190 replies to this topic

[DJS]

Hey Sonia,

Sonia

I'm really surprised by the pro-death sentiment found in this discussion.  I would have thought that people who believe in the possibility of successful cryonics would perhaps also have some faith that over the next 10-15 years biotech and nanotech might come up with something to bring Terri's mind back to normal.  Instead many of you would rather lop off her head.

First off, I have faith in nothing [lol]

When it comes to matter of life or death I am generally what you would consider *pro-choice*. Of course, in this instance Terri is in no position to choose so we are left with a complex legal situation.

I guess, as an Immortalist, my position on whether the feeding tube should be removed, could be influenced by my assessment of future progress. If I thought that there was a chance of Terri's condition being reversed over the next (10-15) years I would probably agree that the feeding tube should be left in. But as it is I consider the possibility of Terri's condition being reversed extremely remote. Nano in the next 15 years? Highly unlikely. Biotech in the next 15 years? Yeah, there's going to be some pretty amazing bio-tech coming out in the next two decades, but our understanding of the human brain is lagging far behind our understand of the rest of our biology. I do not see Terri's condition as being treatable within the next fifteen years (if it is treatable at all).

There is also the possibility that her current condition is further damaging her cognitive architecture. Perhaps there is the chance that something could be salvaged and repaired at some point in the future? This is why I advocate cryopreservation in the case of Terri Schiavo. The idea of cryopreservation was split off from this thread and placed in cryonics ---> Cryo-preserving Terri Schiavo, Would It Be Worth It??

[sonia]

Thanks, Don. I'll take my next comment over to that thread.

[DJS]

Addressed to Sonia:

Assuming that cryonics is not an option:

Okay, I'm going to be total blunt here.

Indeed, as an Immortalist I greatly value human life. However, I am quite willing to sacrifice laboratory animals to advance the cause of medical science (provided, of course, that the experiments are done as humanely as possible). Obviously there is a qualitative difference between human and rodent life.

So what is human life? My definition is consciousness that has moral agency.

Does Terri Schiavo have moral agency? No. Then assuming that there is no chance of restoring her moral agency, Terri can longer be consider human life. And if she can no longer be considered a human life (ie, a human consciousness) then she no longer possesses a "right to life".

However, like life forms of lesser cognition, she can still feel pain and discomfort. Therefore, like lesser life forms, she must be treated humanely even if her life is to be ended. This would suggest that the correct course of action in this particular case (excluding cryonics) would be to euthanize Terri Schiavo.

[DJS]

Okay BJ.

Let me phrase my argument another way. I'm making the above argument with the *assumption* that her brain function is irreparably damaged. There are most definitely cases where this is the case. For instance, with the example Lazarus gave of Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (CJD) which is the disease that humans acquire from BSE (mad cow disease), the brain is utterly ravaged. When autotopsies are performed there are literally holes found in the brain. I don't care how advance the technology of the future is -- there's not much that can be done for *holes in the brain*.

To further clarify the point I am trying to drive home. Imagine that, through the use of advance medical technologies, you are able to transplant your brain to another body. Your original (brainless) body is put on life support. Is there any moral obligation to keep your brainless body alive? Of course not. Its a body, not a consciousness.

The consciousness is what matters. The body is irrelevant.

[Bruce Klein]

Hi Don,

Sorry, I belive you've responded to a post I've now moved to other thread:

http://www.imminst.o...t=0

[DJS]

Such regenerative technologies may be only 5 - 10 years away.

If this is the case then I stand correct, but don't you think this is being overly optimistic Prometheus?

And do you really think that Terri can be brought back by stem cell regeneration?

[Lazarus Long]

Is Terri Schiavo really still *alive* just because her body breathes and her face can smile, and her eyes can open and stare?

Are we going to tackle the real problem of defining what is alive or not?

Our hair and fingernails continue to grow for a considerable period after complete heart/brain stoppage but no one would rationally argue that because our organs, as another example, might be viable for transplant hours after death and many of the bodies cells are still growing and functional that we are still alive.

