ethics of individuals in a vegetative state?

Question

i am writing a essay for my english class and i would like feedback on the ethics of individuals in a vegetative state. For example, whether or not they should be taken off of life support or kept on life support. Also, should the choice be left up to the family members or should the doctors be able to decide what is best? thanks for the help!!!

Answer 1

The person should let family and friends know what they want so if something happens they can tell the doctors. My family knows my wishes.

Answer 2

First off, you do not mean "ethics of individuals in a vegetative state", you mean "ethics FOR individuals in a vegetative state"

That is one hot topic.

The simple fact, as anyone who will use medicine and science as the yardstick will tell you, is once there is a flat-line on the brain activity, the 'person' is no longer there. They are a husk if you will. A, forgive the analogy, piece of flesh.

What the 'soul' is, if indeed it exists, may not actually be registered on the machines. And if that is the case, we will never know.

For a family with a person in that state, I can imagine how difficult that would be.

I, unfortunately, am a very pragmatic person so I will be somewhat bold here. If the doctor tells me that the person is brain dead, then they are gone. At that point I would say pull the plug.

From the point to the hospital, I think it is a question of re-allocating resources where they can be better used. Keeping a vegetative state person alive is a complete waste of energy.

I imagine that sometimes a person does come out of a coma, but a coma is not the same thing.

In the end the entire situation is a big bag of mixed and volatile emotions that I hope I never have to be part of again.

My mother passed from a cancerous brain tumor and she had decided late in the radiation therapy that she no longer wanted to continue.

TFTP

Answer 3

Some family members would want the person kept alive because there may be that chance that they awake again. The doctors of course should know better about the situation. And nobody wants the courts to have control. I think it has to include both the doctor and family equally and those with no decision hope for the best. This is why it is important to fill out a health care anvance directive form so you in the bed decides.

Answer 4

The term life support itself is a bit deceptive. Machines do the work of vital organs that they otherwise are unable to do. Money, time and energy could go to better uses, such as incubators for premature infants. Those who's lives are cut short and rendered useless by said vegetative state are unlikely to make any sort of recovery. Life support induces body wasting such as muscle atrophy, which can not be reversed. Forced life cheapens and denigrates the purpose of living. It's a holding cell. A tether keeping God from accepting that soul. It serves no real purpose other than to impede His efforts. When life becomes futile, meaningless, unendurable; it must be allowed to end. Doctors, who's' unbiased, professional opinions are better suited to making rational, important decisions.

Answer 5

That should really be an immediate family matter. Most of the time it is, except for when a person is caught unprepared and hasn't left any instructions in the event of such a trauma. I don't think doctors should really have a say as far as that goes because for one, it's not in their job description. A doctor would be able to give the family advice as to whether it's possible for the patient to recover, and as to what kind of quality of life that patient can expect, but he/she shouldn't be dishing out advice as to whether or not that patient would want to pull the plug. That decision is best left to the loved ones that knew that patient best.

Answer 6

For me if I were on life support I would not want to be at that point for long. No sense in it, for anyone!

Give me a short time and pull the plug....ciao baby. That's the way I feel about it.