"A Drug That Wakes the Near Dead"

[Ukrainia]

I just read an article dealing with the struggle people face when a loved one is in a fairly unresponsive state of conciousness, either vegatative or minimally responsive. It was a harrowing story of the the challenges loved ones face in the midst of brain injuries. But it was also a hopeful story, describing how it's been found that medication previously used as a sleep aid, can actually bring a percentage of patients back to conciousness to some degree.

It brings up a lot of questions too. One statistic, apparently confimed by multiple studies, which I found incredibly frightening is that 40% of patients who are declared vegatative are actually in a minimally concious. I think an argument can be made that if a person has no power to think, or to be aware, and that this state is permanent, that the person is already dead even though a respirator could keep him technically living. The fact the doctors can mistake a person with thoughts and desires with those who are perpetually vegatative 40% of the time, oftentimes asking the family if they can "pull the plug" is I think obvious negligence. Also noteworthy is that people can improve from minimally concious and vegatative states long after it was thought possible.

All in all though it was an interesting article. I came away thinking of how much of an incredible burden it is for the parents to care for a minimally concious son, but also how much their love shines through. I think Christianity makes it clear that if you love someone, you'll sacrifice a lot for their well being. And the article also touched on some technological advances that may prove to be helpful to the vegatative and minimally concious in the future.

Any thoughts?

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/m...l?pagewanted=1&google_editors_picks=true&_r=1

 

[Ukrainia]

An interesting point that a few people in the comment section brought up was what does this mean to organ donors. If 40% of people who were thought to be brain dead, actually aren't, are lots of lives being thrown away to give organs to others? I don't know enough one way or the other, but it's a thought provoking question for sure.

 

[Im_A]

The best answer I can give is there is no real answer to this.

Terry Wallis is a prime example of this. A man who lived in a minimal conscious state for almost 20 years. Now is it more morally sound to keep hoping and leave him in that condition for hope for him to make it? Does the fact that he came to and recovered in many ways make it right? If so, the end justifies the means and that is a controversial view within itself. Since we know that he came too, nearly two decades later, waking up thinking it was still 1984 and that he was still 20...is that risk, that chance worth taking? I don't have an answer because I believe if we can choose to create life, then there is that view that is morally sound...the right to die. Then in the cases that being alive and having some progression can happen with a drug, with time and it being just as probable as dying and never recovering, it seems just immoral to withhold that choice.

I see no reason to believe that people just pull the plug so we have organs stored away for future generations.

The problem I have with this subject and even cases like your link...the assumption that being alive is in the positive a moral proposition. Being alive isn't. It is a reaction, an effect. It isn't immoral either. So adding some type of moral proposition to this is complicated to a severe extent as far as I am concerned. You and me and everyone being alive is not moral. You and me and everyone being alive is not immoral. You and me and everyone else having to die is not moral. You and me and everyone else having to die is not immoral. So in the end, I just personally believe that each case really should be bent about who has the power to make the choice at that time that a decision has to be made, the condition of the patient, what keeping him/her alive actually entails in regards to the life of the patient and just hopefully the best choice is made every time it happens. That is my hope in cases like these because honestly, the best choice will never be able to made every single time and I personally try to stay out of having a set opinion on topics like this. One, not my place to judge the decisions of people in that state, the families' choices, the doctors' choices. Secondly...it honestly feels wrong to make a judgement of this sort with this topic. Who am I to tell a family...you shouldn't keep your family member alive? Who am I to say...you should keep your family member alive?

So in the end, I think it should be decided with the circumstance of each patience being the real guideline.