zapper said:
Fact: Mike denied Terry any kind of rehabilitation to help her situation.
Fact: He only stated that Terry mentioned that she did not want to be kept alive (7yrs) after the fact…when a law passed that “hearsay” could be used to pull the plug.
Fact: There are broken bones that have not been accounted for.
Fact: We do not know if she feels pain or not or what she is thinking
Fact: It is not pleasurable to die from dehydration contrary to some articles that are out there saying how “euphoric” the experience is...
Hey Zap; long time. Hammesfar, despite his impressive credentials (a lot of folk get nominated for Nobel, though, so don't get
too excited), is in the extreme minority here--in fact, it might be wise to share some more information on those quotes, because there could be a context to them that we don't understand. I'd like to know precisely how relevant his statements are. When did he make them? What records and other evidence did he have at his disposal at the time, and how current was it? How current is that information now?
Fact: Terri has no cerebral cortex. Her cortex was found to have died as a result of the injury, and in the years since, has physically vanished.
He may have succesfully treated patients of her type of stroke previously, but the type of malady she suffered doesn't necessarily indicate the ultimate injury (ie, the stroke can result in different degrees of physical damage). So again, I'm curious: Has he "rehabilitated" patients for whom the cerebral cortex has been destroyed? When he describes patients of this variety of stroke achieving "independence," is he accurately refering to individuals who have sustained this degree of loss? I suspect his definition of "rehabilitation" is a sliding scale, and based on my understanding of the brain (I'm no neurologist), would expect someone in Terri's case to "recover" in a cosmetic, and not psychological sense.
Current commentary by the neurological community at large is
extremely consistent on the status of Terri's brain function, even if they debate how to proceed: she's psychologically the equivalent of an earthworm, or starfish. She's possesing of a brain stem only, a primordial knob of neural tissue which governs involuntary responses to stimuli and facilitates basic involuntary body function. With no cerebral cortex, she's currently and will never again be capable of self-awareness, any form of cognition, fear, pleasure, pain or comfort. Without a cerebral cortex (contrary to facts 3 and 4 in your list), higher organisms aren't capable of
thought as we describe it.
This isn't to be confused with the experiences of traditionally catatonic, comatose, senile or otherwise ill or brain-damaged patients, for whom sentience and thought patterns are still in existence (and clearly indicated by brain scans, which show activity--activity in tissues Terri's not even possesing).
Terri's body is a husk onto which well-meaning folk, in very good faith and with the most humane intentions, have projected a sense of humanity.
He also had the decency to take himself out. As far as abortion is concerned, I beleive the health of the mother comes first. What, pray tell, would you recommend say if a 14yr old indigent, single, mother wanted to abort.
