How do you define life?

[DropkickMurphy]

This came up in the physician assisted suicide thread and I was wondering how each of us defines the existence of "life"? When is someone no longer "alive" in the sense that you and I are?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

By the way, I'd like if everyone actually posted with their opinion, not just voted. Thanks!

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

Physician assisted suicide should be legal in the entire country based on the Oregon Model.

At the end of the day the only person who should have the right to decide about your end of life issues is YOU.

A Religious person would not want atheists telling them that their condition is terminal and we have decided to pull the plug based on the reality. In the same vein, athiests (and everyone else) should be given the choice to make that decision for themselves, not be dictated to by the religious right and have THEIR religious view inflicted upon them.

 

[CatsandCradles]

This came up in the physician assisted suicide thread and I was wondering how each of us defines the existence of "life"? When is someone no longer "alive" in the sense that you and I are?

This is a interesting poll.

I picked so long as they have a pulse, then they are "alive." (allied health)

However my definition of alive is different from, "alive" in the sense that you and I have. My definition of alive is that a tree is alive, but now I'm going to run into some definition problems in a Terri Schaivo situation.

Did I consider Terri alive?

Yes. She's in a PVS, so sadly she is no longer with us in a sense. But she's still alive.

Even though that's my definition of "life" I still sided with her husband early on though.

 

[MoosePilot]

I think someone is alive as long as they still have a pulse (oxygenated blood flow to the brain might be better since I've read that some heart pumps don't provide a pulse) and a chance of resuming higher brain function. If someone is brain dead, but their circulatory system is kept functioning through machines, I don't really think that's *life*.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Thin on the philosophy, eh?

A human being is alive if he possesses the "will" to live, a spirit and soul. If the physical body is sufficiently damaged/destroyed, if and only if the spirit and soul depart, it becomes a corpse.

Terri Schiavo manifestly was not a corpse, ergo she was alive.

 

[tank you]

Thin on the philosophy, eh?

A human being is alive if he possesses the "will" to live, a spirit and soul. If the physical body is sufficiently damaged/destroyed, if and only if the spirit and soul depart, it becomes a corpse.

Terri Schiavo manifestly was not a corpse, ergo she was alive.

ok, so how are we supposed to know when someone's spirit/soul has left?

 

[MoosePilot]

Thin on the philosophy, eh?

A human being is alive if he possesses the "will" to live, a spirit and soul. If the physical body is sufficiently damaged/destroyed, if and only if the spirit and soul depart, it becomes a corpse.

Terri Schiavo manifestly was not a corpse, ergo she was alive.

Did she possess the will to live? Any will at all?

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Did she possess the will to live? Any will at all?

Was she a corpse? No. Therefore, she was alive.

 

[MoosePilot]

Was she a corpse? No. Therefore, she was alive.

Circular. She wasn't a corpse (not a dead body) therefore she wasn't dead.

Well, she wasn't alive, either. You mentioned will, earlier. What if you asked her, "Do you mind if I remove this feeding tube? If you do, move your hand back and forth rapidly, blink your eyes rapidly, or make the loudest noise you can." Would you get a coherent response? No, because she didn't have much of a brain left. It was a shell with a liquid center. That's good in candy, but not so conducive to mental function.

I don't believe God condemns souls to stay in minds that are that heavily damaged. Such goes against my knowledge of him as a merciful and just God.

 

[OSUdoc08]

This is a interesting poll.

I picked so long as they have a pulse, then they are "alive." (allied health)

However my definition of alive is different from, "alive" in the sense that you and I have. My definition of alive is that a tree is alive, but now I'm going to run into some definition problems in a Terri Schaivo situation.

Did I consider Terri alive?

Yes. She's in a PVS, so sadly she is no longer with us in a sense. But she's still alive.

Even though that's my definition of "life" I still sided with her husband early on though.

Terri was alive. That doesn't mean she was brain dead. If she wasn't alive, then there would be no need to go through the courts to pull the plug.

Fortunately, the supreme court upheld euthanasia. I think it should be limited to brain dead individuals, however, and not those that just want to die.

 

[chef_NU]

Physician assisted suicide should be legal in the entire country based on the Oregon Model.

At the end of the day the only person who should have the right to decide about your end of life issues is YOU.

A Religious person would not want atheists telling them that their condition is terminal and we have decided to pull the plug based on the reality. In the same vein, athiests (and everyone else) should be given the choice to make that decision for themselves, not be dictated to by the religious right and have THEIR religious view inflicted upon them.

me likey

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Fortunately, the supreme court upheld euthanasia. I think it should be limited to brain dead individuals, however, and not those that just want to die.

