Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

analog · 09-08-2006, 03:42 PM

Here's the thing, too... unless the brain stem was damaged, there's no reason these people's bodies can't live on their own. Many aren't on "life support", but are simply attached to monitors like any person would be. They breathe fine on their own, but only require IV nutrition (or a feeding tube) since they're not able to eat- IV nutrition, however, is not considered life support. You're just feeding them.

The reason this is extra important is because a lot of these people have no "plug" to "pull". So, the only way to put them out of their misery would literally mean intentionally ending their life, not simply removing or discontinuing artificial support and "letting nature take its course". You would actually have to end their life.

Euthanasia for a person who is on full life support is a controversial enough topic, with the only issue being that you remove them from the machinery keeping them alive, letting them die naturally.

This situation is more akin to giving a person a painless death, such as a person dying of cancer. You're "putting them out of their misery", since the process of slowly dying from a cancer can be extremely painful and agonizing. In these cases, however, the patient is conscious and usually able to fully articulate their desire to be euthanized.

For a person who is in a persistant vegetative state, but shows signs of brain activity we measure as a sign of some level of consciousness, they are incapable of telling us what they want. If it's not in a living will, they have to be left alive, even though there is currently no way to bring a person back from such a state.

So do we let them live, because they're alive? Or do we realize the maddening cage we're keeping them in and end their mental suffering?

This is another great discussion to impress upon people the importance of a living will, and making sure everyone close to you understands your wishes, just in case.

09-08-2006, 03:42 PM	#9 (permalink)
analog Banned	Here's the thing, too... unless the brain stem was damaged, there's no reason these people's bodies can't live on their own. Many aren't on "life support", but are simply attached to monitors like any person would be. They breathe fine on their own, but only require IV nutrition (or a feeding tube) since they're not able to eat- IV nutrition, however, is not considered life support. You're just feeding them. The reason this is extra important is because a lot of these people have no "plug" to "pull". So, the only way to put them out of their misery would literally mean intentionally ending their life, not simply removing or discontinuing artificial support and "letting nature take its course". You would actually have to end their life. Euthanasia for a person who is on full life support is a controversial enough topic, with the only issue being that you remove them from the machinery keeping them alive, letting them die naturally. This situation is more akin to giving a person a painless death, such as a person dying of cancer. You're "putting them out of their misery", since the process of slowly dying from a cancer can be extremely painful and agonizing. In these cases, however, the patient is conscious and usually able to fully articulate their desire to be euthanized. For a person who is in a persistant vegetative state, but shows signs of brain activity we measure as a sign of some level of consciousness, they are incapable of telling us what they want. If it's not in a living will, they have to be left alive, even though there is currently no way to bring a person back from such a state. So do we let them live, because they're alive? Or do we realize the maddening cage we're keeping them in and end their mental suffering? This is another great discussion to impress upon people the importance of a living will, and making sure everyone close to you understands your wishes, just in case.