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.
for sure there are reactionary and progressive pro-lifers. the same cannot be said of those who support state-sanctioned murder, who are almost exclusively reactionary.
in terms of the worth assigned to the life of the other, the failure of the the so-called coallition forces to count iraqi bodies is also telling.
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.
I am not talking about coma patients here (of which quite a large minority will return to conciousness) but of people (or somethings) in a deep persistant vegetative state where larger parts of the neocortex and other brain regions critical for functions beyond heartbeat, reflexes and digestion are irreversibly destroyed. Or children born without those structures (anencephalic). To the best of my knowledge, none of those has ever reocovered.
Actually, the emergency docs make decisions about the life and death of another human being all the time. At some time, you have to accept you cannot save someone, even if his heart is still beating, you have to let him die. So, they are "playing god" in some sense, but not because the dig the power, but because it is inevitable to make this decision. There is no divine intervention that tells them when it is over.
It just seems more cruel if the person is not terminally wounded but resting silently in his bed.
I am not talking about coma patients here (of which quite a large minority will return to conciousness) but of people (or somethings) in a deep persistant vegetative state where larger parts of the neocortex and other brain regions critical for functions beyond heartbeat, reflexes and digestion are irreversibly destroyed. Or children born without those structures (anencephalic). To the best of my knowledge, none of those has ever reocovered.
Actually, the emergency docs make decisions about the life and death of another human being all the time. At some time, you have to accept you cannot save someone, even if his heart is still beating, you have to let him die. So, they are "playing god" in some sense, but not because the dig the power, but because it is inevitable to make this decision. There is no divine intervention that tells them when it is over.
It just seems more cruel if the person is not terminally wounded but resting silently in his bed.
Understood. I'm glad I don't have to make those types of decisions. I give alot of credit to those that do. This whole argument is a judgement call that is beyond my ability to argue. I think people fall on one side or the other and theres very little logical argument that would persuade them to the other side.
I just see it as her life. She doesn't have alot of hope. But from my vantage, she has the slimmest sliver of hope that shes living a good life... Maybe those neurons are firing just enough and in just the right order to make her happier than you or I will ever be. Regardless, its her little sliver and who am I to take that away from her?
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).
Of course we can never prove that leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, CHUDS, or anything else doesn't exist, but that doesn't present an argument to believe in them or even give them credibility. The life after death examples you cite, are completly subjective, unrepeatable, and, for the most part, unfalsifiable. I qualify the last point because some smart people have decided to start rigging emergency rooms with items that only a hovering, disembodied soul could witness (neon signs on top of cabinets), so in theory you could falsify the testimony of a near-deather. But, in reality no proof would convince a believer that they hallucinated the experience.
Furthermore, experiments with the brain have repeatedly and reliably produced out-of-body experiences in patients, so we have every reason to believe this is a totally natural, mental phenomena.
Quote:
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.
But we do, and we must. When we convict someone of a crime we assume all sorts of things about their mental state and what they intended to do and penalize them accordingly. When we act in the best interest of those who can't speak for themselves we have to try to determine what they want. This notion that we decide not to decide is a lie. You can either assume the woman wants to live or you assume she wants to die.
There is no non-judgement. I do agree, however, there are good reasons to remove the state from the judgement and leave it to an individual. Given that the spousal connection is usually pre-eminant, in most cases you would side with the husband.
Actually they didn't. From what I can tell, everyone agrees she is responsive. What is in question is her level of brain function
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not really taking a side here, but on this point I think they (the people who made the www.terrisfight.org web site) do indicate quite clearly that the doctor testified that she is totally unresponsive. It says so much just below the link for the "balloon" video.
Quote:
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.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I watched the same videos and it doesn't seem clear at all.
Quote:
And as I said before, I, for one, do not know enought about the situation to make a judgement.
Neither do I, but when it comes to a situation like this I am going to favor the opinion of the doctor (presumably un-emotionally attached, object expert) and assume that the spouse is not a sociopathic, moneygrubber.
[B]I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not really taking a side here, but on this point I think they (the people who made the www.terrisfight.org web site) do indicate quite clearly that the doctor testified that she is totally unresponsive. It says so much just below the link for the "balloon" video.
Be that as it may, it is the only two words to that effect I can find on the site. If you dig around, you will see they have quite a few doctors saying she is responsive and could improve.
"Terri responds regularly to the presence of her parents and friends. Her husband's doctors testified Terri's cognizant responses to Terri?s parents and friends are simply a reflex action."*
This elaborates and you can see that no one is doubting that there are responses, but some people are claiming they are just reflex.
*you might also want to note the other bullet in relation to this: "Michael Schiavo will not permit any doctor to examine Terri other than the doctors he selects."
Quote:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I watched the same videos and it doesn't seem clear at all.