The tough question is how to define being alive and is that definition one that is based on the body, the brain, or the mind. If she doesn't meet that criteria then a second concern is the family and the options for proceeding.

Should she be allowed to *die* in the manner that has been made the default of our legal structure or with a little dignity?

The draconian option of cutting off her food and water is the choice made necessary by laws that make denial of care the only available manner of meeting this burden.

In a way I agree with Prometheus that cryo should be considered an alternative form of euthanasia but is benign neglect preferable to the exercise of choice?

Terri has no living will but who are we to trust in this regard as to her desires?

There are no easy answers to that question because Terri did not make her intentions known in writing so now it is the role of the courts to determine after due process and deliberation. Just having to make such a decision is guaranteed to make somebody unhappy.

However that is a different issue entirely and the one people need to actually consider. The reason I say the legislature's incompetent is that rather than demonstrate any quality of leadership and face the real issues of health care, Medicare, insurance reform, end of life options, longevity research, Stem Cell research and on and on, they grandstand and pander.

Is she really in a state of recoverable cerebral damage?

Here is a CT scan of her brain and you decide given the extent of damage and fluid fluid. Frankly I have heard and this photo if it is valid confirms that as much as 60% of her cerebral cortex is already destroyed.

Terri Schiavo CT brain scan

[Matt]

http://www.imminst.o...=20

Ive posted some pics here of before and after fluid have been drained.

I believe that she needs further investigation. I believe there has not been any for a very long time?

[shadegrown]

Prometheus,

from what biophysics and molecular biology tells me about the properties of living tissues, I doubt that other forms of hydrocephaly could be mistaken for necrotic loss of tissue in a CT scan. Just looking at a CT cut on the web may not justify a firm conclusion, but Terri's neurologists saw the entire slide series of that CT scan. They know more than we do, and testified that there is very little of Terri's cerebral cortex left, if anything at all. Her brain matter hasn't just been shoved aside by CSF, it has undergone liquification necrosis, meaning that nerve cell clusters have lysed en bloc with nothing for nanobots to rebuild and no information for nanoscale-resolution scanners to retrieve.

[randolfe]

This was the discussion I tried to get going in "social sciences" some time ago. I think it was morally wrong to pull the feeding tube. Her parents are willing to care for her. I always like to "follow the money". You will see where that leads in the following:
REPOST:
I find myself in the strange position of siding with my traditional enemies on the religious and political right in the debate over whether Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be removed.

Perhaps it's my Immortalist instincts that cause me to shudder when I hear this woman's husband argue that by keeping his wife Sherri alive, her parents (with the support of Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida) are violating Sherri's '"RIGHT TO DIE".

I personally support the laws that allow physicians to help terminally ill people end their suffering. I think the difference here is that someone else is trying to make that case for Sherri Schiavo. There is a lot of information on the Internet about this case.

However, I found this section entitled "Myths about Terri" on the sight where those opposed to stopping Terri's feeding to be especially interesting. I'd love to conduct a poll regarding this but I haven't mastered getting quoted sections blocked in correctly.

Do you think that having an Immortalist mindset causes us to favor the "right-to-life" arguments here while we usually support other "right to die" arguments.

I'll paste the "myths" here. If you visit www.terrisfight.org , you'll see what "strange political allies" those Immortalists who oppose pulling the tube have.

MYTHS AND FACTS

If Terri hasn't recovered after all these years of therapy, why not let go?

Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it.

Why can't Terri just divorce?

Terri's husband/guardian speaks for her. She cannot divorce without his permission

Does Terri have an advanced directive or any wishes about her healthcare?

Terri never signed any directive or living will and there is no evidence that she foresaw her present situation.

Why do Terri's family fight to keep her alive? Shouldn't they let her husband decide?

Terri's husband has started another family and probably has gone on with his life. Terri's family want to provide her therapy and a safe home.

Is Terri receiving life support?

Not in the traditional sense. Terri only receives food and fluids via a simple tube.

