The RCC and Obligations to those in PVS

Originally posted by josephw
The brain is an organ in a body. It is made of flesh. The body is the vehicle in which the soul resides. The soul will continue to occupy the body until it is dead.
Causing the death of this woman's body terminated the bond between her soul and spirit and the body.

What kind of mentality is it that thinks they can decide who lives and who dies? Bewildering!

So a brain-dead person should be kept on life support because the rest
of the body is alive?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
So a brain-dead person should be kept on life support because the rest
of the body is alive?

Nemesio

If Einstein was eating dinner at your house and fell and hit his head resulting in a comatose state; would you pull the plug?

You don't know what's going on in his head during the Coma.
He could come out of it tomorrow, or 5 years from now.

What would you do?

What if it was you? What if you were appeared to be in a coma, but actually, through some yet-discovered method, were able to see and feel everything that happened to yourself (out of body experience). Wouldn't that suck if your own child killed you?

It's only an easy question if it's hypothetical.

Originally posted by mdhall
If Einstein was eating dinner at your house and fell and hit his head resulting in a comatose state; would you pull the plug?

You don't know what's going on in his head during the Coma.
He could come out of it tomorrow, or 5 years from now.

What would you do?

What if it was you? What if you were appeared to be in a coma, but actually, through some that suck if your own child killed you?

It's only an easy question if it's hypothetical.

We're not talking about comatose states. We're talking about persistent
vegetative states. When an individual is comatose, s/he retains
the capacity for interests, desires, personality and so forth. S/He merely
is unable to express them -- like you when you're sleeping or get knocked
out by Mike Tyson.

Someone in a PVS has permenent and irreversible damage to the centers
of their brains that eradicates those centers -- they no longer have the
capacity. In the case of Terri Schaivo, those centers deteriorated and
turned to fluid because of inactivity (because of lack of blood flow).

So, unless you're proposing some sort of brain regrowing technology,
then what you're saying is irrelevant.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
We're not talking about comatose states. We're talking about [b]persistent
vegetative states. When an individual is comatose, s/he retains
the capacity for interests, desires, personality and so forth. S/He merely
is unable to express them -- like you when you're sleeping or get knocked
out by Mike Tyson.

Someone in a PVS has permenent and irre ...[text shortened]... e sort of brain regrowing technology,
then what you're saying is irrelevant.

Nemesio[/b]

You're saying her brain turned into pudding?

Wow. I had no idea.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So a brain-dead person should be kept on life support because the rest
of the body is alive?

Nemesio

Be careful with your terminology; "brain dead" means no brain activity at all. Terri Schiavo was not "brain dead", for example.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Be careful with your terminology; "brain dead" means no brain activity at all. Terri Schiavo was not "brain dead", for example.

#1: Have I ever not been careful with terminology?

Read the Joseph said: The brain is an organ in a body. It is made of flesh. The body is the vehicle in which the soul resides. The soul will continue to occupy the body until it is dead.

The implication of this is that if any part of the 'flesh' or 'body' is alive,
then the soul is chained to it. So, my question, directed specifically at
Joseph, was if the brain were dead but the body kept alive, is the soul
still chained to it? If so, should we keep the body on the machine?

Nemesio

Originally posted by mdhall
You're saying her brain turned into pudding?

Wow. I had no idea.

Read the medical reports and look at the MRIs. I'm not saying her
entire brain turned into 'pudding.' Obviously, her brainstem which controls
the autonomic functions remained intact, but the vast majority of her
cerebrum (something exceeding 80% if memory serves) was dead.

The parts that were dead included the parts which made Terri 'Terri'
(her personality, dreams, interests, cares, goals, &c). Thus, Terri for
all meaningful intents and purposes was in fact dead, permanently and
irretrievably.

Nemesio

Originally posted by mdhall
If Einstein was eating dinner at your house and fell and hit his head resulting in a comatose state; would you pull the plug?