No, you are just misinterpreting what is being said, which is a common symptom of someone believing they know more than they do.
Quote:
Neither do I, but when it comes to a situation like this I am going to favor the opinion of the doctor (presumably un-emotionally attached, object expert) and assume that the spouse is not a sociopathic, moneygrubber.
As pointed out repeatedly, 15 doctors have testified that she could see some imporvement. In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Be that as it may, it is the only two words to that effect I can find on the site. If you dig around, you will see they have quite a few doctors saying she is responsive and could improve.
From what digging I could do the web site states that the evil husband will not allow any doctors to examine her that are not of his selection. So am I right in assuming that these supposed 15 doctors (which I stil didn't find mention of) have not themselves actually examined her?
Quote:
This elaborates and you can see that no one is doubting that there are responses, but some people are claiming they are just reflex.
There is, in fact, such a thing as a reflex response. I would not characterize this as being responsive.
Quote:
No, you are just misinterpreting what is being said, which is a common symptom of someone believing they know more than they do.
If by misinterpreting you mean, not seeing what you see and agreeing with the doctor's evaluation, then you are correct. If by knowing more than I do, I have a PhD in genetics, have at least a greater than average knowledge of neurology and, in any case, am conceding to the person who DOES have more knowledge than the average person, the doctor.
I see no reason for the snippy tone, I never made any accusations about your mental accumen.
Quote:
As pointed out repeatedly, 15 doctors have testified that she will make a recovery. In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Again, 15 doctors who have presumably not examined her. I'm not sure who these doctors are, but the suggestion that she will FULLY recover after 13 yrs in a vegetative state is starting to fail the laugh test. AFAIK, no one with traumatic brain injury and diagnosed to be in CVS has ever recovered.
You are apparently stil misinterpreting everything...
Quote:
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
If by misinterpreting you mean, not seeing what you see and agreeing with the doctor's evaluation, then you are correct.
First, all I have pointed out is that she clearly responds to external stimuli. This isn't quite the totally brain-dead PVS, which is what many reports claimed or implied. She obviously responds to external stimuli, and there appears to be more than enough evidence to lead one to believe she is at least somewhat aware of her surroundings. Period.
Second, how can you agree with the doctor without any background in the case? The extent of you knowledge is limited to the videos and some light media reports. You are just making a bunch of assumptions and saying you 'disagree' with me. My position is just that we don't know enough about the situation, but she clearly responds to external stimuli. You 'disagree' with this?
Quote:
If by knowing more than I do, I have a PhD in genetics, have at least a greater than average knowledge of neurology and, in any case, am conceding to the person who DOES have more knowledge than the average person, the doctor.
I see no reason for the snippy tone, I never made any accusations about your mental accumen.
You crack me up. More about this situation. I'm seriously giggling out loud to myself. Could you possibly be more typical?
Quote:
Again, 15 doctors who have presumably not examined her. I'm not sure who these doctors are, but the suggestion that she will FULLY recover after 13 yrs in a vegetative state is starting to fail the laugh test.
Didn't you notice I immediately took that out as soon as I saw what I wrote? You and I both know that wasn't what I meant. Go look. I was on my way out the door for lunch and my fingers had a mind of their own for a second. Now I've returned with a full stomach, so carry on...
First, all I have pointed out is that she clearly responds to external stimuli. This isn't quite the totally brain-dead PVS, which is what many reports claimed or implied. She obviously responds to external stimuli, and there appears to be more than enough evidence to lead one to believe she is at least somewhat aware of her surroundings. Period.
Ok, now I understand. You're stating that she is responsive in the venus flytrap sense. I presumed you were actually trying to employ the term as it applies in the medical sense as indicative of consciousness. If, OTOH, you are suggesting that your evaluation of her on the videos clearly indicates that she is not in a constant vegetative state then I must presume that you are asserting your medical knowledge above that of the doctor.
Quote:
Second, how can you agree with the doctor without any background in the case?
Are you disagreeing with the doctor without having, yourself, any background in the case? As for me, I stated my reasons for going with the expert on, admittedly, cursory judegment.
Quote:
The extent of you knowledge is limited to the videos and some light media reports. You are just making a bunch of assumptions and saying you 'disagree' with me.
Same applies to you, no?
Quote:
My position is just that we don't know enough about the situation, but she clearly responds to external stimuli. You 'disagree' with this?
I agreed that we do not know enough about the situation, but took issue with your characterization of her being "clearly responsive" as it pertains to the issue of her being in a vegetative state. I will agree that she responds to stimuli in the same sense that her skin burns in response to the sun, but there is no hard evidence of consciousness as I understand it to be evaluated medically and as the doctor has stated accordingly.
Quote:
You crack me up. More about this situation. I'm seriously giggling out loud to myself. Could you possibly be more typical?