Isn't removing her tube a natural and dignified way to die?

No. Dehydration and starvation cause horrific effects and are anything but peaceful. Read more here.



Most common misconceptions about Terri's situation

MYTH: Terri is PVS (Persistent vegetative state)
FACT: The definition of PVS in Florida Statue 765.101:
Persistent vegetative state means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of ANY kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Terri's behavior does not meet the medical or statutory definition of persistent vegetative state. Terri responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs or cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. None of these behaviors are simple reflexes and are, instead, voluntary and cognitive. Though Terri has limitations, she does interact purposefully with her environment.

MYTH: Terri does not need rehabilitation
FACT: Florida Statute 744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated:

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

This is a retained right that a guardian cannot take away. Additionally, it does not make exception for PVS patients. Terri has illegally been denied rehabilitation - as many nurses have sworn in affidavits.

MYTH: Removal of food was both legal and court-ordered.
FACT: The courts had only allowed removal of Terri's feeding tube, not regular food and water. Terri's husband illegally ordered this. The law only allows the removal of "life-prolonging procedures," not regular food and water:

Florida Statute 765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

MYTH: Many doctors have said that there is no hope for her.
FACT: Dr. Victor Gambone testified that he visits Terri 3 times a year. His visits last for approximately 10 minutes. He also testified, after viewing the court videotapes at Terri’s recent trial, that he was surprised to see Terri’s level of awareness. This doctor is part of a team hand-picked by her husband, Michael Schiavo, shortly before he filed to have Terri’s feeding removed. Contrary to Schiavo’s team, 14 independent medical professionals (6 of them neurologists) have given either statements or testimony that Terri is NOT in a Persistent Vegetative State. Additionally, there has never been any medical dispute of Terri’s ability to swallow. Even with this compelling evidence, Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied any form of therapy for her for over 10 years.

Dr. Melvin Greer, appointed by Schiavo, testified that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment. He spent approximately 45 minutes with Terri. Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Judge Greer, spent approximately 30 minutes with Terri. Dr. Ronald Cranford, also appointed by Schiavo and who has publicly labeled himself “Dr. Death”, spent less than 45 minutes examining and interacting with Terri.

MYTH: This is just a family battle over money.
FACT: In 1992, Terri was awarded nearly one million dollars by a malpractice jury and an out-of-court malpractice settlement which was designated for future medical expenses. Of these funds, less than $50,000 remains today. The financial records revealing how Terri’s medical fund money is managed are SEALED from inspection. Court records, however, show that Judge Greer has approved the spending down of Terri’s medical fund on Schiavo’s attorney’s fees - though it was expressly awarded to Terri for her medical care. Schiavo’s primary attorney, George Felos, has received upwards of $400,000 dollars since Schiavo hired him. This same attorney, at the expense of Terri’s medical fund, publicly likened Terri to a “houseplant” and has used Terri’s case on national television to promote his newly published book.

MYTH: Michael Schiavo volunteered to donate the balance of the inheritance to charity.
FACT: In October, 1998, Schiavo’s attorney proposed that, if Terri’s parents would agree to her death by starvation, Schiavo would donate his inheritance to charity. The proposal came after a court-appointed Guardian Ad Litem cited Schiavo’s conflict of interest since he stood to inherit the balance of Terri’s medical fund upon her death. This one and only offer stated “if the proposal is not fully accepted within 10 days, it shall automatically be withdrawn”. Naturally, Terri’s parents immediately rejected the offer.

MYTH: Terri's Medical Trust fund has been used to care for her.
FACT: The following expenditures have been paid directly from Terri's Medical Trust fund, with the approval of Judge George Greer:
Summary of expenses paid from Terri’s 1.2 Million Dollar medical trust fund (jury awarded 1992)
NOTE: In his November 1993 Petition Schiavo alleges the 1993 guardianship asset balance as $761,507.50

Atty Gwyneth Stanley
Atty Deborah Bushnell
Atty Steve Nilson
Atty Pacarek
Atty Richard Pearse (GAL)
Atty George Felos
$10,668.05
$65,607.00
$7,404.95
$1,500.00
$4,511.95
$397,249.99

Other

1st Union/South Trust Bank
$55,459.85

Michael Schiavo
$10,929.95

Total $545,852.34







Monsignor Thaddeus Malanowski expresses dismay after he is ordered not to give Communion to Terri.

