Link from moggymania

[conuly]

It's about... or not about, rather, Terri Schiavo.

Moggy has quite a few of those links up, actually, though I'm not sure if they're on public posts or not.

Comments

[ex-chaos-by-699.livejournal.com]

How did they determine that her forebrain is liquid? I'm just curious.

[l33tminion]

CAT scans.

[leora.livejournal.com]

To be clear, I'm not sure it's all of it. I've seen the scans, but I don't know how to interpret it. I've read that a lot of the brain is now replaced with liquid. I can make some educated guesses as to what this says for what is left of her, but I don't know details. And I do reserve some judgement for the possibility that some important bits are there because I just don't know. But it does seem to seriously reduce the odds, and if doctors look at that and say - no, she's not there And judges look at the tapes and see her acting cognizant and then see her doing the same things for no clear cause and then see her not acting cognizant at the same stimuli... well, I know how easy it is to see a pattern you want to see when it isn't there.

On an interesting note, according to one site, her husband did not choose to let her die and couldn't accept the monetary offers because he can't unchoose it. He chose to let the court decide, to give his guardianship to a judge to make the best decision after weighing all the evidence. And that judge decided it'd be best to let her die.

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

What unnerves me about that kind of judgment call is that — and the existence of a forebrain or not isn't the issue in all this, it wasn't the issue for Robert Wendland and it's not the issue here — I've actually been in situations where my communication and comprehension skills looked so inconsistent that people said there was "nobody there". Inconsistent as in timing problems, sometimes comprehension problems, sometimes reaction problems, giving reactions when I don't mean to, not giving reactions when I mean to, and sometimes doing it exactly right (if slowly). I would be terrified if my life were on the line in a situation like that and a bunch of courts and judges and doctors had to decide whether there was "someone there" based on hours of inconsistent or non-existent communication abilities.

Because of having been in situations like that, I don't think anyone on the outside of someone should decide whether there's a person inside because I don't think it's up to anyone to decide who counts as a person and who doesn't. Some people's "reflex actions" are other people's "genuine person" and even if they are what some doctors call "reflex actions" I don't think that makes a person a non-person. I don't believe in non-persons.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Right, but to a lot of people it's the combination of inability to communicate and brain being liquified.

I do believe in non-persons. I do believe it is possible to have a body left with nothing of the person left inside it. And I believe it's possible to keep such bodies going and that it is pointless to do so.

So, to me and many others, the argument is one of - is there a person still inside. But that's a very different argument than does a person deserve to be kept alive if it's a pain. Most people I know aren't making that argument and I don't think the two arguments should be conflated.

If you believe there's always something of the person left, no matter how much of the brain is gone and how little evidence there is then that's a respectable opinion. I don't. Neither of us can ever really be sure. As such, we go back to the basic message of leave a living will. But for those who don't, somebody does have to decide what that person's wishes would have been, since it is an issue of faith and not of 100% certainty. And I believe that each belief should be respected for the people who hold it.

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

The reason disabled people are worried is because the creation of a class of non-persons for a specific kind of disability-category means that it could easily be expanded to include some of us. And in fact usually is expanded to include some of us on the basis of a lot more than whether a person has more than a brainstem or not. I've seen all the same arguments that are taking place around Terry Schiavo being batted around in the name of defending people who killed or tried to kill people with cerebral palsy, severe brain injury (but not liquified brain), autism, a PVS diagnosis without that much of the brain gone (including hearing this from people who've later learned to talk or type and had that diagnosis), and a number of other things. The reason these things can't be separated is because there's no evidence that they really are separated for that many people, and that's why I say it can't possibly be about the amount of brain she has.

The phrase "each belief should be respected for the people who hold it" doesn't really hold a lot of meaning for me. I already respect all people, but I don't understand why I or anyone else has to "respect" the belief that some people aren't really human and others are. (This doesn't have to do with "no matter how little evidence," because I don't consider various actions to be "evidence of humanity".)

[leora.livejournal.com]

I meant the belief of whether or not they would want to live in that situation really. Although it is a combination.

Some disabled people are worried about that. Some aren't. Some abled people are worried about that too.

But I feel the correct thing to do is to educate people and draw a firm line. I'm tired of people arguing stupid slippery slopes. No frontal brain and no ability to communicate is in no way equivalent to cerebral palsey. I understand why you bring it up, because other people do, but educate the people. Don't make decisions based on it being the right decision in a different case and you're afraid that case will use this one as a guide.

Just as people say if we allow gay marriage we have to allow people to marry their dogs and toasters. Well, I disagree. That's a stupid slippery slope.

Just draw a firm line that doesn't include people who run a decent chance of being in there and draw a firm line that involves consenting adults capable of giving consent. Or better yet, more living wills and the government out of the marriage business, but that's trickier to do.

There are too many cases of letting people die clearly being the best thing for the people left and quite probably not mattering to the person to whom it happened. Where there accidents and mistakes? Yes, of course. But in the real world many laws kill a set number of people. It's the risk of being in the real world. And while we argue this countless people will starve or die because food and medical care aren't accessible to them. Each winter many will die of exposure. This is one life which may or may not matter any more. And if a mistake is made - so be it. If you care so much about each one life, try to deal with the people who are on death row but innocent. Look everywhere. People die. It's horrible, but this one life is probably over and if it's a mistake to hurry it up, it won't be the worst mistake made in the world that day. If it's right to, then it's time. It's really time.

And who knows, maybe there is an afterlife - and maybe this person is already there or maybe this person is being kept from it. I don't know. But a good portion of the brain is liquified and that's just not comparable to a brain injury. the brain can potentially rewire and recover from a lot. It doesn't always, but it can. But it can't rewire a liquid goo.