Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:37 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 03:22 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Except for the fact they they are still alive.

Here's a quick test: is the patient at room temperature, regardless of how you set the thermostat?

Irrelevant.

Working brain = alive
Brain not working = dead

That's my definition of death. You choose another one, but don't argue about definitions.

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 05:17 PM

Copper

Nov 16 2012, 02:17 PM

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 09:54 AM

Being in a vegetative state and still aware sounds like the closest thing to hell I can imagine. Propping someone up for years instead of just letting them die seems needlessly cruel.

It seems to me it would be peaceful. No more like hell than visiting here regularly.

It would be like visiting here except that everybody has you on ignore.

Oh sorry, I was forgetting...

Quote:

 

Also, the majority of patients in vegetative state is different from the one that made the news: Their brain is so damaged that it is basically pudding. They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Amanda

Nov 16 2012, 03:51 PM

One of the miracles in the movie (I hadn't yet seen it) is how in the world they managed to make an engrossing movie about a completely paralyzed man. I'm guessing it must have revolved around his fantasy life.

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

Also, the majority of patients in vegetative state is different from the one that made the news: Their brain is so damaged that it is basically pudding. They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 02:32 PM

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 09:54 AM

Being in a vegetative state and still aware sounds like the closest thing to hell I can imagine. Propping someone up for years instead of just letting them die seems needlessly cruel.

Would you recommend using a pillow over the face, a bullet to the brain, cut off food and water so they slowly dessicated, or some poisonous overdose of drugs?

sue

Nov 16 2012, 09:42 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 02:32 PM

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 09:54 AM

Being in a vegetative state and still aware sounds like the closest thing to hell I can imagine. Propping someone up for years instead of just letting them die seems needlessly cruel.

Would you recommend using a pillow over the face, a bullet to the brain, cut off food and water so they slowly dessicated, or some poisonous overdose of drugs?

I would choose a good drug cocktail, thanks.

It's a no-brainer.

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 05:32 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:37 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 03:22 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Except for the fact they they are still alive.

Here's a quick test: is the patient at room temperature, regardless of how you set the thermostat?

Irrelevant.

Working brain = alive
Brain not working = dead

That's my definition of death. You choose another one, but don't argue about definitions.

You have a strange definition of death that cannot be applied to other living things that don't have brains yet are alive.

So yeah, I'll argue against your sloppy thinking.

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 05:32 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:37 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 03:22 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Except for the fact they they are still alive.

Here's a quick test: is the patient at room temperature, regardless of how you set the thermostat?

Irrelevant.

Working brain = alive
Brain not working = dead

That's my definition of death. You choose another one, but don't argue about definitions.

You have a strange definition of death that cannot be applied to other living things that don't have brains yet are alive.

So yeah, I'll argue against your sloppy thinking.

Quote:

 

The main argument bandied around here was that the "person" no longer existed -- Moonbat particularly couched the whole notion in his metaphysics of "mind". Now that we know that they do really exist as living, breathing and thinking persons (and of course "human beings") that argument is shown to be meaningless to the ethic of whether you can kill an innocent person -- unless of course you think that you can kill an innocent person regardless.

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 05:35 PM

There's a few people here we could kill off based on that defiinition.

Renauda

Nov 17 2012, 08:26 AM

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 05:35 PM

There's a few people here we could kill off based on that defiinition.

Indeed, the vacuousness of liberalism, the atrophy of conservatism and the profligacy of libertarianism could be all be eradicated with nothing but a small dose of benign neglect.

Klaus

Nov 17 2012, 12:36 AM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 05:32 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:37 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 03:22 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Except for the fact they they are still alive.

Here's a quick test: is the patient at room temperature, regardless of how you set the thermostat?

Irrelevant.

Working brain = alive
Brain not working = dead

That's my definition of death. You choose another one, but don't argue about definitions.

You have a strange definition of death that cannot be applied to other living things that don't have brains yet are alive.

So yeah, I'll argue against your sloppy thinking.

Well, it is the definition of death in most jurisdictions I know. If you want to accuse all these nations of sloppy thinking, go ahead.

You haven't properly defined when you consider a human dead, but I assume that your definition would imply that you could not even dispose a piece of flesh from a human wound: It contains living cells and these cells could in principle be kept alive.

apple

Nov 17 2012, 03:12 AM

this would be an interesting question for the comatose, assuming there is no hope of recovery... my guess is that they would choose to leave. If they could participate in the discussion, now or later, one could assume there is no hope for recovery.

Why don't you make that a definitive - ' no hope of recovery. Sometimes life is not neat and tidy...... and sometimes dear Ivory you get lost in the words.

Moonbat

Nov 17 2012, 08:24 AM

Quote:

 

The main argument bandied around here was that the "person" no longer existed -- Moonbat particularly couched the whole notion in his metaphysics of "mind". Now that we know that they do really exist as living, breathing and thinking persons (and of course "human beings") that argument is shown to be meaningless to the ethic of whether you can kill an innocent person -- unless of course you think that you can kill an innocent person regardless.

Metaphysics of mind? What?

