Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that PVS mean that only the brain stem was still working, doing only enough to keep the body alive. If that is the case, how can we call a responsive patient PVS?
Didn't the doctor say she is totally unresponsive? Give me a video camera and enough time and I can make an amphibian look responsive if I only select the footage where the amphibian happens to move after I tell it to move or blink it's eyes at the same time I tell it to.
Didn't the doctor say she is totally unresponsive?
Actually they didn't. From what I can tell, everyone agrees she is responsive. What is in question is her level of brain function
Quote:
Give me a video camera and enough time and I can make an amphibian look responsive if I only select the footage where the amphibian happens to move after I tell it to move or blink it's eyes at the same time I tell it to.
She's clearly responding in those videos. Of course, they are going to use the more dramatic of the videos, so we don't know how regular this is.
And this clearly is an issue pro-lifers are heavily involved in. If you look at the site with the videos, much of it is associated with the Catholic Church. It would be surprising if Jeb Bush's decision didn't have a lot to do with that.
And as I said before, I, for one, do not know enought about the situation to make a judgement.
I don't know all the politics of it and I don't care. I think its just a respect-for-life issue. I think we have an obligation to give people the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know all the politics of it and I don't care. I think its just a respect-for-life issue.
The question is if we are dealing with a form of human life here. I can see why this sounds completely alien, but since here higher brain regions are gone, there is not much of a human being left.
The question is if we are dealing with a form of human life here. I can see why this sounds completely alien, but since here higher brain regions are gone, there is not much of a human being left.
Not to be snide, but look what you just wrote; "not much of a human."
Heres the problem... You're making a judgement about how much of a human another person is. I don't think we have the right.
Not to be snide, but look what you just wrote; "not much of a human."
Heres the problem... You're making a judgement about how much of a human another person is. I don't think we have the right.
Maybe she's not much of a human. But shes somebody's daughter. And shes somebody's sister. Who gets to determine whether or not she deserves every opportunity she gets, regardless of how slim that opportunity might be?
Heres the problem... You're making a judgement about how much of a human another person is. I don't think we have the right.
Stay calm, the real question to ask is if we are dealing with a person if the brain is gone (ignoring brainstem for a while).
This is a much tougher issue than most people assume because it touches the very ethical and philosophical foundations on which our society and its morals rest.
The question is: what defines a human being?
Assume a surgeon cuts out a lump of meat in an operation. Is this a human being? of course not. Is the rest - the lump a human being? of course.
Why is this so? Both parts share the same DNA, are derived from the same entity.
If we have a mine victim missing both legs and arms, is this still a human being? yep. So it is neither arms nor legs that define a human.
What if we have a heart transplanted persone? Is this the resurrection of the donor or the continuation of the recipient? Easy enough, so it is not the heart either.
We are entering a shady zone if parts of the brain are gone. The personality of the human changes the more brain tissue is destroyed (by cancer or accident) until - if every little bit is gone - you no longer able to think, act, or feel. The self. the personality is gone, what remains is a lump of tissue. Personally, I'd dispute that this is still a human being, because everything that makes a human special (as compared to a steak) is gone.
perhaps someone can tell me. how come pro-lifers and those who support the death penalty are often the same people.
For the same reason that pro-choice people usually are against the death penalty:
Pro-Lifers believe in the right of a society or state to have the last say over a persons destiny, pro choice supporters believe this should be left to the individuals.
Stay calm, the real question to ask is if we are dealing with a person if the brain is gone (ignoring brainstem for a while).
This is a much tougher issue than most people assume because it touches the very ethical and philosophical foundations on which our society and its morals rest.
The question is: what defines a human being?
Assume a surgeon cuts out a lump of meat in an operation. Is this a human being? of course not. Is the rest - the lump a human being? of course.
Why is this so? Both parts share the same DNA, are derived from the same entity.
If we have a mine victim missing both legs and arms, is this still a human being? yep. So it is neither arms nor legs that define a human.
What if we have a heart transplanted persone? Is this the resurrection of the donor or the continuation of the recipient? Easy enough, so it is not the heart either.
We are entering a shady zone if parts of the brain are gone. The personality of the human changes the more brain tissue is destroyed (by cancer or accident) until - if every little bit is gone - you no longer able to think, act, or feel. The self. the personality is gone, what remains is a lump of tissue. Personally, I'd dispute that this is still a human being, because everything that makes a human special (as compared to a steak) is gone.
I work with a number of people that I'm fairly certain are brain dead... Hmm... Just kidding.
But seriously, there are many books on the phenomenon of Out-of-body experiences. A good starter book is the short book by Raymond Moody, titled "Life After Life." In this book, Dr. Moody documents peoples claims that they left their body while experiencing a life-threatening condition that left them in an temporarily altered state. Later books, which I cannot remember the names or authors of offhand (I want to say "Mind's Eye"), document blind people that are capable of describing their physical environment in ways they never could before after an OBE experience. Newer books yet claim that these phenomenon have happened while the patient was clinically dead (no brain function at the time of the experience).