Florida Laws

FS 744.102: To "meet essential requirements for health or safety" means to take those actions necessary to provide the health care, food, shelter, clothing, personal hygiene, or other care without which serious and imminent physical injury or illness is more likely than not to occur.




Copyright 2005 Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
4615 Gulf Blvd #104-103 - St

[randolfe]

I find the division on this issue along "liberal versus conservative" and/or "Republican versus Democrat" lines to be out of line. Many conservative Republicans dislike the intrusion of Federal Judicial authority on an area usually reserved to the states. This was written up today in the New York Times.

I think making an error on "the side of life" as Bush likes to put it, is very important to those interested in cryonic suspension, etc.

What if they thaw you out and there is life flickering there but some religious fanatics want "the dead to stay dead". I'm sure we'd want them to make an error on the side of life and keep our revived selves alive.

[th3hegem0n]

From an immortalist standpoint I think that nobody should die for any reason. Things can be fixed in the future.

[randolfe]

There does seem to be some disagreement as to whether Terri can swallow. The parents and others who want to keep her alive insist she can.

Those who believe she should be taken off the tube claim that the video you see was edited from many hours, that Terri did not respond to her mother until the mother went up directly in her face. To my mind, if you are conscious enough to be startled, you have some consciousness left.

The debates on C-Span and elsewhere have raised the issue that infants would die if not fed, that many older people (including those with Alzheimer's) are kept alive with feeding tubes.

I'm certainly going to get "my" medical directive filled out. I'd be reluctant to be put on a respirator unless that was necessary to keep me alive till I could be properly transferred into cryonic suspension. However, I certainly would want a feeding tube and water in any case.

Parts of this debate really confuse me. I understand that Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist who supports removing the tube, claims that when feeding tubes are removed and water is no longer supplied the person is given "drugs" so that they do not experience pain.

I was on a right-wing wacko talk radio show in Washington, DC, a couples days ago. It was hosted by a Rabbi who was really a dimwit when it came to human cloning. I pointed out that we "humanely" (???) put murders to death by giving them injections but that, in the Schiavo case, they were subjecting her to a slow and painful death through starvation and dehydration.

Does anyone know the "facts" regarding whether death by starvation and dehydration is painful in a hospice setting? They let dying cancer patients suffer because they don't want to addict them to pain-killers. Medical people are very bad at keeping a patient's pain under control.

Many people have been complaining these past few days about protests against the Iraqui war being ignored this past weekend because this case has totally monopolized the news.

Indeed, this case is one of those things like "prayer in school" and "gay marriage" that "frame" today's political dialogue while serious issues like adequate funding for medical care and education are ignored.

The fact that even "we" have gotten caught up in this debate proves that even the most intelligent human beings find emotional issues and entertainment to be more attractive than serious exploration of important social issues.

[randolfe]

On C-Spans's "Washington Journal" program this morning, a Democrat Representative from Arkansas who voted for the bill in Congress pointed out that the debate in Congress had been monopolized by those who very much favored the bill and those who were passionately opposed.

He said that he had very mixed feelings, as did many other members of Congress, and that the debate would have been enriched if those having trouble deciding this issue had been included.

I have argued that those of us who might have to resort to cryonics should support the idea of preserving life in this case because when we were thawed out and revived, issues might be raised about our mental condition.

However, I've often found I have been wrong in the past. I must say that the perspective offerred in the following post on today's Cryonet raises some very interesting points.

