Yesterday, the Boston Globe
reported the recovery of Haleigh Poutre, a 14-year-old girl once diagnosed as being in an "irreversible vegetative state." Haleigh was almost removed from life support by Masachussets DSS after doctors had declared her condition hopeless. She began to breathe on her own just as the state's highest court ruled that she should be allowed to die.
More recently, Haleigh has "provided police with dramatic testimony about frequent use of corporal punishment during her childhood." Haleigh, who has "spent the last two years at a pediatric rehabilitation hospital in Brighton, communicated with simple words and hand gestures in an interview last December. She also spelled out full sentences by pointing to letters of the alphabet on a board."
This is obviously a remarkable recovery for Haleigh. And it may ensure that the parties culpable for her injuries are held criminally responsible. But the downside of this story is that it s publicity may undercut public trust in diagnoses. If we use terms "irreversible vegetative state" with respect to patients who recover, surrogates may be less willing to accept diagnoses and recommendations to stop LSMT. Their patient may be another Haleigh Poutre. I readily concede that diagnoses can almost never be made with 100% certainty. My point is that in our use of language, we ought not imply certainty where none exists.