I'm glad you're amused, as was I when you suggested that a woman in a vegetative state for 13 yrs is highly likely to make a FULL recovery. I would have added an emoticon, but they don't have a smiley laughing milk out his nose.
Quote:
Didn't you notice I immediately took that out as soon as I saw what I wrote? You and I both know that wasn't what I meant. Go look. I was on my way out the door for lunch and my fingers had a mind of their own for a second. Now I've returned with a full stomach, so carry on...
Um... ok, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know what you REALLY mean when you appearantly have to read your own writing to discover what you wrote. I'm somewhat envious, when I write I'm usually not suprised at what I find when I read my own writing aside from the occassionaly grammatical mistake. But to have wholely invented arguments of fact arise by chance, whew, that must be exciting! I would guess for you, reading your own writing must be like reading somebody else's novel.
Regardless, am I right in assuming that these 15 doctors haven't examined her? And by "some improvement" do any of them quantify that to be beyond a vegetative state or are we simply hoping for a potato to squash type of improvement?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus You're stating that she is responsive in the venus flytrap sense. I presumed you were actually trying to employ the term as it applies in the medical sense as indicative of consciousness.
Don't play games. Following directions is considered responsive, and 'responsive' means reaction to stimuli. If you want, I can bring up papers to demonstrate it with individual cases and court hearings. It is generally accepted that PVS patients do not respond to most stimuli if at all.
Edit: I just realized, the difference seems to be that in that quote he meant 'responsive' as improvement from treatment. Of course, I never made any claims about that.
Quote:
Are you disagreeing with the doctor without having, yourself, any background in the case? As for me, I stated my reasons for going with the expert on, admittedly, cursory judegment.
But it's obviously contended, and there appears to be evidence to the contrary. It also appears we can't get independent opinion. 'Going with the expert' might be fine if we are talking about someone diagnosed with a metal pole in the head, but this case is obviously too complex to make judgements on third-hand accounts of anyone's opinion.
Quote:
Same applies to you, no?
Well yeah. That's kind of why I have been saying over and over that I am suspending judgement.
Quote:
I agreed that we do not know enough about the situation, but took issue with your characterization of her being "clearly responsive" as it pertains to the issue of her being in a vegetative state. I will agree that she responds to stimuli in the same sense that her skin burns in response to the sun, but there is no hard evidence of consciousness as I understand it to be evaluated medically and as the doctor has stated accordingly.
The type of responsive I saw in the video are typically considered indications of awareness. Hell, blinking on direction or moving a toe have been considered indications of awareness, and what I saw in the video is much more than that.
But as I said in my first post "After looking at the videos, I don't think we know enough to comment. She appears to be clearly responsive."
Quote:
I'm glad you're amused, as was I when you suggested that a woman in a vegetative state for 13 yrs is highly likely to make a FULL recovery. I would have added an emoticon, but they don't have a smiley laughing milk out his nose.
Well, not only did I not say that, but when I put something similar to that it was a quickly corrected unintended mistake out of habit. If your only defense is to pretend a minor mistake (which you are now even lying about) is your only defense for trying to flaunt your education (which, BTW, is a common one in my world), then I pitty you for how easily your ego is bruised.
Don't play games. Following directions is considered responsive, and 'responsive' means reaction to stimuli. If you want, I can bring up papers to demonstrate it with individual cases and court hearings. It is generally accepted that PVS patients do not respond to most stimuli if at all.
I'm familiar with the definitions and I know that PVS is not equivalent to clinical brain death in which zero response occurs to stimuli. Since we are talking now about the medical use of the term "responsive" it is once again acceptable to defer to the doctor. It's especially noteworthy that by their own admission the terrisfight people indicate that the doctor performing one of the very tests they purport to show responsiveness later testified that she is "totally unresponsive".
Quote:
Edit: I just realized, the difference seems to be that in that quote he meant 'responsive' as improvement from treatment. Of course, I never made any claims about that.
That's ok, I never inferred such.
Quote:
'Going with the expert' might be fine if we are talking about someone diagnosed with a metal pole in the head, but this case is obviously too complex to make judgements on third-hand accounts of anyone's opinion.
Quote:
Well yeah. That's kind of why I have been saying over and over that I am suspending judgement.
This may be the niggling little detail here. You, nor I, are wholely suspending judgement. You are tentatively concluding that she is, in fact, not in a vegetative state despite testimony of doctors who have actually examined her. I am tentatively concluding that the doctor who actually examined her is probably more likely to be correct than the emotionally driven family members.
Quote:
The type of responsive I saw in the video are typically considered indications of awareness. Hell, blinking on direction or moving a toe have been considered indications of awareness, and what I saw in the video is much more than that.
