Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Yeah, I get the point about this guy and his wishes.
The larger question (to me) is the many people who have been unplugged because of a supposition of an irreversible coma, due to apparent brain inactivity and unresponsiveness.
Why were they terminated? Because technology was not sufficient to communicate with them.
Should they have had a choice? How long do we maintain them if they choose to live? Who pays? Why?
|
You have the choice before the fact. The standard in most health care settings is that if you have a legal document saying that you want to be kept alive no matter what, medical providers will do everything they can to keep you alive.
If you don't have a document, then your next of kin get to be the lucky folks who make that decision for you. Hopefully they know you well enough to know what you would want.
If you don't have a document or a next of kin or a close friend who is willing to make that decision, then the medical team (usually with an ethics advisor) makes these kind of decisions for you. For better or for worse.
FWIW life in a vegetative state is not easy. People can get bedsores and ulcers if they are not turned every couple of hours. They lay in their urine and poop until someone cleans them. Sometimes saliva pools in their mouth, causing them to drool and gag on their own secretions. Feeding tubes can get infected, and tube feeds can get aspirated into the lungs. Infections can be common. People usually get "terminated" (but really withdrawal of life-prolonging care) not so much because of the communication issue, but instead when it becomes clear that there is more suffering than living going on.
Re: fMRI studies (and not to discount the usefulness of fMRI), I ran across this recently and thought it was amusing:
IgNobel Prize in Neuroscience: The dead salmon study | The Scicurious Brain, Scientific American Blog Network