Posted on 06/01/2006 7:20:27 AM PDT by 8mmMauser
What struck me about that statement, was that he wasn't just advocating denying Daniel extraordinary treatment, nor even minimal care. He was saying that Daniel should be killed, without so much as the benefit of comfort care.
Bald-faced lie. And, please ping me if you speak about me rather than engaging in gossip.
You said you knew what palliative care is. Do you, or don't you?
We've been through this already. Good night.
And btw, it really hurts my feelings when you, of all people, call me a liar, Deacon.
"The problem with a diagnosis of brain death, is that some doctors declare brain death while there is still some brain activity."
What doctors? How do you know this?
Any action like this should be treated as a crime.
The body is still alive, yes, and deserves respect. But, clinically, the person is dead.
"But still a living human being, right?"
The body is still alive, yes, and deserves respect. But, clinically, the person is dead.
That is not dead.
I've read numerous cases from various news sources in which a patient was declared brain dead while parts of the brain still functioned. I haven't kept records on it, but if you read the news on a regular basis, you'll read of these cases also. I'll try to remember and ping you next time I come across one.
Read the article linked in Post 4. Not only does it give specifics of the brain damage ("almost brain-dead"), but it gives some nasty details about this woman.
She is an unfit mother for a perfectly healthy child, let alone one with as many special needs as this one. The state has had him in custody for two months.
"I've read numerous cases from various news sources in which a patient was declared brain dead while parts of the brain still functioned. I haven't kept records on it, but if you read the news on a regular basis, you'll read of these cases also. I'll try to remember and ping you next time I come across one."
I'd be interested in knowing if these people were prosecuted.
"She is an unfit mother for a perfectly healthy child, let alone one with as many special needs as this one. The state has had him in custody for two months."
Thanks for showing me where that link was.
Clearly this woman does have problems.
The article still does not state the baby's diagnosis.
It appears he is not brain dead. They didn't seem to mention coma? pvs?
When it comes to brain injury, 2 months is not considered a very long time to properly assess the extent of damage (it has been recommended that a diagnosis of pvs not even be attempted until one year after the incident)
So I guess my opinion about the baby hasn't changed much. If she is right about observing responiveness in him - it doesn't matter what kind of a mother she is.
I hope they don't decide his fate based on what kind of a person she is.
I haven't heard of any prosecutions. The courts just seem to accept that there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Anything a doctor says is taken as gospel truth, unless another doctor says otherwise. Then the judge considers it a mere difference of opinion, and picks the one he likes best. I suppose a lot more thought goes into it than just this simplified version might suggest, but that does end up being the end result.
I am not, however, saying that they should be automatically disconnected from life support. I'm simply saying they're dead.
When do you consider a person on life support dead? Ever?
"I haven't heard of any prosecutions. The courts just seem to accept that there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Anything a doctor says is taken as gospel truth, unless another doctor says otherwise. Then the judge considers it a mere difference of opinion, and picks the one he likes best. I suppose a lot more thought goes into it than just this simplified version might suggest, but that does end up being the end result."
I'm curious because in our situation the only way doctors could do that would be to fudge test results and lie for each other.
I'm not sure how it differs from state to state, but they were required to prove she had lost her automatic reflexes - her ability to maintain certain hormonal functions - as well as undergo diagnostic brain imaging and EEG.
We were also lucky in that her godfather is a surgeon- was present during most of the testing - and was able to translate the medical-speak for us. He too agreed with the doctors.
Three doctors had to concur by law, declare death at the time they agreed to the diagnosis and proceeded to sign the documents declaring death.
I really haven't seen much in the news where one doctor would declare death and another doctor would not.
It seems the patient would either meet the criteria or not.
It's foolish to keep a dead body hooked up to life support. But that doesn't mean you should kill people who are still alive. There is no such thing as a live body with a dead person trapped inside. There is no such thing as a live body with no person inside.
Unless and until you have a basic understanding of the difference between life and death, you're not going to understand why it's wrong to kill people who are still alive.
The problem is, the criteria is not uniform in every jurisdiction. Not all doctors check all brain functions. Sometimes the patient is heavily sedated, and sometimes not.
"The problem is, the criteria is not uniform in every jurisdiction. Not all doctors check all brain functions. Sometimes the patient is heavily sedated, and sometimes not."
Well...again...this is really a crime.
If this is true than some patients are having organs harvested while they're still alive.
There certainly needs to be uniform criteria that no one should be allowed to stray from.
Yes, there should!
Thanks for that.
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.