Again, since you have no idea how often she blinks or makes any of the other supposed signs of responsiveness you cannot know that it isn't purely coincidental.
Quote:
But as I said in my first post "After looking at the videos, I don't think we know enough to comment. She appears to be clearly responsive."
IYHO, sure. But I assume you concede that a doctor actually evaluating her is more qualified to make such a judgement.
Quote:
Well, not only did I not say that, but when I put something similar to that it was a quickly corrected unintended mistake out of habit. If your only defense is to pretend a minor mistake (which you are now even lying about) is your only defense for trying to flaunt your education (which, BTW, is a common one in my world), then I pitty you for how easily your ego is bruised.
Your correct that I amplified your mistake, I'm sorry. While most people would agree that simply stating "a recovery" escpecially with respect to a vegetative state implies actually improving beyond a vegetative state. You did not, explicitly say a "Full" recovery. I guess your ad hominem attacks got under my skin.
Again, my apologies. Now can you answer my question as to whether any of these doctors suggested that she would recover beyond a vegetative state or not?
Regarding the flaunting of my education, I was responding to your first ad hominem attack as you suggested I didn't know anything about the subject. I readily concede that I'm no neurosurgeon, but I do, in fact, know something about neurology and I was under the impression we were actually talking about the validity of the claim about whether these reflex reactions constituted "responsiveness." Still, before you brought the issue of my knowledge into the argument, I was simply pointing out the evaluations of the doctor (the expert) and the questionable validity of the internet clips (by selective attribution).
I don't know what you mean by your "world," but it is a common experience in my world to run into people who are far more intelligent than myself. So I have no problem with humility or with questioning what I supposedly witness with my own eyes. It is for this reason, that I find it prudent to suspect that the clips presented on the internet may not accurately reflect her level of responsiveness. And I've yet to here a reasonable argument for why we should doubt the doctor.
Apparently the doctor we are discussing only visits her for 10 minutes 3 times a year.
Oh, and as they say, peep this:
Quote:
A renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. William Hammesfahr, has offered to treat Terri and to give her the rehabilitation she needs to recover. Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1999 and has recently been acknowledged by the Florida Board of Medicine as the first and only doctor in medical history to reverse the effects of stroke. Dr. Hammesfahr thoroughly examined Terri and testified that Terri was not in a Persistent Vegetative State.
Lemme just say that I love message boards. The catalogue of people's thought processes can be very interesting indeed. I've been using it to make my own career niche, but...
if we could confine ourselves to the case. Jeb has given us pause. The motivations of the husband are not entirely trustworthy, the rights of the parents/extended family are also worthy of protection, and the mental capacity of this woman aswell as the medical opinion of certain doctors are all open to interrogation.
If you can all just shelve politics for a second. Your respective equivocations are very very interesting though.
Apparently the doctor we are discussing only visits her for 10 minutes 3 times a year.
Still 30 minutes more than you or I.
Help clear some things up for me, because I haven't had much luck searching around for the info on the terrisfight site...
In a link you referred me to earlier there was some mention that the husband would only let the doctors he approved examine her. If this is the case, did he approve the nobel nominee? And by examine, did he actually examine her in person or just review her file?
Also, I knew something about the claims for William Hammesfahr wasn't quite right and I'm pretty sure that the nobel prize nominations are kept secret for a long long time. A quick web search has only produced some letter to the committee recommending his nomination. If this is the criteria for being a nobel prize nominee then I could be one (edit in: I'm being facetious, of course, but since you have thought I might be bragging in the past let me suggest that this criteria could apply to anyone) I'm looking into it some more...
Ok, this is what I found on a yahoo article
The Peace Prize committee keeps the list of candidates secret for 50 years, only releasing the number of nominations it receives. Last year, when former U.S. President Jimmy Carter won the prize, 156 nominations were submitted....Nominations can be made by former laureates, committee members, members of national governments and legislatures, some university professors and selected organizations.
So in this case, "candidate" is equivalent to what we normally consider a nominee. Still looking into the validity of his nomination...
He was nominated by a Michael Bilirakis, a republican congressman from florida, Dr. William Hammesfahr's state of practice. Also, a quick medline search produced zero scientific publications from the good doctor. And a few medical forum searches revealed that he endorses an unproven approach of using vasodilators to cure neurological disorders.
It's such a contradiction, Republicans (suppossed pro-life) support gun lobby (no matter what people say guns do kill people), and also support death penalty. How can one be pro-life while supporing something as crude and medieval as death penalty.
It's such a contradiction, Republicans (suppossed pro-life) support gun lobby (no matter what people say guns do kill people), and also support death penalty. How can one be pro-life while supporing something as crude and medieval as death penalty.
I think this is worthy of another thread, though it appears that it may be difficult to find someone (on this board) to defend the republican position.