Message #25870
From: "James Clement"
Subject: Schiavo
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:23:04 -0500

boundary="----=_NextPart_001_01FF_01C52FAB.71F0B280"



Living in Florida, we've been hearing about the Schiavo case for a while.  The following article from the Orlando Sentinel answers a few of the questions that have been raised on Cryonet.

From what I understand, in the absence of a living will, the Court tried to find out what her intention would have been, as well as appointing a guardian to represent her before the Court.  In both circumstances, the Court found that she should be allowed to die.  To me, the main question is whether we as Cryonauts want the precedent of the Religious Right using the Federal Gov't to override a guardian's judgment (in our case the guardian could be pleading for life-extension or for cryopreservation).  IMHO, Politicians cannot be counted on to protect our rights, they are just following their own ethics or what they perceive will get them reelected.  Florida is full of Right-to-Lifers and their pandering politicians, who are looking for any opportunity to prove that "all human life is sacred" and therefore must be protected by the Gov't (especially when it comes to unborn fetuses).  To allow Schiavo to die would be to set another precedent against their principles, hence the big effort
by Jeb & George W.  These are the same people and politicians who oppose life extension and embryonic stem cell research.

For those of you who are thinking that this intervention by the Congress may help protect them from getting life support turned off - I suggest you at least carry around a laminated miniature living will in your wallet or purse instructing that you WANT EVERY EFFORT TO PRESERVE YOUR LIFE, AND THAT YOU DO NOT WANT A BRAIN AUTOPSY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE! 


Best regards,
James

Questions, answers about Schiavo

By Robyn Shelton

The Orlando Sentinel


ORLANDO, Fla. - Here are answers to some commonly asked questions about the Terri Schiavo case:

Q: What is a "persistent vegetative state," and how is it diagnosed?

A: People in such a state have lost all higher brain function, including the ability to think, experience emotions and understand the world around them. They continue to sleep and wake, open their eyes, breathe on the their own and may make noises and facial expressions.

Their brain stems -- the portion of the brain that controls basic functions such as heartbeat and breathing -- continue to function.

People in a persistent vegetative state do not track objects with their eyes, blink on command or respond consistently to cues in the environment. Such a state over a period of time is considered persistent.

Doctors who examine the same patient can reach different conclusions, but time is the best arbiter. Schiavo has been in this state for 15 years.

Q: Schiavo appears to respond to her mother in a video released by the family. Her father said she smiled Monday when he told her that her feeding tube soon could be reinserted. Doesn't that show that she is not in a persistent vegetative state?

A: Court-appointed physicians have not been able to document a consistent, predictable response from Schiavo that would indicate that she is aware of her surroundings.

Q: Could new technology provide more insight into Schiavo's condition?

A: Functional magnetic resonance imaging tracks blood flow to regions of the brain while a person performs certain tasks, but it is not a conclusive test.

Schiavo has undergone diagnostic tests, including CT scans and EEGs, which showed her brain's electrical function to be flat, according to court records. Brain scans show that the cerebral cortex, responsible for higher thinking, has suffered severe atrophy and been replaced by liquid.

Q: Schiavo's parents and a neurologist who examined her several years ago, Dr. William Hammesfahr, say she could get better with therapy. Would she be helped by rehabilitation?

A: Other doctors have concluded that she would not improve with rehabilitation, and attempts at therapy have had no effect.

Schiavo underwent more than three years of rehabilitative therapy after her collapse in 1990, and her husband took her to a California center in late 1990 to have an experimental device implanted in her brain in hopes of stimulating activity.

According to a court-appointed guardian who reviewed the medical information for her case in 2003, there is no reason to believe that she can recover.

[eternaltraveler]

A few years back I worked in a facility, which housed people in almost an identical state to Terri. I took care of these people. They laugh, smile, cry, eat spoon-fed food, feel pain, and otherwise respond to basic stimuli. Several were in this state since birth (and now are in their 50s), and several were there as a result of accidents or other reasons.