OK, let me get this straight, because I think your understanding of the definition of brain death is a little skewed. You wouldn't need to euthanize someone who is brain dead (under the rather strict definition of brain death that hospitals I have worked in use) because once you withdraw ventilatory support they die rapidly from that, or from cardiovascular collapse once pressor agents are discontinued (most of the time, sometimes you get unpleasantly surprised. "Damn, that didn't go as planned" to quote a nurse I respect).

It's the "effectively brain dead" (those whose "souls have yet to depart" to paraphrase our eminent resident fundamentalist) those with only the reflexes for breathing, cardiac function, swallowing and other things that are present in a pithed frog (and most of us wouldn't hesitate to kill a pithed frog), that need to have something done for them; it's morally reprehensible to keep a body alive long after the person is gone until the body finally succumbs to pneumonia, infected bed sores, a UTI from an indwelling catheter or just general deterioration.

Also the assisted suicide option (which is what the law in Oregon actually spoke to, not specifically euthanasia (at least insofar as I am aware)) is not for the brain damaged. It's a self determination option for those who do not suffer and whose religious hangups aren't so severe as to mandate that they potential go through grotesque suffering prior to death.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

If she wasn't alive, then there would be no need to go through the courts to pull the plug.

Want to put money on that? I've seen several cases where families have had to get the courts involved to withdraw life support from obviously brain dead people.

One was a 23 y/o kid who shot himself in the head with a 12 gauge and had removed so much of his brain from his skull that I could put my closed fist in there. His parents were divorced and his dad wanted to let him go so his organs could be harvested- his estranged mother objected citing her religious beliefs (and allegedly her son's too; this despite the fact that he had not seen his mother in 6 years and by the admission of her "pastor" (who bore an uncanny resemblance to Rasputin BTW) he had never seen the boy since he had know the mother) that he would want to "live" and that he would not want to be "carved up for parts". Luckily the judge saw through her insanity and told her (in a polite manner of course) to STFU and let her son be pronounced dead with some small degree of dignity.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Want to put money on that? I've seen several cases where families have had to get the courts involved to withdraw life support from obviously brain dead people.

One was a 23 y/o kid who shot himself in the head with a 12 gauge and had removed so much of his brain from his skull that I could put my closed fist in there. His parents were divorced and his dad wanted to let him go so his organs could be harvested- his estranged mother objected citing her religious beliefs (and allegedly her son's too; this despite the fact that he had not seen his mother in 6 years and by the admission of her "pastor" (who bore an uncanny resemblance to Rasputin BTW) he had never seen the boy since he had know the mother) that he would want to "live" and that he would not want to be "carved up for parts". Luckily the judge saw through her insanity and told her (in a polite manner of course) to STFU and let her son be pronounced dead with some small degree of dignity.

"Opium" for the uneducated masses I reckon.

I confess that I am one of those "addicts" however I also beleive that the Creator intended us to use at least a little more than 10% of our cerebral hemisphere.

For those of you that are further along in your medical proffesion, do you feel that it is the mother who tends to fight against "pulling the plug" and the fathers who tend to say "let him/her go?"

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Speaking from the standpoint of an RT, I can say that mothers do tend to have a harder time with it; but strangely enough men tend to have a tougher time (in my experience) letting a spouse go.

 

[CatsandCradles]

Speaking from the standpoint of an RT, I can say that mothers do tend to have a harder time with it; but strangely enough men tend to have a tougher time (in my experience) letting a spouse go.

That reminds me of a survey of men and women done by a psychologist.

It presented the person being asked a very duanting situation:

You are married to the spouse of your dreams and have a baby. You and your spouse decide to go on a trip and use the train. Upon arrival at the station, you, your spouse, and your baby are waiting on the platform.

You need to go to the bathroom, so you do and come back 5 minutes later.

When you come back, you are horrified when both your spouse and baby are missing. Then you hear the train approaching and to your utter disbelief, they are both unconscious and lying on the tracks!

To make matters even worse, your spouse and your baby are somehow quite far apart. The train is so close that you can't possibly save them both.

You are forced to decide who to save.




Turns out men will more often choose to save thier wife.

And women will more often choose to save thier baby.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I'd save my daughter.

 

[MoosePilot]

Tough one. Save the spouse, you can have other kids. Save the child, and you'll be single parent, which isn't an ideal situation for the kid.

How about lay down on the tracks with them?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Nice thinking Moose.....but what happens if the train goes over the kid and doesn't kill them? Then they are an orphan.....

