190 replies to this topic

[DJS]

What is the longest someone has been in a chronic vegitative state and managed to recovered?

[bgwowk]

Prometheus, if you can't see why the information you are presenting and the manner in which you are presenting it is misleading, nothing I can say will make a difference. Perhaps you feel the same way about my writing, in which case the converse is likely true.

Having said that, let me cut to the chase:

*I* do not not *EVER* want a judge to prevent my family from withholding food and fluids (or any other life support) from me if they believe that's what I would have wanted. *I* don't want danged fMRIs, second opinions, consultations, or a media circus in which every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the nation expresses his opinion about what should be done with me. It's not their business, it's not the government's business, it's my business and the business of my closest family if there are doubts about my wishes.

That is why I support the decision that the courts, in their wisdom, have made in this matter. And that is why I dearly hope busy-body legislators don't use this case as an excuse to take away even more rights from me and my family.

---BrianW

[mike]

Prometheus wrote:

At one time I would have entertained the notion that I would rather place my existence in the hands of - what I thought was - like-minded Imminst members.

The idea behind this is appealing to me -- that there would be an ever-growing group of close-knit Imminst members or Immortalists who are friends, who care about each other, and who help and encourage each other to achieve physical immortality.

[nefastor]

Ultimately, this is what I oppose: making a definitive, irreversible choice... and making it for someone else.

And yet you would to presume to make such a choice for others. According to what you have written so far, it would be perfectly legitimate to lock those who would otherwise choose death in whatever form into a Catch-22: only a sane person may choose between life and death and only an insane person would choose death.

If the future only holds the abnegation of individual rights, then living forever is nothing to strive for.

I think you are missing the whole point of the ImmInst : we strive for infinite lifespans, NOT for an ideal world of human rights, eternal pleasure and happyness for everyone.

I'll repeat again : STOP thinking like a mortal. You talk of "abnegation of individual rights", as if it would be FOREVER. We aim to live millions of years, and you know how many changes our civilisations went through in just 2,000 years !

I'm sorry to break it to you, but there's NO guarantee that "human rights" will still exist 500 years from now. And they didn't exist 500 years ago.

Our concern here is with preventing INVOLUNTARY death, at only that. Terri couldn't even tell us if she wanted to live or die. I'd rather we have kept Terri vegetative for 1,000 years, saved her, and she then told us we were morons and she wanted to die. At least that would be HER decision, and I'd do nothing to stop her. Sure I might put her in jail... but only IF she attempts suicide AND fails AND I find out about it... lots of "IF", and it's so easy to kill yourself.

Think as if you were immortal already : in your eyes the only thing that would last forever is death. Even the loss of a limb wouldn't matter : maybe in a distant future it can be regrown... you'll know if you wait until then.

The choice to unplug Terri was made by people who COULDN'T imagine humans becoming immortal within her lifetime.

OK, maybe I should stop my hammering... after all, some people will actually have to become immortal before they can understand what "infinite lifespan" means.

What is the longest someone has been in a chronic vegitative state and managed to recovered?

In France, several years. I remember somewhere in 1996 a man in a deep coma woke up as his mother was talking next to his bed. She happened to mention his favorite food and it was thought that it "kickstarted" his brain somehow. It was in all the papers back then, and considered a miracle of medical science (although the only miracle back then is that we were able to keep him alive : the technology wasn't as evolved as it is today.)

IIRC that man was in a coma following a car accident, and didn't have any degenerative desease. IOW it's not really comparable to Terri's case.

Jean

[Jay the Avenger]

I remember somewhere in 1996 a man in a deep coma woke up as his mother was talking next to his bed. She happened to mention his favorite food and it was thought that it "kickstarted" his brain somehow.

I have heard more stories like this one. A woman once transported her grandfather clock from home to the hospital, where her husband was in a coma. She tried making his situation equivalent to the situation at home by bringing along more stuff.

It worked. He snapped out of it.

It's also not uncommon for people to come out of it after hearing their favorite music.

[bgwowk]

Excerpt from

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/

DAN ABRAMS, HOST: You're one of the few people who has actually examined Terri Schiavo and you're hearing all of these people who are coming on from the sidelines saying, "She's has been misdiagnosed," et cetera.  How confident are you in your diagnosis and why? 

DR. RONALD CRANFORD, UNIV. OF MN NEUROLOGIST: I'm extremely confident.  I think at the time of the trial in 2002 there had been eight neurologists who examined her.  And of those eight neurologists total, seven of them said beyond any doubt whatsoever Terri is in a vegetative state.  Her CT scan shows severe atrophy or shrinkage of the brain.  Her EEG is flat and there's absolutely no doubt that she's been in a permanent vegetative state ever since 1990.  There's no doubt whatsoever, Dan. 

ABRAMS:  Doctor, let me read you this from Dr. Cheshire.  I know you've heard about him.  He's from the Mayo Clinic and he is the reason that they appealed to the federal courts saying, look we've got a doctor who is saying the following.

