IF NOT IN LIFE, GIVE US TERRI IN DEATH, KIN BEG HUBBY IN FUNERAL FIGHT

NY Post ^ | March 28, 2005 | KENNETH LOVETT and LUKAS I. ALPERT

[Destro]

hopeless as in terminal - they can't "wake up" and can't live without a machine. I know Terri looks like she was awake but the eyes and facial movements are automatic - there was no consciousness there - no consciousness for people in a PVS. I go with what science says.

[Destro]

PS: The body is allowed to starve to death - in some cases shut down - all by removing life support (as a feeding tube is life support). Medical ethicists have worked out that you you kill a patient to ease him out of this world with poison it is murder/euthanasia. But removing life support devices on the body of a patient that is beyond the ability to REVIVE (that is what is meant by wont recover) and then letting nature take its course is acceptable medial practice.

[kosta50]

I go with what science says

Medical science has been wrong, is not perfect, and constantly changes. If you take our understanding of heart attacks ten years ago and today -- they are like day and night. Most of medicine is done on "evidence-based" (read anecdotal) experience of the care-giver. Clinical experience is not science.

If there is doubt, we must give the benefit of the doubt to the patient, not science. I hope you are not in a health related profession Destro.

[AmishDude]

no consciousness for people in a PVS. I go with what science says.

Actually "science" revised PVS to add a state which is not PVS. Scientists don't know what they're doing and shouldn't determine ethics at all. Ethics should be imposed on the medical profession and they should have to operate within those restraints.

Bottom line: If Terri can feel anything at all, then starving and dehydrating her for weeks is nothing short of the most brutal form of torture. If she can't, then it doesn't matter what we do.

[Destro]

Clinical experience is very much science. In any case it is sad - but I don't agree for this specific case only that it is unacceptable to withdraw artificial life support - and yes a feeding tube is artificial life support. Science says their is only a reflex function for people in a PVS - brain is so damages there is no way it can process the pain as far as science can detect. PVS is a condition that only can exist in rich and techincally advanced nations that can afford and support such extraordinary medical care.

In India, this woman would have been dead almost that same day after her heart attack.

Would we call the Indian medical profession murderers because they could not keep her artificialy alive through machines they do not have nor can afford to buy?

[AmishDude]

You are assuming she is in a PVS. Cranford probably thinks you are in a PVS. If you begin with that assumption you will always come to your conclusion. The medical profession has gotten much more specific about these states.

She is only on a feeding tube. I think they can manage that in most of India.

The point is that there is somebody who is willing to take the responsibility for her care. Probably not the decision I would choose to make, but I don't see why she must be turned into beef jerky.

[Destro]

I am not assuming she is in a PVS - she is in a PVS based on the court appointed testimony of the medical teams. I have read the actual medical reports submitted to the court online.

[kosta50]

Clinical experience is not science. Clinical experience is anecdotal. Controlled experiments are scince; they are based on scientific method, controlled groups etc. But even the scientific method does not give us truth; it merely gives us a finite, working model. Newtonian physics work on earth because of short distances and temperate enrionment. They fail in space.

Ptolemy used scientific method (observation, measurement, etc.) to obtain a navigational system -- which works to this day. Trouble is, it was based on the assumption (based on our relative perception) that everything rotates around the earth, which is stationary.

Because his system works, it has validity which all science claims (repeatability, predictability, etc.), which is what makes science acceptable as "truth." It works! It must be true! The truth is: scientific models are just that. Models. They work on a limited knowledge, in limited environment, and so on.

Just because Ptolemy's system worked was no justification to assume Ptolemy's premises for his system were true. But the authorties of the day did. They even used it as a "proof" of the geocentric system. Today we know otherwise. They were not only false, they were completely false!

Just because your equipment doesn't detect something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist. We don't see radio waves. Would the science of the 19th century "prove" in a court that there is no such phenomenon? In today's mind set yet! We have actually gone backwards because we worship science, elevating that which humans know as the absolute truth.

If there is doubt, we must side with the patient, not science. Period. Obviously our legal system does not. It's a shame.

[Destro]

God, the existance of a soul are anecdotal.

[kosta50]

If I have to take my chance, I will take it with whatever created this, not with man. Whatever it is, its capacity is iniftine comapred to ours.

I will err on the side of mercy and compassion. If in doubt, I will choose God over man any time.