 

[CatsandCradles]

Tough one. Save the spouse, you can have other kids. Save the child, and you'll be single parent, which isn't an ideal situation for the kid.

Wow I totally did not see it from that angle. I would have saved the child, but now I'm very undecided

 

[MoosePilot]

Or derail the train, perhaps killing hundreds, but saving your family. How many would take that option?

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I'd derail a train to save myself and my family (actually I'd do it even if it was just to save myself)

 

[Evergrin]

Physician assisted suicide should be legal in the entire country based on the Oregon Model.

At the end of the day the only person who should have the right to decide about your end of life issues is YOU.

A Religious person would not want atheists telling them that their condition is terminal and we have decided to pull the plug based on the reality. In the same vein, athiests (and everyone else) should be given the choice to make that decision for themselves, not be dictated to by the religious right and have THEIR religious view inflicted upon them.

I've answered life=higher brain function.

@mike: everyone should have the right to decide to die, so stopping the prolongation of life by medical means is a good thing.
But for me you have no right to assist suicide despite of your knowledges or whatever you want.
You're here to help, sometimes to improve your patient's life but killing someone intentionally it's not your function.

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

I see what your saying but i disagree.

Define helping for me.

Is helping keeping someone alive in horrendous pain when they are terminal the right thing to do?

Or is helping someone allowing them to die a peaceful death, which would be inevedible anyway?

Until you gain some experience with terminal patients in a clinical setting you will never understand what it means to have a patient in sucjh pain they beg you for death on a daily basis.

Those who tout that it is wrong to assists suicide simply lack the experience in the field to understand how uninformed and unethical that is.

I've answered life=higher brain function.

@mike: everyone should have the right to decide to die, so stopping the prolongation of life by medical means is a good thing.
But for me you have no right to assist suicide despite of your knowledges or whatever you want.
You're here to help, sometimes to improve your patient's life but killing someone intentionally it's not your function.

 

[Evergrin]

Until you gain some experience with terminal patients in a clinical setting you will never understand what it means to have a patient in sucjh pain they beg you for death on a daily basis.

Those who tout that it is wrong to assists suicide simply lack the experience in the field to understand how uninformed and unethical that is.

i know i am not directly concerned by now with that kind of deals.
But anyway when you treat a patient for a long time you can't be 100% objective. When you see a patient who claims all day he wants to die, you suffer for him but also because you don't want to be in his place.
So if you "suicide" him, you'll do it not only for him but also because if you were in your patient's place you want someone suicide you.
That's why i'm sceptic about medical suicide.

Helping for me:
cure when you can, relieve if you can't and accompaniment in death.

Medecine can't make everything. It's hard to admit it has its own limits, but we are nothing to provoke death.
And religion has nothing to do with that. I'm atheistic.

i'm worried by an other thing. Suicide people will bring a lot of money or won't make it loose.
And i would be afraid you can have a promotion because you make suicide ++

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

OK.

when you argue positions on forums it is good to get your grammer and spelling correct or it takes away from your argument DRASTICALLY.

Now, it is also very important to have experience and substance to back up your argument, this is also missing.

i know i am not directly concerned by now with that kind of deals.
But anyway when you treat a patient for a long time you can't be 100% objective. When you see a patient who claims all day he wants to die, you suffer for him but also because you don't want to be in his place.
So if you "suicide" him, you'll do it not only for him but also because if you were in your patient's place you want someone suicide you.
That's why i'm sceptic about medical suicide.

Helping for me:
cure when you can, relieve if you can't and accompaniment in death.

Medecine can't make everything. It's hard to admit it has its own limits, but we are nothing to provoke death.
And religion has nothing to do with that. I'm atheistic.

i'm worried by an other thing. Suicide people will bring a lot of money or won't make it loose.
And i would be afraid you can have a promotion because you make suicide ++

 

[JimmyG]

when you argue positions on forums it is good to get your grammer and spelling correct or it takes away from your argument DRASTICALLY.

Previous post...

I see what your saying but i disagree.

Even an earlier post...

To address the person who said it was selfish, your a fool.

I know, I'm being an A$$. It just struck me as funny...

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Originally Posted by Mike MacKinnon
when you argue positions on forums it is good to get your grammer and spelling correct or it takes away from your argument DRASTICALLY.

Mike, do you see the irony in the fact that you misspelled "grammar" in that post?

 

[Mike MacKinnon]

praet & Disgruntled

Yah that was incredibly stupid

heheh ah well what can you do

 

[DropkickMurphy]

No, it wasn't stupid, but it was rather funny.....s--t happens....like you said, what can you do about it.....