Comments
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
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.
for sure there are reactionary and progressive pro-lifers. the same cannot be said of those who support state-sanctioned murder, who are almost exclusively reactionary.
in terms of the worth assigned to the life of the other, the failure of the the so-called coallition forces to count iraqi bodies is also telling.
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
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.
I am not talking about coma patients here (of which quite a large minority will return to conciousness) but of people (or somethings) in a deep persistant vegetative state where larger parts of the neocortex and other brain regions critical for functions beyond heartbeat, reflexes and digestion are irreversibly destroyed. Or children born without those structures (anencephalic). To the best of my knowledge, none of those has ever reocovered.
Actually, the emergency docs make decisions about the life and death of another human being all the time. At some time, you have to accept you cannot save someone, even if his heart is still beating, you have to let him die. So, they are "playing god" in some sense, but not because the dig the power, but because it is inevitable to make this decision. There is no divine intervention that tells them when it is over.
It just seems more cruel if the person is not terminally wounded but resting silently in his bed.
Originally posted by ichroma
in terms of the worth assigned to the life of the other, the failure of the the so-called coallition forces to count iraqi bodies is also telling.
Stick around.. I'm gonna like you.
Originally posted by Smircle
I am not talking about coma patients here (of which quite a large minority will return to conciousness) but of people (or somethings) in a deep persistant vegetative state where larger parts of the neocortex and other brain regions critical for functions beyond heartbeat, reflexes and digestion are irreversibly destroyed. Or children born without those structures (anencephalic). To the best of my knowledge, none of those has ever reocovered.
Actually, the emergency docs make decisions about the life and death of another human being all the time. At some time, you have to accept you cannot save someone, even if his heart is still beating, you have to let him die. So, they are "playing god" in some sense, but not because the dig the power, but because it is inevitable to make this decision. There is no divine intervention that tells them when it is over.
It just seems more cruel if the person is not terminally wounded but resting silently in his bed.
Understood. I'm glad I don't have to make those types of decisions. I give alot of credit to those that do. This whole argument is a judgement call that is beyond my ability to argue. I think people fall on one side or the other and theres very little logical argument that would persuade them to the other side.
I just see it as her life. She doesn't have alot of hope. But from my vantage, she has the slimmest sliver of hope that shes living a good life... Maybe those neurons are firing just enough and in just the right order to make her happier than you or I will ever be. Regardless, its her little sliver and who am I to take that away from her?
Originally posted by Jukebox Hero
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).
Of course we can never prove that leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, CHUDS, or anything else doesn't exist, but that doesn't present an argument to believe in them or even give them credibility. The life after death examples you cite, are completly subjective, unrepeatable, and, for the most part, unfalsifiable. I qualify the last point because some smart people have decided to start rigging emergency rooms with items that only a hovering, disembodied soul could witness (neon signs on top of cabinets), so in theory you could falsify the testimony of a near-deather. But, in reality no proof would convince a believer that they hallucinated the experience.
Furthermore, experiments with the brain have repeatedly and reliably produced out-of-body experiences in patients, so we have every reason to believe this is a totally natural, mental phenomena.
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.
But we do, and we must. When we convict someone of a crime we assume all sorts of things about their mental state and what they intended to do and penalize them accordingly. When we act in the best interest of those who can't speak for themselves we have to try to determine what they want. This notion that we decide not to decide is a lie. You can either assume the woman wants to live or you assume she wants to die.
There is no non-judgement. I do agree, however, there are good reasons to remove the state from the judgement and leave it to an individual. Given that the spousal connection is usually pre-eminant, in most cases you would side with the husband.
Originally posted by giant
Actually they didn't. From what I can tell, everyone agrees she is responsive. What is in question is her level of brain function
I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not really taking a side here, but on this point I think they (the people who made the www.terrisfight.org web site) do indicate quite clearly that the doctor testified that she is totally unresponsive. It says so much just below the link for the "balloon" video.
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.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I watched the same videos and it doesn't seem clear at all.
And as I said before, I, for one, do not know enought about the situation to make a judgement.
Neither do I, but when it comes to a situation like this I am going to favor the opinion of the doctor (presumably un-emotionally attached, object expert) and assume that the spouse is not a sociopathic, moneygrubber.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
[B]I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm not really taking a side here, but on this point I think they (the people who made the www.terrisfight.org web site) do indicate quite clearly that the doctor testified that she is totally unresponsive. It says so much just below the link for the "balloon" video.
Be that as it may, it is the only two words to that effect I can find on the site. If you dig around, you will see they have quite a few doctors saying she is responsive and could improve.
In fact, one of the main bullets on her situation page: http://www.terrisfight.org/Framesets/SituationFrame.htm
"Terri responds regularly to the presence of her parents and friends. Her husband's doctors testified Terri's cognizant responses to Terri?s parents and friends are simply a reflex action."*
This elaborates and you can see that no one is doubting that there are responses, but some people are claiming they are just reflex.
