Posted on 11/20/2006 1:49:59 PM PST by presidio9
From post 70:
RP: Neither will recover. Both are on artificial life support. Neither has consciousness or ever will again.
OFF: This is your opinion. It is not fact.
If it were fact, then patients in a PVS would never regain consciousness, but sometimes, yes, sometimes, they do. You've made a blanket statement and try to apply it to all cases.
Now here is the response (115):
OFF: "If it were fact"
RP: It is a fact. It is the definition of PVS. The "P" stands for "Persistent".
OFF: "... but sometimes, yes, sometimes, they do."
RP: They never, no, never, do. If the patient regains consciousness, then they weren't PVS.
It sounds like you believe that ALL patients who are diagnosed as PVS must be in an irreversible condition based on the definition. Yet, you concede that "if the patient regains consciousness, then they weren't PVS." In other words, you rightly conclude that sometimes doctors DO misdiagnose this condition.
What is being discussed (IMHO) are the pros and cons to administering a drug to a patient that might help determine whether this patient is truly in an IRREVERSIBLE condition. Up until this discovery, there was little hope that these patients could be reversed. Legally, there appears to be a boundary on whether or not it is ethical to allow someone to die by withholding treatment if the condition can be reversed (which would also mean that the patient had been misdiagnosed).
Furthermore, in post 129 you argue that PVS is permanent, yet in your earlier post 115 you say that the "P" stands for persistent. Which is it? Permanent and persistent are two words that could be synonyms, but in truth, there is a matter of degree in definition. "Permanent" does mean irreversible, yet "persistent" has a bit of the unknown about its reversibility. There is a quality about the word "persistent" that indicates a description of the condition up to a certain point, but does not with complete certainty indicate what the future of the conditions holds.
It is my understanding that this condition (PVS) first was called "persistent" and then over time, "permanent" became introduced into the diagnosis. I believe this was a purposeful move by pro-euthanasia movement, with the support of doctors like Dr. Ronald Cranford and other "bio-ethicists". IMHO, because the diagnosis can (now) result in the loss of life, whether or not the patient would want that, it is a diagnosis that needs to be looked at (and revised) quite urgently. Otherwise, there should not be such a rush to discontinue "erring on the side of life", which is the way society has handled questions like this for quite some time.
So, I assume based upon what you wrote that you pro-abortion because the family knows better than the rest of us what is best for the baby and that this should actually be the conservative view of such matters.
And you also believe that estranged adulterous spouses should have preference over blood relations.
"There is actually a SANE JUDGE out there (unfortunately, he's in England)!"
I still don't like the idea of any judge of any kind being the one who has to decide cases like this.
Judges are not doctors.
Starvation/dehydration should never be used....period.
pvs is not well understood, and is misdiagnosed over 40% of the time.
These people are brain-damaged, not brain dead.
If they don't meet the criteria for brain death, they should not have to suffer dehydration.
I don't like judges being involved either, but if they must be, I would far prefer that it be a judge who prefers to give medicine a chance rather than inhumanely killing someone off.
"I don't like judges being involved either, but if they must be, I would far prefer that it be a judge who prefers to give medicine a chance rather than inhumanely killing someone off."
It is preferable...but it never should have gotten to the courtroom
It is the medical community who should understand that pvs is not a rock solid diagnosis. The medical community should understand there is no way to truly test a person's self awareness.
So their claims to a "peaceful" death through dehydration are just wishful thinking.
Dehydration should not be allowed.
Terminal patients who truly are dying will naturally refuse food and water at the end of their life...but to actively dehydrate someone who is not dying is murder.
Thank you, sir.
Yeah, paralyzed people don't really want to live, or be professors of physics and mathematics at Cambridge or anything. :p
"Have the lawyers hijacked the word?"
You could say so. It's legal to abort a " fetus" -- it's illegal to kill a "baby". A lot hinges on the semantics in this case.
I haven't heard of that. I have heard of minimally conscious state (MCS) but not MPVS. What is that?
You first -- if you think a ventilator is "artificial life support", please tell us all who should be kept on this life support and who should be taken off?
Someday I'll get over it : )
That's not such a bad idea. i would think most living wills would accommodate that - i.e., try anything as long as there's a chance of near full recovery. if no chance, then no heroic measures. I wouldn't consider Ambien a particularly heroic or expensive measure, however.
And Flowers for Algernon/Charlie are the best illustration I've seen thus far of what this phenomenon entails.
Yes, if given by a surgically implanted feeding tube.
"Is withholding food and water until someone dies the same as "letting them die" -- or is it more like killing them?"
If the food and water is being delivered by a surgically implanted feeding tube, then withholding food and water until someone dies is the same as "letting them die".
"Who would you deny food and water to?"
Me? No one.
But I would withhold food and water if it was being delivered by a surgically implanted feeding tube, if I was their caregiver, and if they had requested I do so under certain conditions to allow them to die.
Why do you ask? Why is this about me and what I would do? Just being nosy?
"Dead people should be taken off (subject to their clearly stated will for such eventualities)."
But if they're PVS or severly brain damaged they shouldn't, even if their will clearly states they want this?
I didn't post that directly to you. But, since you are showing everyone how eager you are to kill innocent people like the Nazi's did, I don't understand your point.
"Why do you ask? Why is this about me and what I would do? Just being nosy?"
Good point -- why should I care?
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.