“There remain huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurological status.  I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty there is a great likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state rather than a persistent vegetative state.”

Your response.

CRANFORD:  Well actually if you read his report, he says she has no visual tracking and she has no conscious awareness which are the cardinal signs of the vegetative state, so I don't think there's any doubt she's in a vegetative state.  He never examined her. 

He did an interview with her for 90 minutes, observing her.  He never viewed her CT scans.  He makes no mention of her EEG, so while he's a reputable neurologist, perhaps, at the Mayo Clinic, his report means absolutely nothing.  It's a desperation, last minute move by the governor who just doesn't know what else to do, so he brings in a Christian fundamentalist neurologist.  It's just not true. 

ABRAMS:  I feel for the parents here and I'm going to play a sound bite...

CRANFORD:  So do I.

ABRAMS:  I want you to listen to it and just tell me if it's even medically possible that this is the case.

[Video] SCHINDLER:  She's alive and she's fighting like hell to live, and she's begging for help.  She's still communicating, still responding.  She's emaciated, but she's responsive. 

ABRAMS:  Doctor, I mean you hate to say it but that's just a father wishful thinking, isn't it? 

CRANFORD:  I hate to say it but it's a father wishful thinking.  These are sincere caring people.  I think the Schindlers as opposed to the right to life activists and the president and Congress and all the others, I think they really believe that she's interacting.  They really believe she's been denied medical care, and I think about sympathizes with their concerns.

This is a loving, caring family but they're wrong.  And they've known they've been wrong.  She's been diagnosed a vegetative state ever since the early 1990s. They were told that repeatedly in the early 1990s.  It's wishful thinking on the part of parents who dearly love their daughter and don't want her to be in the vegetative state she's in.  But Dan, there's really no doubt whatsoever. 

No credible neurologist has come along who's examined her who's said she's not in a vegetative state.  It's just what they want to see.  And you can see how scary the tapes are that show her apparently interacting with her eyes open.  But her eyes are open, but she's not even looking at her mother when you look at those tapes. 

ABRAMS:  Let's talk about the CT scan.  You actually have the CT scan. 

CRANFORD:  Yes, this is a CT scan of Terri Schiavo taken in 2002, the most recent CT scan done on her, 2002. 

ABRAMS:  Tell us what it means.

CRANFORD:  Well it shows extremely severe atrophy.  Where those black areas are, that should be white.  That should be cerebral cortex, and so really there is no cerebral cortex left.  It's just a shrinkage of the cerebral cortex.  It's a thin band of white on the outside and any neurologist or any radiologist looking at those CT scans will tell you that her atrophy could not be more severe than it is.  So even if she were mentally conscious, which she's not, she's irreversible.  She's been like this for 15 years, Dan, and that CT scan shows the most extreme severe atrophy of the higher centers of the brain. 

ABRAMS:  And what about those who say that there should have been more tests?  That she's never had a PET scan.  That she needs another MRI.

CRANFORD:  Well she doesn't need an MRI because a MRI will not show any more damage than this C.T. and you can again check with any radiologists.  They'll tell you this CT scan is more than adequate.

---BrianW

[shadegrown]

Johansen is hardly an objective journalist. More about his distortions here:

http://www.amptoons....ational-review/

edit: here's a few excerpts from that blog. Go read the whole thing.

That Terri has never had an MRI is Johansen’s major complaint. Johansen goes on to quote a number of hand-picked neurologists who say that they’d never diagnose without an MRI, and wrings his hands a lot over the moral horribleness of ever making a diagnosis without an MRI.

The problem? Johansen appears to have bungled his research. Two separate sources - one from a doctor who has examined Terri, and one from a right-wing website strongly opposed to letting Terri die - confirm that an MRI was performed on July 24, 1990. According to the right-wing website’s timeline, the MRI showed “Profound atrophy w/ very atrophic appearing cortex. Mild white matter disease, anoxic/hpoxic injury.” Nothing in that makes a diagnosis of “permanent vegitative state” surprising.

At this point, based on an MRI, years of CT scans, multiple EEGs, and their own neurological examinations of Terri, eight different board-certified neurologists (Dr. James Barnhill, Dr. Garcia Desousa, Dr. Thomas Harrison, Dr. Jeffrey Karp, Dr. Vincent Gambone, Dr. Melvin Greer, Dr. Ronald Cranford, and Dr. Peter Bambakidis) have concluded that Terri is in a Permanent Vegitative State.

Although other neurologists - usually based on nothing more than seeing out-of-context video clips of Terri - have questioned this diagnosis, or suggested that further examination might be useful, these doctors have never done a neurological examination of Terri; and they have not looked at her MRI, her CT scans, her EEGs or her medical records. Of those who have made public affidavits, none address Terri Schiavo’s medical issues in any serious manner (Rivka, who has a doctorate in clinical psychology and has completed a year-long practicum in clinical neuropsychology, has a detailed critique of the affidavits).