The one who was the most aware perpetually tried to kill himself, but was not permitted to do so. He would tear out his feeding tube day after day. It cost the state over 200,000 dollars a year to keep him alive, and he certainly didn’t want to be alive. He had the awareness of a 1 year old, but he also had some memory of how he was not always that way and he didn’t want to live in such a state. Finally he managed to give himself pneumonia by aspirating fluids into his lungs and he died. That was a good day for him.

Another, who based on MRIs and numerous other tests was probably below a cognitive level that Terri is in now was only in that state because of an attempted suicide. He hung himself in prison. The medical staff got to him just in time to put him in this perpetual state of hell. He clearly would not want to live in this condition, as he clearly did not want to live in a fully functioning condition either. He costs the state 150,000 dollars a year.

Another who is now in his late 30s had severe cerebrospinal fluid build up in his skull as an infant and before birth that prevented his brain from ever developing at all. His head is massive, but his brain is truly the size of a peanut. He does however posses the motor reflex to swallow food. He currently costs the State about 100,000 per year. He never possessed to awareness to even know what life was, let alone whether or not he would like to have it or not.

I could go on. There were others I worked with, who, though cognitively impaired, were still certainly human beings capable of benefiting society, and certainly have the desire to live.

I will not vote for cryonics because that simply doesn’t seem to be an option in Terri’s case. She never planned for it, her husband never brought it up, and the State certainly isn’t going to pay for it. Not to mention it would probably be a vain endeavor at this point anyway. She died years ago.

Once a person has been determined to be brain dead with no hope of recovery I don’t think the state should pay to keep their husks alive. I would love if states would consider cryonics at that point, but that is unlikely, at least until some cryonauts start getting revived.

This whole situation is reprehensible. The fact that congress would even try to step in is so far beyond their bounds that they must not consider themselves to have bounds anymore. Hopefully the courts not listening to congress where it has no authority will remind them of their place.

It is very much all of our business on whether or not hunks of meat should be kept in the perpetual limbo of an undead state. We pay for it through our tax dollars. But if Terri’s parents will pay for this and take care of her then I don’t see much of a problem in keeping her alive. It at least makes them feel better.

[Karomesis]

" no hope" ...... elrond , you should know better. With the constant improvements in technology and science can you accurately predict who has hope and who does not? I think not. although I have yet to walk a mile in your shoes, I know that conciousness is extremely valuble, priceless even. To think linearly in conjunction with such a serious case is a grave mistake, and should be reconsidered on the basis of validity of the soon to be deceased, terri. Michael seems like quite the motherfucker if you ask me. I can smell his insidious motives a mile away, can you? as they say it takes one to know one( stay tuned for my introduction, however trivial)

[free]

123456: I believe it is wrong to remove he feeding tube.  Unless she indicate she would want it removed, no one has the right to do it.  Furthermore, her so called husband, to what her brother said on CNN yesterday, said; He abandoned her in marrige (Had a Fling or Left completely, I am not sure about the details) with another lady.  I think her brother said he had two chidren with his Mistress.  Her brother also said that the husband went to the courts to demand that her feeding tube removed because, at the time he would receive 1 million dollar insurance money if she died.  He abandoned her in marriage, therefore he had no right to any say in this matter.  I will repeat my belief, no one should have the right to kill another being, including spouses, unless the individual indicates he or she wants to die.

Agree 100%....

[free]

Thought about it some more while working out at the gym...

Simplified (or I just don't know all the facts) :

1) Would your vote change if, for some reason, it was your child in this situation, instead of Terri? How would you feel if it were your spouse, instead of Terri?

2) Why is the feeding tube being pulled now...after all these years? I heard a hospice is paying for her care, so I am assuming it is not a financial issue...why could she not just be left alone, and continue on until a "natural" death?

3) Who are we to judge if a life is worth living or not? To the "husband", I would ask, "How could you do this, knowing that it will KILL someone (your wife)?"

Just some random thoughts on this very disturbing subject....

[Infernity]

Agree 100%....

I have doubts about the 100% ...

