- #1
lawtonfogle
- 160
- 0
Should it be removed. Please tell why you voted. I think no because she is not on life support. She is just like a baby who needs feeding.
Last edited:
Yes. Your eyes will even track objects without conscious thought.kaos said:I ve seen the case on cnn. Her eyes are still moving. Is that a reflex or something?
No respect for life.mapper said:you could drop her out of a plane and she would have no clue, not giving her food or water is good enough.
I've been steadfastly ignoring this whole case, so the only facts that I really have are the ones that I read here. I'd offered no opinion because I didn't actually know her mental condition. The way I see it, if her cortex is indeed gone, then the effect on her is irrelevant. She has no knowledge of her condition. Her parents deserve to suffer for being so unforgivably selfish in the matter. It's her own family and friends who are being put through unnecessary pain. Give her a needle and let them get on with their own lives.Monique said:I understand, but does suffering of family not count?
I'm not going to partake in what is sure to be the following political discussion. It's not my country, and I don't care for politics. (Copyrighted First Thompson Law of Politics: Anyone who is possessed of the sort of mentality that is needed to run for public office is unfit to hold it.) All I want to state from a Canuk perspective is that, with the exception of some malicious manoeuvring, I have yet to see any evidence of foresight on the part of the current administration.Norman said:quickly and without foresight
Monique said:What I find confronting is that it apparently is legal to neglect someone. What's wrong with giving her an injection?
meteor said:I don't think that she should be euthanized, because even if her brain is irreparable nowadays, perhaps can be repaired in the future with the medical advances that occur day by day. Who thought a century ago that heart transplants could be made until Barnard did the first some decades ago!
Even if she declared that she wanted to die, that was only her state of mind caused by the great suffering that she was enduring.
Not all, most of it, but not allHer cortex is gone
.There is no way to restore that
meteor said:Not all, most of it, but not all
There's no evidence that she wanted to die, only the word of her husband, a man that possibly abused of her according to this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiavo
Their parents want that she live. Morally I think that the persons that gave her life should have more power when it comes to decide her future
meteor said:There's no evidence that she wanted to die, only the word of her husband, a man that possibly abused of her according to this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiavo
The Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) has begun another investigation of the abuse allegations. Previous investigations have found Schiavo innocent, and the charges baseless. ([9] (http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/wolfson%27s%20report.pdf ) PDF Report) The doctors who were the defendants in the 1992 malpractice lawsuit made no attempt to introduce any evidence suggesting that Mrs. Schiavo was battered as part of an affirmative defense to mitigate their responsibility for her cardiac arrest.
If you take someone off of life support, you are actively taking life when you know they can't live without it. Take late Christopher Reeve: if they would've stopped feeding him, it would not have been euthanasia?loseyourname said:It's illegal [to give an injection]. Taking someone off of life support is not considered euthanasia. Actively taking the life is.
Should we not take into consideration that there might be more going on than meets the eye? The brain is known to move the function of damaged areas to other parts of the brain, theoretically it is possible that in her brain things have taken place that we have no knowledge of. I'm not saying that it did, but think about it.Danger said:The way I see it, if her cortex is indeed gone, then the effect on her is irrelevant. She has no knowledge of her condition.
I'm not a neurophysiologist (as I've mentioned before, I never finished high school), but I did research brain structure and function fairly extensively for my own purposes. The brain certainly does rewire itself for the sake of saving function. (Not in the sense of rearranging neurons; just altering use thereof.) Such function transfer is almost exclusively restricted to the lobe or segment thereof which is normally responsible for the missing activity, and only occurs if the damage is within reasonable limits. If the cortex, which is the seat of consciousness, is destroyed, no other brain structure is capable of taking over its duties. It's the most specialized brain structure of all, and what separates us from the lower animals. You could not, for example, train the reptillian hindbrain to write a novel or do math.Monique said:If you take someone off of life support, you are actively taking life when you know they can't live without it. Take late Christopher Reeve: if they would've stopped feeding him, it would not have been euthanasia?
Should we not take into consideration that there might be more going on than meets the eye? The brain is known to move the function of damaged areas to other parts of the brain, theoretically it is possible that in her brain things have taken place that we have no knowledge of. I'm not saying that it did, but think about it.
Monique said:If you take someone off of life support, you are actively taking life when you know they can't live without it. Take late Christopher Reeve: if they would've stopped feeding him, it would not have been euthanasia?
Should we not take into consideration that there might be more going on than meets the eye? The brain is known to move the function of damaged areas to other parts of the brain, theoretically it is possible that in her brain things have taken place that we have no knowledge of. I'm not saying that it did, but think about it.