I'm not saying that anybody has to believe this. But we do not have scientific evidence that suggests this is impossible (and likely never will). So what I'm suggesting is that we just don't have enough evidence on this subject to "play God" with another human life. We cannot assume to know what she wants. We cannot place a value on someones existance. We just can't.
For the same reason that pro-choice people usually are against the death penalty:
Pro-Lifers believe in the right of a society or state to have the last say over a persons destiny, pro choice supporters believe this should be left to the individuals.
Not that simple. Some pro-lifers (such as myself) also do not believe in the death penalty. It all comes from the same thread of thought that we do not have the right to decide what another life is worth. In cases where we do not know if we are destroying a life, we must give life the benefit of the doubt.
So what I'm suggesting is that we just don't have enough evidence on this subject to "play God" with another human life. We cannot assume to know what she wants. We cannot place a value on someones existance. We just can't.
No one is 'playing god,' bud. Physicians and families have to deal with these kinds of issues all of the time. Dream and fantasize all you want, but when it comes down to determining autonomy in medicine, you have to deal with what you have.
The way we've discussed it in med ethics class has been about varying degrees of 'personhood.' Someone who has not neurological activity outside of their brain steam is considered brain dead even though their body is not dead. People often mistake the continued functions of the body to the presence of higher brain activity. For all intents and purposes, the person is not there anymore.
Now in the real world, real people have to deal with making life and death decisions for patients who have lost their ability to make autonomous medical decisions. This is not an easy thing for anyone. This is what makes it very complex and, therefore, something you have to learn a whole lot more about before you go making blanket judgements.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that PVS mean that only the brain stem was still working, doing only enough to keep the body alive. If that is the case, how can we call a responsive patient PVS?
Didn't the doctor say she is totally unresponsive? Give me a video camera and enough time and I can make an amphibian look responsive if I only select the footage where the amphibian happens to move after I tell it to move or blink it's eyes at the same time I tell it to.
Originally posted by rok
dude, she can't FEED herself. not water-ski... talk about using apples to debate the relative merits of oranges. sheesh.
Again, if she's enjoying her life, who are we to say shes no longer worthy of it?
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Again, if she's enjoying her life, who are we to say shes no longer worthy of it?
Is she? Really?
Originally posted by rok
dude, she can't FEED herself. not water-ski...
Or think.
Or do anything more then react reflexively to stimulus.
Or look uncannily alive if you put earrings on her and cut her hair.
What happened to this woman is tragic. No need to politicise her any more.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Didn't the doctor say she is totally unresponsive?
Actually they didn't. From what I can tell, everyone agrees she is responsive. What is in question is her level of brain function
Give me a video camera and enough time and I can make an amphibian look responsive if I only select the footage where the amphibian happens to move after I tell it to move or blink it's eyes at the same time I tell it to.
She's clearly responding in those videos. Of course, they are going to use the more dramatic of the videos, so we don't know how regular this is.
And this clearly is an issue pro-lifers are heavily involved in. If you look at the site with the videos, much of it is associated with the Catholic Church. It would be surprising if Jeb Bush's decision didn't have a lot to do with that.
And as I said before, I, for one, do not know enought about the situation to make a judgement.
Originally posted by audiopollution
Is she? Really?
I think, since we can't ask her, we have to assume the answer to that question to be yes. The doctors say she's not in pain.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I think, since we can't ask her, we have to assume the answer to that question to be yes. The doctors say she's not in pain.
That's not how it works in the real world. These situations are complex and are a prominent subject in medical ethics.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I think, since we can't ask her, we have to assume the answer to that question to be yes. The doctors say she's not in pain.
'Not in pain' doesn't equal 'enjoying her life'.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
I don't know all the politics of it and I don't care. I think its just a respect-for-life issue.
The question is if we are dealing with a form of human life here. I can see why this sounds completely alien, but since here higher brain regions are gone, there is not much of a human being left.
Originally posted by ichroma
perhaps someone can tell me. how come pro-lifers and those who support the death penalty are often the same people.
Perhaps they are just of a lower intelligence or have not yet thought through the issues.
Originally posted by Smircle
The question is if we are dealing with a form of human life here. I can see why this sounds completely alien, but since here higher brain regions are gone, there is not much of a human being left.
Not to be snide, but look what you just wrote; "not much of a human."
Heres the problem... You're making a judgement about how much of a human another person is. I don't think we have the right.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Not to be snide, but look what you just wrote; "not much of a human."
Heres the problem... You're making a judgement about how much of a human another person is. I don't think we have the right.