Considering only the opinions of board-certified neurologists who have examined all of Terri’s medical records and who have given Terri a neurological examination, eight have determined that she is in a persistant or permanent vegitative state (PVS). Only one - Dr. William Hammesfahr - has said otherwise. However, Dr. Hammesfahr appears to be something of a con man. For example, he frequently claims to be a nominee for the “Nobel Peace Prize in Medicine,” a claim that’s simply not true. He has repeatedly claimed that he has cured patients with conditions similar to Terri Schiavo’s - but he was unable to name a single such patient when put under oath. In 2003, the Florida Board of Medicine found that he had charged a patient for providing medical services he hadn’t actually provided, and fined him over $50,000 (mostly in adminstrative costs). Although he says he can perform cures other neurologists would find miraculous, he has never published evidence of his amazing results in a peer-reviewed journal. (His theories have, however, earned Dr. Hammesfahr his own entry on quackwatch.org). Nor has he ever explained how it is that a MRI, multiple CAT scans, and multiple EEGs of Terri’s brain can all be so mistaken.

This is not the record of a doctor whose opinion should be taken above the opinion of eight of his peers. And aside from Dr. Hammesfahr, every doctor who has personally given Terri a neurological examination has found that she’s in a PVS.

Dr. Cranford is an expert, well aware of the difference between a “minimally conscious” patient and a patient in a PVS. Nor would Dr. Cranford ever describe a PVS patient as “frustrated” or “able to suffer.” Contrary to Rev. Johansen’s claim, it’s clear that Dr. Cranford described Mr. Wendland as being in a minimally conscious state, not PVS.

In addition, I’ve read both California Supreme Court decisions relating to Mr. Wendland’s case; neither one supports Rev. Johansen’s implication that there was controversy over if Mr. Wendland was in a PVS. Neither one of them supports Rev. Johansen’s implication that Dr. Cranford’s diagnosis was disagreed with by the Court.

In short, Dr. Cranford’s claim is consistant with the available evidence, whereas Rev. Johansen’s is not. Unless Rev. Johansen can produce real evidence to back up his claims about Dr. Cranford, it appears that Rev. Johansen’s most serious accusation is either incredibly irresponsible reporting or a flat-out lie.

Edited by shadegrown, 31 March 2005 - 12:15 AM.

[theprimemover]

I think you are missing the whole point of the ImmInst : we strive for infinite lifespans, NOT for an ideal world of human rights, eternal pleasure and happyness for everyone.

Actually, when I peruse the myriad of threads here dealing with not just infinite lifespans but also with how they might be or should be lived, then I think you are missing the point.

I'll repeat again : STOP thinking like a mortal. You talk of "abnegation of individual rights", as if it would be FOREVER. We aim to live millions of years, and you know how many changes our civilisations went through in just 2,000 years!

I see. Then you are only pleading for suspending the rights of an individual temporarily. Tell me, for how long? Until you are satisfied that everyone thinks the way you do? Forgive me, but I have no need of your yoke, not even for a fraction of a million years. I suggest you START thinking like a rational human being.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but there's NO guarantee that "human rights" will still exist 500 years from now. And they didn't exist 500 years ago.

Judging by your previous remarks, you will certainly be working to make sure individual rights do not exist 500 years from now. I do not need a "guarantee" for those rights, but I also do not need someone propagating their elimination.

Our concern here is with preventing INVOLUNTARY death, at only that.

This is so patently false, it needs no other comment. [ADDENDUM: Re-reading the quote and my response to it, it occurs to me that nefastor may have meant this thread with "our concern here" and not the site as a whole. If so, my apologies for my harsh response; if not, it stands as it is.]

In general, your comments as to what should be done with those who would choose death are outrageous and vile. Not because you seek to save such people - that in itself is admirable - but that you see the solution in removing their right to choose until... until when? It is not surprising that you seem to see yourself as one of the "elite" that would be making these decisions.

One should not divorce the desire for immortality from its context: our individual lives. I do not care how you choose to spend your infinite lifespan, but just make sure you know that I will not accept any unwelcome interference in mine. This is the tragedy of Terri Schiavo: to me, the question is not whether she should live or die, but rather whether her wishes are being respected. I count myself lucky that I do not have to divine her wishes through the evidence presented thus far. Older and, I assume, wiser heads have made that decision and I only hope the judges have not erred. Like many others who have posted here, I think life should be the default, but if death is what Terri Schiavo would have wanted in this case, it would be wrong to deny her that most personal decision.

But hey, you have all of eternity to come to your senses, thank me and buy me a beer.

Edited by theprimemover, 31 March 2005 - 01:05 AM.

[randolfe]

Prometheus makes some very good points. I think the essential problem is that Terri is in a minimal responsive state, that she has very limited consciousness.

The cat scans show that her brain has largely disintegrated. Votes by those voting in this forum seem to show nearly a two to one majority opposed to removing the feeding tube. I am in that majority.