*you might also want to note the other bullet in relation to this: "Michael Schiavo will not permit any doctor to examine Terri other than the doctors he selects."
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, because I watched the same videos and it doesn't seem clear at all.
No, you are just misinterpreting what is being said, which is a common symptom of someone believing they know more than they do.
Neither do I, but when it comes to a situation like this I am going to favor the opinion of the doctor (presumably un-emotionally attached, object expert) and assume that the spouse is not a sociopathic, moneygrubber.
As pointed out repeatedly, 15 doctors have testified that she could see some imporvement. In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Originally posted by giant
Be that as it may, it is the only two words to that effect I can find on the site. If you dig around, you will see they have quite a few doctors saying she is responsive and could improve.
From what digging I could do the web site states that the evil husband will not allow any doctors to examine her that are not of his selection. So am I right in assuming that these supposed 15 doctors (which I stil didn't find mention of) have not themselves actually examined her?
This elaborates and you can see that no one is doubting that there are responses, but some people are claiming they are just reflex.
There is, in fact, such a thing as a reflex response. I would not characterize this as being responsive.
No, you are just misinterpreting what is being said, which is a common symptom of someone believing they know more than they do.
If by misinterpreting you mean, not seeing what you see and agreeing with the doctor's evaluation, then you are correct. If by knowing more than I do, I have a PhD in genetics, have at least a greater than average knowledge of neurology and, in any case, am conceding to the person who DOES have more knowledge than the average person, the doctor.
I see no reason for the snippy tone, I never made any accusations about your mental accumen.
As pointed out repeatedly, 15 doctors have testified that she will make a recovery. In other words, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Again, 15 doctors who have presumably not examined her. I'm not sure who these doctors are, but the suggestion that she will FULLY recover after 13 yrs in a vegetative state is starting to fail the laugh test. AFAIK, no one with traumatic brain injury and diagnosed to be in CVS has ever recovered.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
If by misinterpreting you mean, not seeing what you see and agreeing with the doctor's evaluation, then you are correct.
First, all I have pointed out is that she clearly responds to external stimuli. This isn't quite the totally brain-dead PVS, which is what many reports claimed or implied. She obviously responds to external stimuli, and there appears to be more than enough evidence to lead one to believe she is at least somewhat aware of her surroundings. Period.
Second, how can you agree with the doctor without any background in the case? The extent of you knowledge is limited to the videos and some light media reports. You are just making a bunch of assumptions and saying you 'disagree' with me. My position is just that we don't know enough about the situation, but she clearly responds to external stimuli. You 'disagree' with this?
If by knowing more than I do, I have a PhD in genetics, have at least a greater than average knowledge of neurology and, in any case, am conceding to the person who DOES have more knowledge than the average person, the doctor.
I see no reason for the snippy tone, I never made any accusations about your mental accumen.
You crack me up. More about this situation. I'm seriously giggling out loud to myself. Could you possibly be more typical?
Again, 15 doctors who have presumably not examined her. I'm not sure who these doctors are, but the suggestion that she will FULLY recover after 13 yrs in a vegetative state is starting to fail the laugh test.
Didn't you notice I immediately took that out as soon as I saw what I wrote? You and I both know that wasn't what I meant. Go look. I was on my way out the door for lunch and my fingers had a mind of their own for a second. Now I've returned with a full stomach, so carry on...
Originally posted by giant
First, all I have pointed out is that she clearly responds to external stimuli. This isn't quite the totally brain-dead PVS, which is what many reports claimed or implied. She obviously responds to external stimuli, and there appears to be more than enough evidence to lead one to believe she is at least somewhat aware of her surroundings. Period.
Ok, now I understand. You're stating that she is responsive in the venus flytrap sense. I presumed you were actually trying to employ the term as it applies in the medical sense as indicative of consciousness. If, OTOH, you are suggesting that your evaluation of her on the videos clearly indicates that she is not in a constant vegetative state then I must presume that you are asserting your medical knowledge above that of the doctor.
Second, how can you agree with the doctor without any background in the case?
Are you disagreeing with the doctor without having, yourself, any background in the case? As for me, I stated my reasons for going with the expert on, admittedly, cursory judegment.
The extent of you knowledge is limited to the videos and some light media reports. You are just making a bunch of assumptions and saying you 'disagree' with me.
Same applies to you, no?
My position is just that we don't know enough about the situation, but she clearly responds to external stimuli. You 'disagree' with this?