Maybe she's not much of a human. But shes somebody's daughter. And shes somebody's sister. Who gets to determine whether or not she deserves every opportunity she gets, regardless of how slim that opportunity might be?
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
Heres the problem... You're making a judgement about how much of a human another person is. I don't think we have the right.
Stay calm, the real question to ask is if we are dealing with a person if the brain is gone (ignoring brainstem for a while).
This is a much tougher issue than most people assume because it touches the very ethical and philosophical foundations on which our society and its morals rest.
The question is: what defines a human being?
Assume a surgeon cuts out a lump of meat in an operation. Is this a human being? of course not. Is the rest - the lump a human being? of course.
Why is this so? Both parts share the same DNA, are derived from the same entity.
If we have a mine victim missing both legs and arms, is this still a human being? yep. So it is neither arms nor legs that define a human.
What if we have a heart transplanted persone? Is this the resurrection of the donor or the continuation of the recipient? Easy enough, so it is not the heart either.
We are entering a shady zone if parts of the brain are gone. The personality of the human changes the more brain tissue is destroyed (by cancer or accident) until - if every little bit is gone - you no longer able to think, act, or feel. The self. the personality is gone, what remains is a lump of tissue. Personally, I'd dispute that this is still a human being, because everything that makes a human special (as compared to a steak) is gone.
Originally posted by ichroma
perhaps someone can tell me. how come pro-lifers and those who support the death penalty are often the same people.
For the same reason that pro-choice people usually are against the death penalty:
Pro-Lifers believe in the right of a society or state to have the last say over a persons destiny, pro choice supporters believe this should be left to the individuals.
Originally posted by Smircle
Stay calm, the real question to ask is if we are dealing with a person if the brain is gone (ignoring brainstem for a while).
This is a much tougher issue than most people assume because it touches the very ethical and philosophical foundations on which our society and its morals rest.
The question is: what defines a human being?
Assume a surgeon cuts out a lump of meat in an operation. Is this a human being? of course not. Is the rest - the lump a human being? of course.
Why is this so? Both parts share the same DNA, are derived from the same entity.
If we have a mine victim missing both legs and arms, is this still a human being? yep. So it is neither arms nor legs that define a human.
What if we have a heart transplanted persone? Is this the resurrection of the donor or the continuation of the recipient? Easy enough, so it is not the heart either.
We are entering a shady zone if parts of the brain are gone. The personality of the human changes the more brain tissue is destroyed (by cancer or accident) until - if every little bit is gone - you no longer able to think, act, or feel. The self. the personality is gone, what remains is a lump of tissue. Personally, I'd dispute that this is still a human being, because everything that makes a human special (as compared to a steak) is gone.
I work with a number of people that I'm fairly certain are brain dead... Hmm... Just kidding.
But seriously, there are many books on the phenomenon of Out-of-body experiences. A good starter book is the short book by Raymond Moody, titled "Life After Life." In this book, Dr. Moody documents peoples claims that they left their body while experiencing a life-threatening condition that left them in an temporarily altered state. Later books, which I cannot remember the names or authors of offhand (I want to say "Mind's Eye"), document blind people that are capable of describing their physical environment in ways they never could before after an OBE experience. Newer books yet claim that these phenomenon have happened while the patient was clinically dead (no brain function at the time of the experience).
I'm not saying that anybody has to believe this. But we do not have scientific evidence that suggests this is impossible (and likely never will). So what I'm suggesting is that we just don't have enough evidence on this subject to "play God" with another human life. We cannot assume to know what she wants. We cannot place a value on someones existance. We just can't.
Originally posted by Smircle
For the same reason that pro-choice people usually are against the death penalty:
Pro-Lifers believe in the right of a society or state to have the last say over a persons destiny, pro choice supporters believe this should be left to the individuals.
Not that simple. Some pro-lifers (such as myself) also do not believe in the death penalty. It all comes from the same thread of thought that we do not have the right to decide what another life is worth. In cases where we do not know if we are destroying a life, we must give life the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
So what I'm suggesting is that we just don't have enough evidence on this subject to "play God" with another human life. We cannot assume to know what she wants. We cannot place a value on someones existance. We just can't.
No one is 'playing god,' bud. Physicians and families have to deal with these kinds of issues all of the time. Dream and fantasize all you want, but when it comes down to determining autonomy in medicine, you have to deal with what you have.
The way we've discussed it in med ethics class has been about varying degrees of 'personhood.' Someone who has not neurological activity outside of their brain steam is considered brain dead even though their body is not dead. People often mistake the continued functions of the body to the presence of higher brain activity. For all intents and purposes, the person is not there anymore.
Now in the real world, real people have to deal with making life and death decisions for patients who have lost their ability to make autonomous medical decisions. This is not an easy thing for anyone. This is what makes it very complex and, therefore, something you have to learn a whole lot more about before you go making blanket judgements.