The light’s on, but is anybody home?
Ed. (Jacobse). It’s “Salon” so they start their pro-euthanasia advocacy (albeit defensively) in the second paragraph, but apart from this bias, this is compelling article that reveals how much we don’t understand about comatose states.
Salon | Robert Burton | September 25, 2007
An extraordinary brain study concludes that a woman in a vegetative state is aware of herself. It’s a dangerous claim that could throw families and physicians into turmoil.
Sept. 25, 2007 | In a recent article in the Archives of Neurology, a team of British and Belgian neuroscientists describe a clinically unconscious accident victim who can, on command, imagine herself playing tennis and walking around her house. By showing that her functional brain imaging studies (fMRI) are indistinguishable from those of healthy volunteers performing the same mental tasks, the researchers claim that the young woman’s fMRI “confirmed beyond any doubt that she was consciously aware of herself and her surroundings, and was willfully following instructions given to her, despite her diagnosis of a vegetative state.”
Their extraordinary conclusions are beyond provocative; they raise profound questions about the very notion of consciousness. What’s more, they could throw thousands of families and doctors into utter turmoil. As with the Terri Schiavo controversy, patient advocacy groups, self-serving lawyers and politicians with personal agendas could use the study’s stamp of certainty as a given.
Yet the study’s conclusions are not beyond a doubt. There are plenty of questions about whether this young woman is conscious and capable of choice.
. . . more
Tuesday 25 Sep 2007 | Jacobse | Sanctity of life |
Interesting article. Thank you. But I always feel like I need a shower after visiting Salon.com. The intolerance and vitriol of the remarks are beyond “uncivil”. ~shudder~
It’s interesting how the author keeps moving the “goal posts” as to what determines life. In particular, when it’s shown that there can possibly be some thought and consciousness in a comatose patient. Viability now appears to include the requirement to be capable of making a choice.
I wonder what this now means for Ahlzheimer patients who are incapable of making choices?
Note #2. Yes. The author falls all over herself trying to defend the killing of comatose patients that she now claims that consciousness and self-awareness aren’t the criteria about who gets to live and die anymore. Now it’s “choice.”
So, do newborns have “choice”? Not really. Watch them start promoting infanticide.
The culture of death crowd operates in areas that science is only beginning to penetrate. So much of their bluster about when life is worth living is veiled in ignorance, and then when the light shines in the darkness, they try pulling the curtains even tighter.