Irreversible destruction of the neurological structures responsible for cognition, memory, personality etc. means that you are left with a body without what we think of as a person. The question in situations involving brain injury is always going to be 'what is the extent of the damage?' If there is a chance that there is some degree of awareness still in there then we focus on what actions they want/would want us to take.

Btw. meaningless != wrong.

Renauda

Nov 17 2012, 08:26 AM

John D'Oh

Nov 16 2012, 05:35 PM

There's a few people here we could kill off based on that defiinition.

Indeed, the vacuousness of liberalism, the atrophy of conservatism and the profligacy of libertarianism could be all be eradicated with nothing but a small dose of benign neglect.

bachophile

Nov 17 2012, 12:07 AM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 05:32 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:37 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 03:22 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Except for the fact they they are still alive.

Here's a quick test: is the patient at room temperature, regardless of how you set the thermostat?

Irrelevant.

Working brain = alive
Brain not working = dead

That's my definition of death. You choose another one, but don't argue about definitions.

You have a strange definition of death that cannot be applied to other living things that don't have brains yet are alive.

So yeah, I'll argue against your sloppy thinking.

that's the definition used for organ transplants

change that definition and there will be no more transplants.

Quote:

 

The exam for brain death is simple. A doctor splashes ice water in your ears (to look for shivering in the eyes), pokes your eyes with a cotton swab and checks for any gag reflex, among other rudimentary tests. It takes less time than a standard eye exam. Finally, in what's called the apnea test, the ventilator is disconnected to see if you can breathe unassisted. If not, you are brain dead. (Some or all of the above tests are repeated hours later for confirmation.)

Here's the weird part. If you fail the apnea test, your respirator is reconnected. You will begin to breathe again, your heart pumping blood, keeping the organs fresh. Doctors like to say that, at this point, the "person" has departed the body. You will now be called a BHC, or beating-heart cadaver.

Still, you will have more in common biologically with a living person than with a person whose heart has stopped. Your vital organs will function, you'll maintain your body temperature, and your wounds will continue to heal. You can still get bedsores, have heart attacks and get fever from infections.

"I like my dead people cold, stiff, gray and not breathing," says Dr. Michael A. DeVita of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "The brain dead are warm, pink and breathing."

You might also be emitting brainwaves. Most people are surprised to learn that many people who are declared brain dead are never actually tested for higher-brain activity. The 1968 Harvard committee recommended that doctors use electroencephalography (EEG) to make sure the patient has flat brain waves. Today's tests concentrate on the stalk-like brain stem, in charge of basics such as breathing, sleeping and waking. The EEG would alert doctors if the cortex, the thinking part of your brain, is still active.

But various researchers decided that this test was unnecessary, so it was eliminated from the mandatory criteria in 1971. They reasoned that, if the brain stem is dead, the higher centers of the brain are also probably dead.

But in at least two studies before the 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act, some "brain-dead" patients were found to be emitting brain waves. One, from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in the 1970s, found that out of 503 patients who met the usual criteria of brain death, 17 showed activity in an EEG.

Even some of the sharpest critics of the brain-death criteria argue that there is no possibility that donors will be in pain during the harvesting of their organs. One, Robert Truog, professor of medical ethics, anesthesia and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, compared the topic of pain in an organ donor to an argument over "whether it is OK to kick a rock."

But BHCs—who don't receive anesthetics during an organ harvest operation—react to the scalpel like inadequately anesthetized live patients, exhibiting high blood pressure and sometimes soaring heart rates. Doctors say these are simply reflexes.

What if there is sound evidence that you are alive after being declared brain dead? In a 1999 article in the peer-reviewed journal Anesthesiology, Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Washington, reported a case in which a 30-year-old patient with severe head trauma began breathing spontaneously after being declared brain dead. The physicians said that, because there was no chance of recovery, he could still be considered dead. The harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the donor move, and then react to the scalpel with hypertension.

ivorythumper

Nov 17 2012, 02:16 PM

Klaus

Nov 17 2012, 12:36 AM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 05:32 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:37 PM

ivorythumper

Nov 16 2012, 03:22 PM

Klaus

Nov 16 2012, 03:13 PM

They don't need to be killed; they are already dead.

Except for the fact they they are still alive.

Here's a quick test: is the patient at room temperature, regardless of how you set the thermostat?

Irrelevant.

Working brain = alive
Brain not working = dead

That's my definition of death. You choose another one, but don't argue about definitions.

You have a strange definition of death that cannot be applied to other living things that don't have brains yet are alive.

So yeah, I'll argue against your sloppy thinking.

Well, it is the definition of death in most jurisdictions I know. If you want to accuse all these nations of sloppy thinking, go ahead.

You haven't properly defined when you consider a human dead, but I assume that your definition would imply that you could not even dispose a piece of flesh from a human wound: It contains living cells and these cells could in principle be kept alive.

I'd be happy to, but as we both know it is actually just an end run to exclude living, bioprocessing people from "humanity" by legal definitions so that they can be treated like things rather than people -- just like the blacks were not considered "persons" or thought "sub human", just like the Jews were considered subhuman and deprived of personhood, just like the preborn are.

And once again you lapse into your predictably idiotic position about detached body parts being accorded humanity. We've talked about that too many times to rehash it, Klaus. Its a fallacy, and you are certainly smart enough to know it when you construct it.