However, I think this terrible tragedy really raises a larger issue. We have reached the point where medical technology will probably have to be rationed. I remember a very frustrated emergency room physician telling me that some woman was insisting that her 85-year-old Mother have every moment of life possible (and was therefore taking up one of the limited beds in the intensive care unit) while a 45-year-old man with a wife and family was relegated to the corridor where he might die for lack of intensive care.

Like many, I dislike the idea that we have to "put a price" on certain human lives. I think "pulling the tube" on Terri was wrong because her family was willing to assume the responsibility and cost of maintaining it.

Nevertheless, I think it is relevant to ask if Terri Schiavo's life is worth the huge expense ($5,000 to $10,000 monthly) of maintaining it. Think of the much larger return those funds would bring if they were invested in preventative care for expectant mothers, etc.

I am personally delighted to see my fellow Immortalists oppose removing the tube by nearly a two to one margin. That is especially interesting when one considers that the general public supports removing the tube by a similar margin.

Perhaps the difference lies in our unique perspective that death really equals oblivion. We know that there is no "resurrection" and that this life is all we have, no matter how lacking in quality it is.

Or, are we "irrationally afraid of death"?

Nefastor seems to go to great lengths defending "this life, however minimal, is all we have and we have to build on it." I can understand such sentiments. To some degree I even share them. However, I believe "life" has to be measured in the same way we will ultimately have to measure medical care.

Given overwhelming need and limited resources, I'd say that Terri Schiavo's life is not worth the amount of money required. Yes, she is minimally aware. It is really "murder" to disconnect her tube (especially when her parents are willing to assume that burden) but limited resources will require such choices to be made in the future. That "future" has already arrived.

[Lazarus Long]

It was just announced that Terri Schiavo has died.

I want to thank most of you for engaging this debate with an interest to deriving something meaningful from it. This alone is small testimony to Terri's sacrifice albeit little compensation for her loss and her family's suffering.

I do not think the discussion is at an end but I do think that we are all learning from it.

BTW. ironically last night South Park lampooned the event.

Irony or serendipity?

[nefastor]

QUOTE[/b] (nefastor)<!--QuoteEBegin]Our concern here is with preventing INVOLUNTARY death, at only that.

This is so patently false, it needs no other comment. [ADDENDUM: Re-reading the quote and my response to it, it occurs to me that nefastor may have meant this thread with "our concern here" and not the site as a whole. If so, my apologies for my harsh response; if not, it stands as it is.]

Indeed I am aware that on these forums we do not limit our discussions to defeating death. We also discuss many peripheral topics and some that are only loosely related (politics, rights...)

My words were referring to the ImmInst motto which you can see on the top left corner of your browser : "FOR INFINITE LIFESPANS". Like I said, no mention is made of "inalienable human rights", "suicide", "ethics", "law"...

In general, your comments as to what should be done with those who would choose death are outrageous and vile. Not because you seek to save such people - that in itself is admirable - but that you see the solution in removing their right to choose until... until when? It is not surprising that you seem to see yourself as one of the "elite" that would be making these decisions.

Hold your horses, cool your heads, and consider these very simple concepts :

When you were a kid, how many decisions did you do by yourself ? How much was imposed to you by your parents or by strangers (the doctors, the teachers...) ?

These people were more fit than a child to make decisions regarding children. And it was true, since you are here today, all grown-up, educated and (I hope) healthy.

But when you were a child, what understanding did you have of the decisions of the adults ? How often did they seem totally unfair to you ? The painful vaccine shots, the endless school time... How many years did it take before you realized the quality of some of the decisions imposed to you ?

Even today, you leave many vital decisions about yourself to other people : surgeons, aircraft pilots, politicians... and you don't even know these people !

So what is so different about me ? What is it exactly that you don't like ? Yes, my comments regarding the suicidal are vile. And they'll always be. Because it's my feeling they are morons. It's certain not as bad as killing people because of their religious beliefs, or enslaving them because of their skin color.

I mean, give me a break here ! I want everyone to live ! How BAD can that possibly be ?

The way I see it, you are mad at me, not at my ideas.

Anyway, back to my "children parabol" : in the face of eternal life we are all children. So there's no "adult" to make decisions for us regarding our future. But that's not what my posts are about, as you seem to think. My posts are about making sure we all live UNTIL we become wise enough to decide for ourselves if living is worth it or not.

And I won't comment about your "elite" comment. Those who know me can decide for themselves if I belong to an elite, but if that's the case it's not an elite that has any place deciding on human rights.

One should not divorce the desire for immortality from its context: our individual lives. I do not care how you choose to spend your infinite lifespan, but just make sure you know that I will not accept any unwelcome interference in mine. This is the tragedy of Terri Schiavo: to me, the question is not whether she should live or die, but rather whether her wishes are being respected.

Huh ? My thoughts exactly ! I did write in a previous post : "Ultimately, this is what I oppose: making a definitive, irreversible choice... and making it for someone else."

