2006-10-17 14:34:29 · 12 answers · asked by aSIANbOY8 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
I'm not sure she was in a coma at the end, she was "conscious".
"Coma is defined as a sleeplike state with total absence of awareness of self and the environment, even after vigorous external stimulation. Coma is the most severe form of unresponsiveness, and by definition, comatose patients lie with their eyes closed. "
She had no cognitive brain activity
canine, you are so off base. She could do none of those things you mentioned. She could only breath and excrete waste (no control). The feeding tube was keeping her alive. The point was, she had irreversible brain damage and for over a decade, showed NO sign of improvement. Her prognosis was to remain in a vegetive state as long as she was being kept "alive". "God" wasn't answering the families prayers to have Terry recover. I'm sure that if given the choice, the vast majority (except yvonne) would prefer to die than to be forced to "live" that way. I know I would.
2006-10-17 14:36:44 · answer #1 · answered by ©2009 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She was not in a coma at the end, so it is a trick questions. If you are talking about when she was in a coma, then it would be a regualr coma because she came out of it. She was not able to function regularly after waking up, i.e. eating, talking, wiping herself, etc..., so her husband murdered her by taking out the tube that feeds her and starved her to death. I know the Liberals out there will hate me for that comment, but by definition she was murdered. Yes, it was painful, cruel, and sick. I understand the decision, but why was the husband the only one that had the ability to make that decision, when her family was the ones that were there all the time with her and the husband was known for not being there. He wanted the insurance money and to break the ties for the pain of having a wife that was a vegetable.
I also saw some idiot in their answers say she could not live without the life support so obviously she was dead. Uh, then what the hell do you call a pacemaker?
And she was not brain dead, she was awake and had responses although very little. If you are brain dead you are dead, period, she had brain damage, big difference.
2006-10-17 14:46:59 · answer #2 · answered by canine582002 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Terry was in a non-reversable coma. Her brain had deterioriated to the point that she was not capable of consciousness as we know it.
Why are people still grieving for Terry? She died over a decade ago. Get real.
2006-10-17 14:37:23 · answer #3 · answered by Alan Turing 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
She was not in a coma when she died. She reponded to some stimuli, and it was not a decade ago. Her husband killed her off, so he cold go and make a happy happy life for himself and not feel guilty. Her parents wanted to take care of her and try to help her heal, and he used the law, of being her "husband", even though he had another woman on the side taking care of his needs, to make the hospital stop feeding her. He is an unfeeling rat bastard and will get what is coming to him when he mets God, who, according to the prosecution against Dr. Kevorkian, should be the only one to make those decisions.
2006-10-17 14:47:38 · answer #4 · answered by venusiaint 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
nobody knows what a coma is so any coma victim could possibly revive at some point.
in the past, people have been buried alive and revived inside the coffin then suffocated. that is why people are bleed out before they are buried in today's culture.
it's surprizing how many medical experts there are here on yahoo.
thanks for the bad rating I must have touched a nerve. i'm just saying how thankful i am that there are so many people knowledgable about the medical arts here tonight.
2006-10-17 14:39:08 · answer #5 · answered by Poncho Rio 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Irreversible coma.
2006-10-17 14:36:08 · answer #6 · answered by andalucia 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
non-reversal.....they opened her up and her brain was oatmeal. She was like in a coma for something like 20 + years.
Her brain was mush when they examined it. Her parents were NUTS....oh and they sold all the information of the people that signed up on their support network to telemarketers just to get money.
HAHAHA Her parents were tools
2006-10-17 14:37:40 · answer #7 · answered by PilotTim 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Dumb Question!
If her family could have it reversed ... they would have!
When they unhooked her, she died from lack of nourishment.
If she could have survived without live support...she would have lived. She was basically dead the whole time she was in a coma.
2006-10-17 14:37:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Oh, pat from ohio is right. She was conscious wasn't she? Her deal was just she was as good as brain dead. She didn't actually respond to any outside stimuli.
2006-10-17 14:37:19 · answer #9 · answered by Tori 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
She was brain dead. I'd call that pretty Irreversible. I've told my parents and everyone I know that if that was me they had better unplug me.
2006-10-17 14:37:59 · answer #10 · answered by webwriter 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