I agreed that we do not know enough about the situation, but took issue with your characterization of her being "clearly responsive" as it pertains to the issue of her being in a vegetative state. I will agree that she responds to stimuli in the same sense that her skin burns in response to the sun, but there is no hard evidence of consciousness as I understand it to be evaluated medically and as the doctor has stated accordingly.
You crack me up. More about this situation. I'm seriously giggling out loud to myself. Could you possibly be more typical?
I'm glad you're amused, as was I when you suggested that a woman in a vegetative state for 13 yrs is highly likely to make a FULL recovery. I would have added an emoticon, but they don't have a smiley laughing milk out his nose.
Didn't you notice I immediately took that out as soon as I saw what I wrote? You and I both know that wasn't what I meant. Go look. I was on my way out the door for lunch and my fingers had a mind of their own for a second. Now I've returned with a full stomach, so carry on...
Um... ok, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to know what you REALLY mean when you appearantly have to read your own writing to discover what you wrote. I'm somewhat envious, when I write I'm usually not suprised at what I find when I read my own writing aside from the occassionaly grammatical mistake. But to have wholely invented arguments of fact arise by chance, whew, that must be exciting! I would guess for you, reading your own writing must be like reading somebody else's novel.
Regardless, am I right in assuming that these 15 doctors haven't examined her? And by "some improvement" do any of them quantify that to be beyond a vegetative state or are we simply hoping for a potato to squash type of improvement?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus You're stating that she is responsive in the venus flytrap sense. I presumed you were actually trying to employ the term as it applies in the medical sense as indicative of consciousness.
Don't play games. Following directions is considered responsive, and 'responsive' means reaction to stimuli. If you want, I can bring up papers to demonstrate it with individual cases and court hearings. It is generally accepted that PVS patients do not respond to most stimuli if at all.
Edit: I just realized, the difference seems to be that in that quote he meant 'responsive' as improvement from treatment. Of course, I never made any claims about that.
Are you disagreeing with the doctor without having, yourself, any background in the case? As for me, I stated my reasons for going with the expert on, admittedly, cursory judegment.
But it's obviously contended, and there appears to be evidence to the contrary. It also appears we can't get independent opinion. 'Going with the expert' might be fine if we are talking about someone diagnosed with a metal pole in the head, but this case is obviously too complex to make judgements on third-hand accounts of anyone's opinion.
Same applies to you, no?
Well yeah. That's kind of why I have been saying over and over that I am suspending judgement.
I agreed that we do not know enough about the situation, but took issue with your characterization of her being "clearly responsive" as it pertains to the issue of her being in a vegetative state. I will agree that she responds to stimuli in the same sense that her skin burns in response to the sun, but there is no hard evidence of consciousness as I understand it to be evaluated medically and as the doctor has stated accordingly.
The type of responsive I saw in the video are typically considered indications of awareness. Hell, blinking on direction or moving a toe have been considered indications of awareness, and what I saw in the video is much more than that.
But as I said in my first post "After looking at the videos, I don't think we know enough to comment. She appears to be clearly responsive."
I'm glad you're amused, as was I when you suggested that a woman in a vegetative state for 13 yrs is highly likely to make a FULL recovery. I would have added an emoticon, but they don't have a smiley laughing milk out his nose.
Well, not only did I not say that, but when I put something similar to that it was a quickly corrected unintended mistake out of habit. If your only defense is to pretend a minor mistake (which you are now even lying about) is your only defense for trying to flaunt your education (which, BTW, is a common one in my world), then I pitty you for how easily your ego is bruised.
Originally posted by giant
Don't play games. Following directions is considered responsive, and 'responsive' means reaction to stimuli. If you want, I can bring up papers to demonstrate it with individual cases and court hearings. It is generally accepted that PVS patients do not respond to most stimuli if at all.
I'm familiar with the definitions and I know that PVS is not equivalent to clinical brain death in which zero response occurs to stimuli. Since we are talking now about the medical use of the term "responsive" it is once again acceptable to defer to the doctor. It's especially noteworthy that by their own admission the terrisfight people indicate that the doctor performing one of the very tests they purport to show responsiveness later testified that she is "totally unresponsive".
Edit: I just realized, the difference seems to be that in that quote he meant 'responsive' as improvement from treatment. Of course, I never made any claims about that.
That's ok, I never inferred such.
'Going with the expert' might be fine if we are talking about someone diagnosed with a metal pole in the head, but this case is obviously too complex to make judgements on third-hand accounts of anyone's opinion.
Well yeah. That's kind of why I have been saying over and over that I am suspending judgement.
This may be the niggling little detail here. You, nor I, are wholely suspending judgement. You are tentatively concluding that she is, in fact, not in a vegetative state despite testimony of doctors who have actually examined her. I am tentatively concluding that the doctor who actually examined her is probably more likely to be correct than the emotionally driven family members.
