Persistant Vegetative State

First of all, I realize this is simaler to the euthanasia discussion, but I think it is a seperate issue and should have its own.

I'm sure most of us remember the Terry Shivo case. She went into cardiac arrest and suffered extreme brain damage, and was left in a persistant vegetative state. A huge legal battle erupted between her parents, who wanted to keep her alive, and her husband who wanted the feeding tube removed.

Do you think that someone should be kept alive in a persistant vegetative state? Is it moral to let her die, even though we don't know her wishes? Who should be legally able to make this decision?

If you have seen the episode of Southpark where Kenny gets a PSP, and then is run over by a truck, you understand my veiws. He lives, but remains in a vegetative state, having to eat through a feeding tube. There is then a huge debate on wether or not to keep him alive.

Cartman, who really just wants Kenny dead so he can get his PSP, says that Kenny should have his feeding tube removed. He claims that since he is his best friend ever, he knows his wishes. The other guys of course pick up on his BS, and fight to keep Kenny alive. At the end, they realise that Cartman is right for the wrong reasons, and they are wrong for the right reasons.

I think it is cruel to keep someone who is already completly braindead alive with a feeding tube. Further more, I belive that a person with little chance of recovery should not be kept alive unless they specifically stated in the past that that is what they wanted.

I completely agree with you.

I mean, If I was staring at a boring white hospital ceiling listening to hospital noises all day and night (assuming I could see and hear) I definately would not want to be kept alive. Who would?

I don't think it's fair to leave somone in a permanant vegetative state. It's cruel and heartless. The only reason to do it would be if there was some medical way that that person could somehow regain themselves. If there is no hope in that then it is cruel to the person.

This should be required in people's wills, or something; because that's the only way that one could prove what they really would want. Some people might not want to die because they are afraid of death. It happpens.

The quality of life of living in a persistent vegetative state is as good as being dead, the person in that sort of condition should not be kept alive because it is no way to live. I have an uncle who is brain-damaged (doesn't have full control of limbs, cannot talk properly) and I feel sorry for him but he DOES have a quality of life despite being less than yours or mine, but if he was in a PVS then I would agree for that feeding tube to be removed...because those who do not live but are still alive should die, harsh as it sounds.

According to me, a braindead person is already dead, so I really see no point in keeping the empty shell which is the body alive.

as multigrain said, this should be put in people's wills. if they don't, I see no reason to spend $40 000 per day (yes, that's how much it can cost) to keep a braindead person alive. not that we should put a price on life, I just think the life's already gone.

I think being in a vegetated state is pretty much like putting a steak in front of a dog but you have tied it up so it can't move. It sad to think you are unable to do anything and have people speak your opinions for you.

If the person is beyond recovery, then I think it would be time to set them free. A brain dead person like Terry Shivo, with no proof she could think, let alone was even conscious or aware of anything, should not be kept alive. That's not life. It's forced life. Why would you want to see a loved one strapped in a chair, getting food from a feeding tube, unable to move or talk or think. It's cruel, really.

I agree completly, if I was a vegetable, I want my parents to pull the cord clean out of the wall! There really is no point to keep someone alive that isn't really all there or beyond recovery like miniblin said.

This is going to be scary but...

I believe that a brain dead person should be kept alive, unless they stated that they wouldn't want that. It may be a pitiful way to live, but it is still life. And ending a person's life is murder, whether by a bullet or by pulling a plug.

And a note on Terry, I believe there still was some brain thought, even if it was very slight. On the news they showed Terry's mom talking to her. And I don't care what the doctors say, I could see that there was some recognition by Terry, even if it was barely noticable.

Originally Posted by Multigrain

This should be required in people's wills, or something; because that's the only way that one could prove what they really would want. Some people might not want to die because they are afraid of death. It happpens.

I completely agree it should be included in every will. If I was brain dead I would probably want to die. I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in a hostpital knowing that everyday I am draining more of my familys bank account, there by making them poor. Sacrificing one life is bad enough but, sacrifing several lives for one is just plain dumb.