And it's the second time I quote this same statement. I'll say again : maybe you don't like me for some reason or another, but we share the same ideas.

I count myself lucky that I do not have to divine her wishes through the evidence presented thus far. Older and, I assume, wiser heads have made that decision and I only hope the judges have not erred. Like many others who have posted here, I think life should be the default, but if death is what Terri Schiavo would have wanted in this case, it would be wrong to deny her that most personal decision.

Back where we started :

If Terri did want to die, and made that choice while she was still healthy and under no influence, then I'd agree to unplug her. I'd still ask her if she's sure she wouldn't change her mind in a million years, though.

In any other case, I wouldn't let her die.

I'll repeat : for years I've made very clear to all my friends and family that, in the event I'd end up like Terri, I should never be unplugged. Even if I ask it from my hospital bed, or even if seeing me makes them suffer. I will suffer or be cured, but I will not die. Now you too know what I want... and I suggest you also make your choice known : it really can't hurt.

You know, I can see the difference between us : you seem to think your rights are more important that your life. I think the opposite. I'd rather be a slave than be dead.

And I fully know what I'm talking about : as an armenian, I've been raised in part by my grandfather, who was enslaved and sold by the turkish in 1915. I am here today simply because he endured, escaped, survived. And he never ever petitionned for the turkish government to acknowledge the 1915 genocide, nor did he ever expect any sort of compensation.

In fact, out of gratitude to the french government who granted him asylum, he fought during WW-2.

He never cared for his "rights", but for what he thought was right... and for his own life. And whenever someone tried to force him, he simply endured and survived. His greatest rewards were not "rights" or "self-determination", it was to live old enough to have a daughter and grandchildren.

So you see, I cannot consider than rights are more important than life. Rights are only something nice to have in addition to being alive, but if they'll cost you your life, I don't want them.

Jean

[theprimemover]

When you were a kid, how many decisions did you do by yourself ? How much was imposed to you by your parents or by strangers (the doctors, the teachers...) ?

These people were more fit than a child to make decisions regarding children. And it was true, since you are here today, all grown-up, educated and (I hope) healthy.

But when you were a child, what understanding did you have of the decisions of the adults ? How often did they seem totally unfair to you ? The painful vaccine shots, the endless school time... How many years did it take before you realized the quality of some of the decisions imposed to you ?

Even today, you leave many vital decisions about yourself to other people : surgeons, aircraft pilots, politicians... and you don't even know these people !

So what is so different about me ? What is it exactly that you don't like ? Yes, my comments regarding the suicidal are vile. And they'll always be. Because it's my feeling they are morons. It's certain not as bad as killing people because of their religious beliefs, or enslaving them because of their skin color.

I mean, give me a break here ! I want everyone to live ! How BAD can that possibly be ?

The way I see it, you are mad at me, not at my ideas.

One, the first three points are irrelevant. We are not speaking of adults making decisions for children; we are speaking of adults making decisions for adults.

Two, the fourth point hangs on the crucial part "you leave many vital decisions to [others]". Yes, I do leave certain decisions to others, but that is my choice. Surgeons and aircraft pilots do not force their decisions on me - I choose to undergo surgery, I choose to board the plane. Only thus are they permitted to make further decisions on my behalf. [Politicians are another matter entirely, unfortunately.]

Three, your comments regarding preventing voluntary death are the problem, but I'll touch on that later.

Four, I have said that your desire to save people from suicide is admirable - the methods you have advocated are the problem.

Five, I do not know you and I am certainly not mad at you - you may be a nice guy, for all I know. But I will continue to heap scorn on those ideas you have mentioned here.

Ultimately, this is what I oppose: making a definitive, irreversible choice... and making it for someone else.

I have not said anything against this. As you pointed out, the statement I made later is basically the same. But this idea is not what you and I have been discussing. This is:

As for suicide... that's something which should be prevented forcibly and severely punished by law. Suicidal people usually think their life is at an all-time low and is not going to rise ever again. Prove them wrong : send them to jail. When they get out, they should hopefully feel much better.

I'm not in favor of psychological assistance to the suicidal. Telling them nothing is their fault, or that they should make more effort, or showing them the good aspects of life... is not much help. The human brain reacts much better to a good traumatism.

This is the idea that is reprehensible and vile: that you would prevent individuals from making a voluntary choice about their own lives by means of force. In fact, there seems to be a willingness to use "traumatic" forms of force. Although you seem to think that I hold some personal grudge against you, it is this idea of yours that I dislike. I utterly reject it as the evil I take it to be. I find it extremely difficult to understand how someone could support such an idea. But I think you have supplied the answer to the problem:

You know, I can see the difference between us : you seem to think your rights are more important that your life. I think the opposite. I'd rather be a slave than be dead.