The type of responsive I saw in the video are typically considered indications of awareness. Hell, blinking on direction or moving a toe have been considered indications of awareness, and what I saw in the video is much more than that.
Again, since you have no idea how often she blinks or makes any of the other supposed signs of responsiveness you cannot know that it isn't purely coincidental.
But as I said in my first post "After looking at the videos, I don't think we know enough to comment. She appears to be clearly responsive."
IYHO, sure. But I assume you concede that a doctor actually evaluating her is more qualified to make such a judgement.
Well, not only did I not say that, but when I put something similar to that it was a quickly corrected unintended mistake out of habit. If your only defense is to pretend a minor mistake (which you are now even lying about) is your only defense for trying to flaunt your education (which, BTW, is a common one in my world), then I pitty you for how easily your ego is bruised.
Your correct that I amplified your mistake, I'm sorry. While most people would agree that simply stating "a recovery" escpecially with respect to a vegetative state implies actually improving beyond a vegetative state. You did not, explicitly say a "Full" recovery. I guess your ad hominem attacks got under my skin.
Again, my apologies. Now can you answer my question as to whether any of these doctors suggested that she would recover beyond a vegetative state or not?
Regarding the flaunting of my education, I was responding to your first ad hominem attack as you suggested I didn't know anything about the subject. I readily concede that I'm no neurosurgeon, but I do, in fact, know something about neurology and I was under the impression we were actually talking about the validity of the claim about whether these reflex reactions constituted "responsiveness." Still, before you brought the issue of my knowledge into the argument, I was simply pointing out the evaluations of the doctor (the expert) and the questionable validity of the internet clips (by selective attribution).
I don't know what you mean by your "world," but it is a common experience in my world to run into people who are far more intelligent than myself. So I have no problem with humility or with questioning what I supposedly witness with my own eyes. It is for this reason, that I find it prudent to suspect that the clips presented on the internet may not accurately reflect her level of responsiveness. And I've yet to here a reasonable argument for why we should doubt the doctor.
Originally posted by bunge
I find it odd that the sanctity of the life of a foetus or a woman in a coma is considered greater than that of a healthy human being on death row.
me too.
Apparently the doctor we are discussing only visits her for 10 minutes 3 times a year.
Oh, and as they say, peep this:
A renowned neurosurgeon, Dr. William Hammesfahr, has offered to treat Terri and to give her the rehabilitation she needs to recover. Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1999 and has recently been acknowledged by the Florida Board of Medicine as the first and only doctor in medical history to reverse the effects of stroke. Dr. Hammesfahr thoroughly examined Terri and testified that Terri was not in a Persistent Vegetative State.
if we could confine ourselves to the case. Jeb has given us pause. The motivations of the husband are not entirely trustworthy, the rights of the parents/extended family are also worthy of protection, and the mental capacity of this woman aswell as the medical opinion of certain doctors are all open to interrogation.
If you can all just shelve politics for a second. Your respective equivocations are very very interesting though.
Originally posted by giant
Apparently the doctor we are discussing only visits her for 10 minutes 3 times a year.
Still 30 minutes more than you or I.
Help clear some things up for me, because I haven't had much luck searching around for the info on the terrisfight site...
In a link you referred me to earlier there was some mention that the husband would only let the doctors he approved examine her. If this is the case, did he approve the nobel nominee? And by examine, did he actually examine her in person or just review her file?
Also, I knew something about the claims for William Hammesfahr wasn't quite right and I'm pretty sure that the nobel prize nominations are kept secret for a long long time. A quick web search has only produced some letter to the committee recommending his nomination. If this is the criteria for being a nobel prize nominee then I could be one (edit in: I'm being facetious, of course, but since you have thought I might be bragging in the past let me suggest that this criteria could apply to anyone) I'm looking into it some more...
Ok, this is what I found on a yahoo article
The Peace Prize committee keeps the list of candidates secret for 50 years, only releasing the number of nominations it receives. Last year, when former U.S. President Jimmy Carter won the prize, 156 nominations were submitted....Nominations can be made by former laureates, committee members, members of national governments and legislatures, some university professors and selected organizations.
So in this case, "candidate" is equivalent to what we normally consider a nominee. Still looking into the validity of his nomination...
He was nominated by a Michael Bilirakis, a republican congressman from florida, Dr. William Hammesfahr's state of practice. Also, a quick medline search produced zero scientific publications from the good doctor. And a few medical forum searches revealed that he endorses an unproven approach of using vasodilators to cure neurological disorders.
Originally posted by markiv
It's such a contradiction, Republicans (suppossed pro-life) support gun lobby (no matter what people say guns do kill people), and also support death penalty. How can one be pro-life while supporing something as crude and medieval as death penalty.
I think this is worthy of another thread, though it appears that it may be difficult to find someone (on this board) to defend the republican position.