4 ms·

They told me my dad was brain-dead. He wasn't. His wife was going to pull the plug, but during the week we were fighting over it, he began to be able to blink

They told me my dad was brain-dead. He wasn't. His wife was going to pull the plug, but during the week we were fighting over it, he began to be able to blink to communicate. He then said he did not want the plug pulled. We should be more honest about how fuzzy and inaccurate our understanding of consciousness is right now, and not pretend that neuroscience is as mature as some other sciences. We should also be more honest about the fact that many "pull the plug" conversations are about hospital expenses, not about science or ethics.

themitigating 4y ago
I think it comes down to resources. If someone is in a coma for more than a year continued care uses resources that could be redirected to others who aren't in a coma even if there's a small probability the person would wake up
- PostOnce 4y ago
  We're not talking about a small town in Moldova, we're talking about Boston. America has, for many intents and purposes, unlimited resources. We waste more money than most countries even have. We could do whatever we want medically, we just choose not to. Individual hospitals may have constraints, but only because we as a nation choose to allow them to. The JWST cost as much as 100 new hospitals. We once built half a supercollider that probably cost more than that (relative to then-current construction costs) and never even used it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider Don't get me wrong, I approve of those projects; they're just good examples of how almost hilariously wealthy we are. We're hardly unable to offer medical care to everyone in need and then some. We just let crooks take over the economy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - themitigating 4y ago
    I believe there should be government run healthcare but there's still limited resources. You're missing my main point, keeping someone alive in a coma for years has little value. Assuming we can devise tests on whether they are awake. Now imagine we can determine they are conscious. Then we should still put then out of their misery assuming we can't bring them out of it. You hear people talk about the horrors of solitary confinement, this is even worse.
    - PostOnce 4y ago
      Keeping someone alive in a coma _has little value_? To whom? What kind of value? I don't think the comatose person would agree, were they to wake up -- and that has happened repeatedly, it's not exactly fantasy. Should it not be their decision, or the decision of their family? Whether or not it is misery, and whether or not it is worth coping with that is really to be decided by the person experiencing it, isn't it?
      - themitigating 4y ago
        I didn't note a key condition- that there's some near certainty they won't ever recover. Regardless if they are awake in the coma or not. Here's an issue. You said it should be up to the person. Sure but it's not boolean. Assume they can't communicate and didn't provide instructions like a DNR. That's not yes or no. As for the family they are bias in this situation. They reasons are emotional, valid yes but meh. If the family wanted to keep them alive they could pay for the treatment but that's almost never the case. Insurance is going to cover it and that's really just spreading it around to the public. Assume the person is in a coma, no idea if they are aware, 99% chance they won't ever wake up, family isn't paying with cash. If they are awake that's torture for the next 20 years, though to be honest I'd like to hear about it from someone who has gone through it. Also, the family doesn't move on, it's not a thing in their life, yes they want it but is this all for the best?

themitigating 4y ago

I think it comes down to resources. If someone is in a coma for more than a year continued care uses resources that could be redirected to others who aren't in a coma even if there's a small probability the person would wake up

PostOnce 4y ago
We're not talking about a small town in Moldova, we're talking about Boston. America has, for many intents and purposes, unlimited resources. We waste more money than most countries even have. We could do whatever we want medically, we just choose not to. Individual hospitals may have constraints, but only because we as a nation choose to allow them to. The JWST cost as much as 100 new hospitals. We once built half a supercollider that probably cost more than that (relative to then-current construction costs) and never even used it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider Don't get me wrong, I approve of those projects; they're just good examples of how almost hilariously wealthy we are. We're hardly unable to offer medical care to everyone in need and then some. We just let crooks take over the economy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- themitigating 4y ago
  I believe there should be government run healthcare but there's still limited resources. You're missing my main point, keeping someone alive in a coma for years has little value. Assuming we can devise tests on whether they are awake. Now imagine we can determine they are conscious. Then we should still put then out of their misery assuming we can't bring them out of it. You hear people talk about the horrors of solitary confinement, this is even worse.
  - PostOnce 4y ago
    Keeping someone alive in a coma _has little value_? To whom? What kind of value? I don't think the comatose person would agree, were they to wake up -- and that has happened repeatedly, it's not exactly fantasy. Should it not be their decision, or the decision of their family? Whether or not it is misery, and whether or not it is worth coping with that is really to be decided by the person experiencing it, isn't it?
    - themitigating 4y ago
      I didn't note a key condition- that there's some near certainty they won't ever recover. Regardless if they are awake in the coma or not. Here's an issue. You said it should be up to the person. Sure but it's not boolean. Assume they can't communicate and didn't provide instructions like a DNR. That's not yes or no. As for the family they are bias in this situation. They reasons are emotional, valid yes but meh. If the family wanted to keep them alive they could pay for the treatment but that's almost never the case. Insurance is going to cover it and that's really just spreading it around to the public. Assume the person is in a coma, no idea if they are aware, 99% chance they won't ever wake up, family isn't paying with cash. If they are awake that's torture for the next 20 years, though to be honest I'd like to hear about it from someone who has gone through it. Also, the family doesn't move on, it's not a thing in their life, yes they want it but is this all for the best?