You are not entirely correct. I do not think my rights are more important than my life - I think they are equally important as they are inseparable. I would rather be dead than a slave, although I am guessing mine would be a violent death by someone's else hand should I live in a future world such as the one you suggest. I would defend to the death that which makes life worth living in the first place.

This is also the source of the difference in our view when we see the words "For Infinite Lifespans": for you, it seems to be a matter of quantity; for me, it is a matter of quality. You seem to confuse existing with living.

I have enjoyed our debate immensely and it would be interesting to tangle with you again in the future - I hope we do. In case I have not put your mind to rest on the issue, let me repeat that I hold nothing against you. To quote a favorite author of mine: "I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow."

Edited by theprimemover, 01 April 2005 - 11:13 AM.

[nefastor]

theprimemover, I think I'm finally getting your point : my words are too strong, and not kind enough for your tastes.

You say you don't understand how I could be like this, then I should explain. I will keep it short as this is off-topic.

It all stems from my research in the field of AI. I create machines (software and robots) which rely on either or both major AI techniques : neural networks and (less often) expert systems.

While expert systems are "taught" in the most idealized, human manner possible, by simply listing knowledge, neural nets require the same type of teaching inflicted upon all humans : learning that occurs under pressure, and empiric learning.

When I refer to the "teaching" of my machines I actually use words like "shock treatment", "traumatism", "trial by fire", "brain washing", "negative reinforcement"...

And it all works beautifully. So well that you can actually predict the results mathematically. Softer approaches, on the other hand, produce no results even after a nigh-infinite training time. And that too can be proved mathematically.

Since I consider humans (and animals) to simply be more complex forms of neural networks, I believe the methods I use on my machines will have the same efficiency on humans. And it might hurt you to hear so, but it's actually true. Brain washing is a reality. Conditionning people is a reality. Ask the terrorists. Ask the kamikaze. Ever heard of "educating the consumers" ? That term is actually employed by the people who develop commercial campaigns. It works, and people end up buying junk they'd would never consider otherwise.

Now, if you know a more effective AND more "human" way to get people to renounce committing suicide... by all means tell us what it is. My methods might not sound humane, but that's not their purpose either.

I'm only sticking to my ways because I don't know anything more efficient.

Did I say I'd keep it short ? OK this was short, by my standards [lol]

Oh, and when you write "Surgeons and aircraft pilots do not force their decisions on me", it's not entirely true. When you have an accident and end up in the ER, unconscious and bleeding, do you think the surgeon will just stand there until you give him permission to save you ? When you want to go from Paris to New York in less than a day, do you really have any other choice than taking a plane ?

The word you'd use to cover these examples is "unavoidable". And I want life to become unavoidable to all of us. Today, only death is unavoidable.

You make an incomplete statement when you say :

This is the idea that is reprehensible and vile: that you would prevent individuals from making a voluntary choice about their own lives by means of force.

You should remember that I only want to prevent suicide because very often, people who want to commit suicide aren't in a healthy state of mind. You can't possibly ignore that. Very very few people ever decide to die in their right mind. I don't even have an example of such a case, of people rationaly coming to the conclusion that they should die. Maybe a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades ? How often does that happen ?

I want to give suicidal people the desire to keep on living. One method would be to show them they haven't quite "reached the bottom". A trip to jail should do the trick. And it's even better if they get hurt by cons : should they ever feel suicidal again, a scar or three might remind them that they have known worse days and lived through it.

I'll ask again : if you have an alternate method to propose, please do so. Letting people kill themselves is not acceptable, though.

I do not think my rights are more important than my life - I think they are equally important as they are inseparable.

I'll say it again : human rights didn't come around at the same time as human life did. In fact, human rights is such a recent thing that it's not even a worldwide concept yet. There is still slavery on this planet, and mass murders (Rwanda, Burundi...)

Your notion that our life and rights are inseparable is wrong. It's wishful thinking, probably of someone who has always lived in places where people respect other people. But that is by no means a given. Racism still exists, even in the most modern countries. Most people simply don't want to admit it, but we all know it.

You think I'm vile ? I'll tell you what I find vile : it's your comment that you'd rather die than be a slave.

If you die, you die a slave. You quit. You admit your defeat at the hands of your "master".

If you live, you stand a chance to eventually reclaim your freedom.

I'll let you guess which behavior I find more honorable. I'll give you a hint : it's the behavior that will let me congratulate you for your courage.

for you, it seems to be a matter of quantity; for me, it is a matter of quality. You seem to confuse existing with living.

Some people have no choice but to keep existing until they can finally live (or the opposite, depending on the meaning you give to each word).

My grandfather was one such people. His life truly begun when he escaped to France.

And I do not believe that quantity and quality are mutually exclusive. The world isn't so black-and-white.

I have enjoyed our debate immensely and it would be interesting to tangle with you again in the future

So have I, my friend. You'll always be welcome. Don't worry, I understand you have nothing against me personnally.

Ah, and... forgive me for being french but what does "heaping scorn" mean ? (and who is the author you quote ?)

