disagree with that, no problem. I can abide libertarians who are pro life but pro choice libertarians are a joke.
I hope I've clarified matters.
Whaaat? Uh yeah, clear as mud. My parents, how did they get drug into this? I was just asking for clarification but obviously you can't make sense of your own comment. If I am wrong then sorry.
Cheers!
BTW, I hope I didn't overestimate your sense of humor, the intellect thing was a joke.
Nope, I overestimate my intellect all the time.
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.