You don't know what's going on in his head during the Coma.
He could come out of it tomorrow, or 5 years from now.

What would you do?

What if it was you? What if you were appeared to be in a coma, but actually, through some ...[text shortened]... that suck if your own child killed you?

It's only an easy question if it's hypothetical.

I'd call 911 and let the professionals decide.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I think the "kind of mentality" that you are speaking about is the rather common understanding that when you marry someone, your life may be in their hands unless you have advance directives about your care should you end up in her state.

So what you're saying is that if we decide and draw up a legal sort of document stating how we are to be treated medically if we should end up in a vegetative state, then it is man that makes the decision.

I guess that makes it alright!
My mistake. I thought maybe God might have something to say about it.

I'm being sarcastic because this whole argument is making me laugh.

It's too bad we all see it differently. Somebody is wrong. It's not funny.

Originally posted by Nemesio
So a brain-dead person should be kept on life support because the rest
of the body is alive?

Nemesio

We have the technology. Or are we supposed to use it for destructive purposes?

Originally posted by Nemesio
#1: Have I ever not been careful with terminology?

Read the Joseph said: The brain is an organ in a body. It is made of flesh. The body is the vehicle in which the soul resides. The soul will continue to occupy the body until it is dead.

The implication of this is that if any part of the 'flesh' or 'body' is alive,
then the soul is chained t ...[text shortened]... is the soul
still chained to it? If so, should we keep the body on the machine?

Nemesio

I don't really know. Nobody really does. How can we make this decision without knowing for sure?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Read the medical reports and look at the MRIs. I'm not saying her
entire brain turned into 'pudding.' Obviously, her brainstem which controls
the autonomic functions remained intact, but the vast majority of her
cerebrum (something exceeding 80% if memory serves) was dead.

The parts that were dead included the parts which made Terri 'Terri'
(her p ...[text shortened]... eaningful intents and purposes was in fact dead, permanently and
irretrievably.

Nemesio

"The parts that were dead included the parts which made Terri 'Terri'"

Now how on earth do you know that?

Originally posted by josephw
So what you're saying is that if we decide and draw up a legal sort of document stating how we are to be treated medically if we should end up in a vegetative state, then it is man that makes the decision.

I guess that makes it alright!
My mistake. I thought maybe God might have something to say about it.

I'm being sarcastic because this whole argumen ...[text shortened]... ing me laugh.

It's too bad we all see it differently. Somebody is wrong. It's not funny.

Maybe God thinks it OK to let them pass. Does not the sacred word say a time to be born and a time to die?

Originally posted by josephw
"The parts that were dead included the parts which made Terri 'Terri'"

Now how on earth do you know that?

Well they did an autopsy and found that most of her brain had shriveled up and died. She mostly had a brainstem. She was completely blind. The thinking by some like Sen Bill Frist, a doctor, that she was following people with her eyes proved to be completely wrong.

Originally posted by josephw
"The parts that were dead included the parts which made Terri 'Terri'"

Now how on earth do you know that?

Which parts of your body are what make you 'you?' If you lost your arm,
for example, would you cease being 'you' in any meaningful sense --
that is, do you become a different person (not do you behave differently)?

If you get a heart transplant, do you cease being 'you' and become
another person altogether?

&c. for every other body part except the brain. If you suffer liver
damage, you are still 'you.' If you suffer brain damage to the parts of
the brain affecting personality, you may indeed cease being 'you.'

Your personality is stored in various parts of your brain and not stored
in your heart or lungs or brain stem. Those specific parts of Terri's brain
were unequivocally dead (as well as other but not all parts). She no
longer had the capacity for personality, the capacity for interests, the
capacity for desires, the capacity for goals. These parts died during her
trauma and cannot regenerate. They subsequently atrophied and
deteriorated.

The MRIs that were published as part of the lengthy court proceedings
were clear (as in no debate on either side). The autopsy -- results of
which were made public -- were similarly clear. This is how I know. This
is how you could know.

Nemesio