Jean

[armrha]

Null vote as well. She should have been placed into suspension as soon as the brain damage was assessed as irreversible to today's medicine. For a injury that essentially destroys current life, future medicine is the only way to go.

[bgwowk]

Null vote as well. She should have been placed into suspension as soon as the brain damage was assessed as irreversible to today's medicine. For a injury that essentially destroys current life, future medicine is the only way to go.

For the record, that is exactly what I want for myself and my family. Moreover, I want it within hours of a serious brain injury with poor prognosis, not 15 years. If blood circulation to major areas of the brain is stopped by injury, those brain areas will disintegrate just as rapidly as if you were lying clinically dead in a +37degC sauna.

That's the problem with medically-naive do-gooders who want to use government force to control medical decisions by patients and families. They will KILL me and my loved ones.

You know what they say the road to Hell is paved with.

---BrianW

P.S. To prometheus and nefaster: All almost patients with a terminal diagnosis in medicine today die by termination or refusal of life support, including nutrition, either by themselves or their families if unconscious. The suggestion that such decisions should be forcibly prevented by government is competely ridiculous.

[Mind]

Brian W: All almost patients with a terminal diagnosis in medicine today die by termination or refusal of life support, including nutrition, either by themselves or their families if unconscious. The suggestion that such decisions should be forcibly prevented by government is competely ridiculous.

Brain!!!!!!! Have you read any post by prometheus on this issue????? Obviously not. He isn't saying the government should arbitrarily decide who lives and dies. Relevant law says the husband has final say, but prometheus is saying this case is different because the husband obviously (OBVIOUSLY!!) has a conflict of interest. Holy crap, he (the husband) didn't claim Terri wanted to be terminated until 8 years after her tragic mental state developed.

Also, Brain, someone else brought up the point that consciousness and personality are distributed throughout the brain. What if these so-called brain dead people are really conscious but have no way to communicate...because of the damage. We may not have advanced enough technology to determine what amount of consciousness is left. Even if it is a slim chance, it would certainly be unethical to "pull the plug".

I can't understand why so many of you here wanted this death to happen, when the parents were willing to assume all legal and finacial responsibility. I mean, why should anyone care if the Schindlers want to care for a "vegetable".

Any explanations? Why are some of you so pro-death?

[eternaltraveler]

I am not pro death. My only issue was with the Executive and legistative branches of the government trying to force the judcial branch to do what they want. We have three branches of government that are not accountable to each other for a reason.

[nefastor]

Old it right there buddy !

Technically, maths as a science (not just counting on your fingers) were born in arabia, which was a lot more advanced back then than Greece on pretty much everything, and especially on medical science. Do not forget that even the numbers we use today (the symbols for 1 to 9) are called the "arab numbers".

It's really a pity the arabic peninsula later fell under the spell of religion and obscurantism... not to mention oil. They could have achieved so much. I regret few things more than wasted potential.

Otherwise I fully agree with your last statement regarding decrepitude and death :

A sensible person is galvanized, if he chooses to be concerned by such things, to find a solution.

That is exactly what all ImmInst members feel. We are concerned about death, and want to find a solution.

Jean

[bgwowk]

Brain!!!!!!! Have you read any post by prometheus on this issue????? Obviously not.

I've read every one of his posts. Perhaps I should have further broken down my P.S.: The first sentence was directed at prometheus, who habitually describes the Shaivo case with such inflammatory language you'd think that nobody has ever had a feeding tube removed, or other life support withheld, in medicine before when such things are in fact routine. The only thing out of routine in this case was the family disagreement and *extreme* intrasigence of both sides. The second sentence was for nefastor, who has said "Letting people kill themselves is not acceptable" many times now.

Also, Brain, someone else brought up the point that consciousness and personality are distributed throughout the brain.

That's armchair neuroscience. I don't believe that any neuroscientist would say that consciousness as we know it (or believe we know it) can be supported by just any part of the brain in isolation. If that were true, the whole concept of a vegetative coma would be bogus. So would brain death, since parts of the central nervous system can still be working in even that diagnosis. If a brain stem can be conscious, then why not a spine? I think you greatly underestimate what neurologists know about the brain. Bottom line is that if most neurologists say a patient is in a coma, I'm going to believe that they are in coma.

If this whole thing is going to what is possible, rather than just merely likely, then let's about a the possible scenario of Terri being in unimaginable agony. Why not? If neurology today is too primitive to rule out awareness, then surely it can't rule out the type of awareness either.

I can't understand why so many of you here wanted this death to happen, when the parents were willing to assume all legal and finacial responsibility. I mean, why should anyone care if the Schindlers want to care for a "vegetable".

Now, Mind, it is you who haven't been reading what I wrote. (If that was directed at me.) I've tried to make clear in several posts now that there is a distinction between what you or I think should be done vs. what the government should do about it. It's quite possible to be pro-life and want to always give life the benefit of the doubt while still supporting the rights of patients and families to make that decision for themselves on a case-by-case basis. Why is that so hard to understand?