Yours
~Infernity

[free]

For all of you busybodies who like to pontificate on things you don't know about, this main stream gossip feast, with its hired "specialists" to denounce 15 years of expert testimonies and judicial process is right up your little world's alley.  Go for it.  Embrace the coprophagy.  Lick your fingers while your at it.

http://www.buzzflash...3/con05107.html

No, thank you, I've already posted my 2 cents worth....

[shadegrown]

I'm wondering how many pro-tubers believe that a brainless body must be preserved as an end in itself (rather than to honor the wishes of its former 'inhabitant', thereby recognizing the cortically dead's 'extended' bodily self-determination). Because then they would also have to be opposed to embryonic stem cell research in order to be consistent. I'm being intentionally provocative here. You may laugh at this connection, but the anti-research theocons most certainly don't.

[randolfe]

I agree with cosmos. Probably this case will cause thousands of people to fill out medical directives and make their wishes known to all members of their family.

The buzzflash story linked above criticizes Bush and the Republicans for denying brain trauma veterans access to medical care. They even accuse Bush of signing legislation in Texas that recently resulted in denying life saving remedies to a prematurely born child in Texas.(Saving a "preemie" baby can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the saved child frequently suffers from life-long disabilities.)

One thing no one talks about in all these cases (and the ones elrond describes above} is the small benefit gained for the enormous sums of money spent. Won't "society" have to make choices in the near future on where medical dolars will be spent.

About 50% of the medical expenses the average person incurs come in the last month of life. If we have limited medical resources, shouldn't those resources be spent on areas which give the most benefit per dollar spent? It is certainly wise social policy to spend adequate money on seeing expectant mothers get good medical care to make sure they have healthy babies. However, does it make sense to hook ninety-year-old Alzheimer's patients up to feeding tubes to enable them to lie in a fetal position and take a couple more years to die?

I have come to have a slightly more favorable view of this unfolding tragedy as I have become aware of certain details. The husband spent several years attempting to get Terri the medical care that might help her improve. He would have gotten a large part of her one-million-dollar-plus insurance-award fund if her tubes had been pulled earlier. I understand they claim less than $50,000 is left.

He started a relationship with a new woman, with whom he has had two children, and will probably marry her after Terri dies. I believe all involved are Roman Catholics and that he could not remarry in the Church if he divorced Terri.

A commentary on television this morning crystalized how Immortalism relates to this issue. A woman said one's opinion depended on how an individual viewed death.

"To some, death is the last enemy," she argued. "You must fight against it with all your energy."

"Others, however, see death as a part of life," she continued. "Fighting against it with too much tenacity is 'idolatry'. You are playing God".

I see that a majority of those who have voted so far think pulling the plug was wrong. While our sample is small, it is quite different from the 70% to 75% of the public who approve of pulling the plug".

I think most of us do see death as "the last enemy". However, an argument made above that Sherri should be cryo-suspended even thought there is no cortex left to restore, no memories left to retrieve, seems to me to border on an irrational denial of the reality of physical mental disintegration.

I had some people on Cryonet urge me to cryo-suspend my nineth-year-old terminal Alzheimer's mother. Some people's "faith" in science rivals the "faith" others have in God.

Next thing you know, some immortalist (extremist?) will argue someone should save a loved one's ashes after cremation because someday scientists might be able to add a little water and recreate that person.

I keep chuckling to myself about a woman interviewed on a program entitled "Naked" on the Uncensored-on-Demand channel. She said she didn't want to be cremated because the Bible said the dead would rise again in their bodies.

She was afraid it would be hard to regather the elements that had been her on judgment dayif she had been cremated and her ashes had been scattered. Regardless of her faith in the existence of God and an afterlife, she apparently thought there were some things (regathering scattered ashes, water vapor, heat, smoke, etc to restore a cremated body) that even God couldn't do.

[Bruce Klein]

ImmInst Full Member, Sonia Arrison has posted an article on TechNewsWorld on Schiavo:
http://www.technewsw...tory/41737.html

[DJS]

I disagree with her article on so many levels...