philechat

Take, for example, a brain-damaged person who had shown no sign of consciousness except a basic metabolism like breathing and digestion, or a person whose retardation is so severe that he/she cannot handle an independent life. Do you think the family members of the person should have the right to decide over the brain-damaged/severely retarded person's life or death? Why or why not?

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Mad Kally

Does this vegetable have any brain activity?

Mageth

(Kally, I was about to pose the same question)

People aren't vegetables. They may be in a vegetative state, but they're not vegetables.

As far as the answer, for a person in a vegetative state, if there's no brain activity, then the person is "brain dead." I think it should be up to the family (if any) to decide; if no family, friends or as last resort the courts.

If there is at least some brain activity, but the person is on permanent life support, with little or no hope of recovery or regaining consciousness (in other words, the person is in a coma with virtually no chance of recovery), I feel basically the same way, but would be a little more hesitant personally.

If there is brain activity and there's at least some indication that the person may recover consciousness, and if on life support may come off it eventually, then I'm less in favor of pulling the plug. That would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis (I don't think families should be given indiscriminate power to unplug a relative too quickly). If the person indicated that he/she didn't want to live like this (in writing or to two or more trustable sources), then it might be OK.

As far as severly retarded, no, I don't feel it's right to let families terminate them.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

snatchbalance

Well, I don't see how society can expect a family to care for an invalid indefinately.

I don't know if society as a whole should be expected to shoulder the burden.

Myself, I think it should be left up to the family. If they want to take on the responsibilty, fine. If not, euthenasia should be made available to them.

I did know a woman who cared for a bed ridden, extremely retarded, daughter for about 35 years. The woman died, I don't know what became of the daughter. She just seemed like something of a martyr to me, the woman that is.

After watching that situation for for about 10 years, I can't help but think that euthanasia should have been available as an option.

SB

echidna

Does anyone know the brain function of the patients afflicted by sleeping sickness whom Sachs treated with L-DOPA ?

Dank

Too much value is placed on individuals these days...they should be euthanized

ksagnostic

With regards to people with severe-profound mental retardation...absolutely not! People with severe-profound mental retardation still form attachments, still learn, and can communicate choices about their lives. Besides, "severe mental retardation" takes in a wide range of functioning, and apparent lack of functional abilities can be due to a wide variety of reasons. I agree that families with such individuals need strong support, but I can not agree that an otherwise healthy human being should be "euthanized" because their lives fall short of someone else's evaluation of adequate.

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

The Other Michael

Hi philechat,

Please allow me to suggest that a little more care in naming the topic might have inspired more people to post.

Perhaps "Euthanization of the mentally retarded or brain dead".

I think people seeing that would probably jump on it, as it would hit a lot of hot buttons.

Frankly, everytime I see the original topic I have this vague mental image of zucchini and Downs Syndrome kids, and some sort of causal relationship between the two.

Just a thought,
Michael
(besides, I need the practice in offering thoughtful suggestions to improve the forum, so as to ensure my advancement to Moderator, second class)

philechat

Shucks! You got me. But fine. This is it.

The Other Michael

Hi Philechat,

I guess my suggestion of renaming the topic to make it a sure-fire discussion attractor went a bit wide of the mark.

To atone for my lack of perspicacity I'll throw out a few thoughts:

1. Brain dead, no recovery possible - Children born acephalic, adults who are clinically brain dead, etc fall into this category. Allow the family to pull the plug. If they feel some need to maintain a breathing corpse, they should be free to do so with their own money. Medical insurance providers should be allowed to discontinue coverage when no recovery is possible. If the individual is a ward of the state, then the state should pull the plug. Basically, if there is no there there, no further efforts need to be made. This seems pretty cut and dried to me, and not particularly controversial.

2. The very severely mentally incapable. This to me would be some minor level of dectectable mental activity but no consciousness. If the medical opinion is that no recovery can be made, and a reasonable amount of time has passed to allow for a spontaneous recovery, then I'd go for euthanasia as an option to the family, with the option as in #1 to maintain the individual with their own funds. I really don't see a lot of practical difference between the physical states in #1 and #2.

3. Slippery-slope time. As cognition increases, the harder the decision becomes.

For the extremely damaged I find it difficult to justify expending resources on maintaining their life. This would be those requiring around the clock care and having minimal levels of cognition. If a smart chimpanzee is noticeably more capable, then I think a case for euthanization might well be made. *(Of course, this raises a possible topic of discussion on when non-homo sapiens start qualifying as "human" - I'll try and look through the archives and see if that has been discussed already, but it sounds familiar)*

I don't see any reason why a family should have to be saddled with someone in this condition (see the prior post about a life-long care situation by Snatchbalance). But then if the family isn't willing to accept the burden, I'm not sure I see why the state should have to shoulder it instead of them.

If you get into situations of moderate levels of cognition but great physical disability things get even fuzzier. Personally, I find the thought of being "condemned" to a life stuck conscious and incommunicado in a paralyzed body (especially if unsighted) really keys into my usually latent claustraphobia. Yet I know someone who has mentioned that they would not want to be euthanized if in that condition.

Quality of life issues like that are a good reason for advance directives,and for those who are willing to make those advance directives I don't think the state should have a right to withold euthanasia from them.

I don't know that someone in that physical/mental state who doesn't want to be euthanized should have a claim of primacy on use of the resources of their family (as opposed to their own financial resources). And if their care is supplied by the state and is causing a significant burden upon the state (I presume it could easily run into the hundred thousand dollar range if around the clock medical monitoring/support is needed) I think I could persuade myself that redirecting those resources so that a significantly greater number of people were benefitted would be a justifiable decision.

But what qualifies as a "significantly greater number"?

Aye, there's the rub, laddy.

cheers,
Michael