Originally Posted by goronknight

I completely agree it should be included in every will.

I deffinetly agree, but the sad thing is people like Terry Shivo and many other people still im sure are not or did not even imagine this possibility, therefore not having any knowledge to put this in his/her will. But maybe this case will make people do it. Who knows.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that 'living' (assuming that a person can truly be considered 'alive' in that state) in that sort of state would likely be utter bliss, unless of course, someone killed you. I mean, honestly, you lose all connection to emotional pain (if I'm not mistaken). Suffering is eliminated, save physical suffering.

Graceful_Sheik is my homeboy! The parents wanted to take care of her, so let them take care of her. They still love her when she was in a vegitated state. How do we know that its not painful to starve while someone is in a vegitated state, and I don't care what some stupid test said. People who starve in India, or the hurricanes, they had to suffer pain. People probably couldn't yell or do other actions as a sign of help because they can't move certain body parts.
How is there no hope? People recovered from being brain dead when it seemed hopeless. And how can they be bored if thier brain dead, for boredomis a state of mind.

Originally Posted by LionHarted

I am going to go out on a limb and say that 'living' (assuming that a person can truly be considered 'alive' in that state) in that sort of state would likely be utter bliss, unless of course, someone killed you. I mean, honestly, you lose all connection to emotional pain (if I'm not mistaken). Suffering is eliminated, save physical suffering.

But the problem is that you lost connection to EVERYTHING. The brain activity shown in Terry Schiavo, or other braindead patients, is minimal to nothing. It's ridiculous to even call this life, because there is no stimulation within or without. It's not like you're just staring at something constantly, you don't even know that you're staring. In fact, you probably don't even register your own sentient existence.

Originally Posted by zelda's love

Graceful_Sheik is my homeboy! The parents wanted to take care of her, so let them take care of her. They still love her when she was in a vegitated state. How do we know that its not painful to starve while someone is in a vegitated state, and I don't care what some stupid test said. People who starve in India, or the hurricanes, they had to suffer pain. People probably couldn't yell or do other actions as a sign of help because they can't move certain body parts.
How is there no hope? People recovered from being brain dead when it seemed hopeless. And how can they be bored if thier brain dead, for boredomis a state of mind.

This is ridicuolous. The amount of money that would be spent on keeping a braindead victim 'alive' is probably enough to save a few other people. Why spend it on a lingering trace of brain activity?

And if you guys want to throw a religious standpoint into this, from an objective view, wouldn't keeping a braindead patient alive be imprisonment from reaching heaven, or whatever the 'afterlife' may be?

I think it's more than a little selfish that the parents wanted to keep their braindead daughter alive just for the simple fact that she wouldn't be dead. To me, it's a case of people not being able to pick up their lives and move on despite a hardship. The woman had been deteriorating for years, you would think they would get the idea by the time that there was the question of having the feeding tube removed. But whatever. People will do what people will do, and people will think what people will think.

Originally Posted by graceful_sheik

This is going to be scary but...

I believe that a brain dead person should be kept alive, unless they stated that they wouldn't want that. It may be a pitiful way to live, but it is still life. And ending a person's life is murder, whether by a bullet or by pulling a plug.

And a note on Terry, I believe there still was some brain thought, even if it was very slight. On the news they showed Terry's mom talking to her. And I don't care what the doctors say, I could see that there was some recognition by Terry, even if it was barely noticable.

Yeah, i was watching the news where they had her mom wave a baloon in front of Terry's face and Terry's eyes followed it, i thought it meant she was recovering, but i later learned that eye tracking is just a basic human function that we all have.
Um...didn't her parents say that Terry sometimes made noises when her parents talked to her?

My veiws are conflicted. One side says: "The people who are in Vegetative State cannot do anything since their brains are damaged beyond repair. Why make them live on?" and another side says: "So? Just because they were reduced to that of an infant who couldn't move his/her arms or legs, we should kill them!?"

Then the other side says: "Infants are diffrent. Their brains may be small, but it's not damaged like those who are in vegetative state."