Thanks, ladydiana

[conuly]

I wonder what he'll do. If he wanted the inheritance all along, he's really in a dilemma now, isn't he?

A related passage we can always take time to read.

Comments

[arikatt.livejournal.com]

Oh god, that "when I woke up" article is horrifying...

[conuly]

It's suposed to be.

[readerravenclaw.livejournal.com]

I am very much against disconnecting patients in a coma or in a "vegitative" state from life support for both religious and non-religious reasons. I can understand, however, why some people might really feel that if a patient is lying unmoving in a hospital for X years, then sometimes it is better to "let them die." But in this case, I canNOT fathom how it is that the law allows a person to decide to "pull the plug" so to speak in this specific instance. The reports are conflicting, and it's possible that a patient can be propped up in bed and can appear to be somewhat responsive and still have no higher brain functioning. But the idea of effectively killing a person who might HAVE higher brain functioning - because brain damage doesn't mean she isn't still in there, MR isn't a reason to kill someone - is just something I really can't understand. Especially since her husband does stand to gain from her death, and is living with another woman. He might really THINK that he's doing it for her sake, because she didn't want to live like this - but I think that the chances that he's influenced by what he stands to gain are high enough that it should be a factor.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I support a right to choose, because I think the issue is so blurry that people should each make the choice for themselves. This is why i think having a living will is a great idea, and you should try to make it as clear as possible. Put what tests you want run first if under some conditions you might want to be let die. Don't be ambiguous.

I do worry about this specific case though. I haven't really been following it, but from what I see, it does seem problematic. I do think caution is vital.

If I were truly devoid of all brain functioning, then as far as I'm concerned, I'm gone and keeping the body around isn't something worth doing. But I'd like people to be sure before they stop keeping me hydrated. And preferably, I'd prefer not to die in that matter, just on the off chance they made a mistake, at least let it be a less painful way of dying.

[arikatt.livejournal.com]

Oh god, that "when I woke up" article is horrifying...

[conuly]

It's suposed to be.

[readerravenclaw.livejournal.com]

I am very much against disconnecting patients in a coma or in a "vegitative" state from life support for both religious and non-religious reasons. I can understand, however, why some people might really feel that if a patient is lying unmoving in a hospital for X years, then sometimes it is better to "let them die." But in this case, I canNOT fathom how it is that the law allows a person to decide to "pull the plug" so to speak in this specific instance. The reports are conflicting, and it's possible that a patient can be propped up in bed and can appear to be somewhat responsive and still have no higher brain functioning. But the idea of effectively killing a person who might HAVE higher brain functioning - because brain damage doesn't mean she isn't still in there, MR isn't a reason to kill someone - is just something I really can't understand. Especially since her husband does stand to gain from her death, and is living with another woman. He might really THINK that he's doing it for her sake, because she didn't want to live like this - but I think that the chances that he's influenced by what he stands to gain are high enough that it should be a factor.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I support a right to choose, because I think the issue is so blurry that people should each make the choice for themselves. This is why i think having a living will is a great idea, and you should try to make it as clear as possible. Put what tests you want run first if under some conditions you might want to be let die. Don't be ambiguous.

I do worry about this specific case though. I haven't really been following it, but from what I see, it does seem problematic. I do think caution is vital.

If I were truly devoid of all brain functioning, then as far as I'm concerned, I'm gone and keeping the body around isn't something worth doing. But I'd like people to be sure before they stop keeping me hydrated. And preferably, I'd prefer not to die in that matter, just on the off chance they made a mistake, at least let it be a less painful way of dying.