Man 'Trapped in Coma' for 23 Years Was Awake Whole Time

Then this isn't a debate over whether a feeding tube is artificial support or not. It's about the wishes of a person in that situation. Two totally separate arguments.

When did this turn into a debate over Obamacare? I haven't mentioned it once, nor do I have any interest in doing so (although, it does entertain the question, "if you want to keep your spouse on artificial support indefinitely, should the public be forced for it?")

 

You can google videos of Terry Schiavo opening her eyes on command, smiling, and plenty of other movements that would lead me to believe she could not have been brain dead. This was state-sanctioned murder, nothing but. Convenience of the living made that decision. I would hate to be any of the folks involved in that horrible episode come judgement day.

 

Appearances can be deceiving. Her autopsy confirmed without any doubt that she was not only brain dead, but that the portions of her brain that conrol functions such as the voluntary opening of eyes, smiling, etc, had been dead for a long time. Where there is usually brain tissue, there was nothing but empty space filled with fluid. What was left of her brain weighed about 1/2 what a normal brain weighs. The rest of it had been dead a long time. There is no possible way the aforementioned motions were voluntary at all.

 

Those are good examples to contrast with Schiavo's case. I agree that benefit to society should not be a factor of whether artificial life support like gastric feeding should continue.

I'll assume that when we are talking about the elderly, we are talking about those incapable of giving consent because of dementia. The difference between Terri Schiavo and those with severe dementia and those who are mentally handicapped is ultimately quality of life. I understand that this is a very subjective thing with potential for abuse. People with dementia and the mentally handicapped may have what some consider a low quality of life. But someone like Terri Schiavo who was "brain dead" with the exception of her brainstem that was keeping her organs working has absolutely nothing that falls under any definition of quality of life. She has biological life like plants that undergo respiration and metabolism.

But as I said before, the decision is ultimately up to the individual if they have a living will and their family and not for medical practitioners to decide.

Yes, medications are artificial and yes, just because something is artificial doesn't make it wrong to use resources in that manner. The words natural and artificial highlights that sometimes it is better to fight against nature with artificial human solutions and at other times it is better to let nature take its course.

Yes, fighting against death is one of the primary goals of medicine. But it is one which we will always fail at because ultimately, everyone dies. When should we stop fighting death and start preparing to have a good death?

 

The facts of the matter are that despite the opinions of numerous professionals to the contrary, Michael Schiavo refused to allow therapies that would allow her to be fed orally and help her communicate.

The whole Terri Schiavo Story

You can cite dubious filtered EEG's and the opinions of pro-death neurologists all you want—people know when someone is attempting to communicate with them, and communication is not the sign of someone who is brain dead.

But I don't know what is more disturbing: the murder of this woman by the courts, or the professed Christians on this board who mask their own pro-death biases by vaunting themselves as informed.

 

That's a heck of an unrighteous accusation! I do indeed find it laughable that, if you dont' agree with an EEG, then the meurologist in question must therefore be "pro-death" This is typical hyperchristian arrogance that has no place on this baord, in our churches, or in our faith.

Terri Schiavo was brain dead, and had been for a long time. Her autopsy confirms that quite solidly. The fact that supposed Christians engage in unchristian behavior by continuing to expoloit her this long after her death is an affront to Christ and his church.

 

Save it for your zombie friends. Professional criticisms of the autopsy reports and EEG's (there were only two within 24 hours) abound. You need to switch off CNN and start thinking for yourself.

[edited to add]And none of the neurologists administered the EEG's. They were administered by a tech.

 

So are you saying that if the EEGs were correct that you would support the ultimate decision? Because you seem to be suggesting that the main problem was misinterpretation or incorrect measurement of the EEG.

It seems like folks disagree with the diagnosis of vegetative state for Terri Schiavo's case. Does that mean that if the diagnosis of a vegetative state was correct for someone else, that they would support removal of a gastric tube? If the diagnosis does not affect your position, why does it matter whether she tried to communicate or not?

 

...and cognition.

 

In 100& agreement. It is absolutely shameful.

 

There's a lot more to the story than the EEG's, so, no, I'm not suggesting that the interpretation of the EEG's is the main problem. The main problem was a pro-death society.

But . . .

Terri Schaivo is irrelevant to the topic. If the man in the O.P. were under Obamacare, he would have been deemed unworthy of treatment regardless of the EEG's.

 

How infantile.

Which doesn't change the fact that over 50% her brain was dead. There is absolutely nothing post mortem to suggest that she was anythign other than brain dead.

Coming from a person who cites WND as their source, that's pretty laughable.

Which does nothing to mitigate your unrighteous rush to judgement of the neurologists being "pro-death".

That's true. Remember, though, that those aren't facets of higher brain function. But we've already established in this thread that a person in such a state has a right to have their support terminated.

Totally false. She had no cognition. None.

It seemed relevant enough for you to spout unchristian, unrighteous, unscriptural, and pharasaical venom at others. How Aaronesque.

 

What about alzheimers...should we let them starve to death as well? There is not much difference physiologically between someone suffering from this disease and being brain dead.

 

Bingo. She was not any more brain dead than someone suffering from alzheimers whose brain no longer controls certain functions as well. If 50% of your brain is dead, 50% of your brain is alive, and you cannot be considered "brain dead".

 

Totally untrue. I've had one family member die of alzheimers, and three family members die after being pulled from life support (two after a stroke, one after a cerebral hemmhorage). I can tell you with first hand authority there that they are by no means similar.

I beg to differ. A person with alzheimers has cognitive ability, albeit degenerating. If, and/or when a person with alzheimer's gets to the point there the cognitive portion of their brain is dead, then that's a decision that the surviving family must make. That said, a person who suffers from alzheimers typically dies from something else long before their brain dies.

 

I watched my wife's grandmother gradually decline until she died. Her cognitive ability died long before her body did. It's this kind of mentality that will give Obama the ammunition needed to implement his "death panels". She could not feed herself for many months, maybe years before she succumbed to the disease. To have denied nourishment to her would have been murder, regardless who is in on the decision.

 

You responded while I was editing my prior post.

I've had one family member die of alzheimers, and three family members die after being pulled from life support (two after a stroke, one after a cerebral hemmhorage). I can tell you with first hand authority there that they are by no means similar. But like I said: if, and/or when a person with alzheimer's gets to the point there the cognitive portion of their brain is dead, then that's a decision that the surviging family must make.

As for Obamacare, the OP isn't about Obamacare. Despite the fact that the "death panel" claim is a myth, I oppose Obamacare anyway.

For me and mine, my elderly mother has stated very clearly to me and her other children that she does not wish to have any lifesaving or lifesustaining procedures done on her. No heart paddles, no feeding tube, no respirator. That's her choice to make, and my obligation to enforce, should that day come. I likewise have told my wife that I do not want any lifesaving procedures done. Many folks here would consider that murder by their conversations here.

There seems to be a concensus here that a person I should be allowed to decide whether they want to be artificially sustained if they were ever to become brain dead, including allowing the spouse to carry out those wishes. It's therefore amusing that one person can make that statement and not have their Christianity questioned, while another can make the same statement and be accused of beign "pro-death". That double-standard is totally ridiculous.