---BrianW

[bgwowk]

prometheus wrote:

No sane person in balanced state of mind would elect to die.

You guys still don't get it. Sane people choose to die all the time because of quality and length of life issues. And that's their business, not yours. Now of course you can always choose to DEFINE sanity as wanting to be constantly coded, resuscitated, maintained on ventilators, TPN, and ECMOs, until your brain rots away. More power to you. Just don't enforce that on anyone else but you, especially not me.

As to whether and when I should "run to Alcor", my response is MY LIFE, MY BRAIN, MY DECISION.

---BrianW

[bgwowk]

prometheus wrote:

There are vast social consequences to that sort of behavior.

You mean people not wanting to be constantly coded, resuscitated, maintained on ventilators, TPN, and ECMOs, until their brain rots away? Sorry to be sarcastic, but I think much of this debate has been based on incorrect assumptions about how medicine actually works. For example, now that the Pope is unconscious, and his kidneys are failing, why doesn't the Vatican insist that he get dialysis? Why don't they insist that he get a left ventricular assist device, or full-blown DeBakey artificial heart to keep his circulation going and maintain his blood pressure? They could keep him going for weeks. But they are not. So is the Pope being euthanasized? You tell me.

I don't agree with your flippant attitude towards the so-called rights of suicide. It is setting the wrong example. There are young people on these boards who may well be in the throes of hormonal chaos at the moment and who are prone to thinking about such things in more than just hypotheticals. Be careful of what you are advocating.

That's not what I'm talking about at all, and that should be clear from the context. Clearly people do become suicidal due to mental illness, and that is a special case. I object to the statement that ALL suicide is related to mental illness. Remember you said "no sane person in a balanced state of mind would elect to die."

---BrianW

[bgwowk]

Prometheus, I just saw your post in the other PVS thread. I'm sorry for your loss.

This issue touches a raw nerve in me also for personal reasons. Consequently, I have a tremendous fear of losing rights to self-determination at the hands of a well-meaning, but ignorant majority. I'm much more scared of what a mob coming up the hill with torches and pitchforks would do to me than anything my wife would ever do. The dynamics and tactics of the pro-intervention side of the Shiavo debate remind me too much of that mob I personally fear. Perhaps that can help you understand my position.

---BrianW

[Mind]

Now, Mind, it is you who haven't been reading what I wrote. (If that was directed at me.) I've tried to make clear in several posts now that there is a distinction between what you or I think should be done vs. what the government should do about it. It's quite possible to be pro-life and want to always give life the benefit of the doubt while still supporting the rights of patients and families to make that decision for themselves on a case-by-case basis. Why is that so hard to understand?

Understood. My view is that the law, as it exists, did not handle this situation well. The law allows the husband to do whatever he wants in this case. And this case sets a dangerous precedent for people without living wills (they are at the whim of their spouse.....and of course....all spouses are loving and caring and would never dream of doing any harm to anyone, ever....not!!!). There were many other members of the family that were willing to care for Terri, and they believed she would want to live, but the Judge said it did not matter. Only the husband's view mattered. Everyone here is basing their pro-death stance on the husband's word (which not so suddenly popped up 8 years after the fact). That is what bother's me. I think there is a role society/government should play when foul play may be afoot.

If Terri had a living will, and she stated she would want to starve to death, then case closed. If her husband, parents, siblings, and friends agreed and testified that Terri wanted to die, then case closed.

When the husband has several conflicts of interest. Case open.

[nefastor]

About the Vatican refusing to resort to modern medicine to keep the pope alive... well you have to remember we're talking about frickin' religious fanatics. People who don't think you should use a condom.

These people think that a beautiful and timely death is more important than a few more days of life. I call these... IDIOTS.

Even if they are convinced the pope is headed to Heaven, something I'm not so sure about. After all, who knows how many idiots he got AIDS or died because of his "no condoms" stance ?

And to lighten the mood... NOT, a link to a web-comic about a psycho killer, who did a special on Terri :

http://www.choppingb...d/20050321.html

Jean

[bgwowk]

nefastor wrote:

These people think that a beautiful and timely death is more important than a few more days of life. I call these... IDIOTS

You missed my point. My question of why they didn't string the Pope out was rhetorical. Nobody who is terminal is going to get dialysis. There's a lot of sarcasm in my challenge for you to get all life-extending treatments possible when you are dying. It just isn't going to happen. If you think that you will be put on dialysis when your kidneys fail during multi-system organ failure due to terminal illness, you will not find either a doctor to do it, or an insurance company to pay for it. It just isn't done. In that sense (and many others), every terminal patient is "euthanasized".

The Pope's treatment may have been idiotic by your standards, but it was completely typical. Patients and their families refuse life extending therapies, withdraw life support measures, and even stop nutrition routinely. There is a huge gap between what is theoretically possible, and what is practical or desirable. That's my point.

---BrianW