Alright well its late atm here, so im not exactly sure how to give an amazing title that doesn't sound to cliche. This topic is meant to be about how you feel with pulling the plug on human vegetables. Now some of you might not understand what "human vegetables" are. So i might as well explain this without sounding too redundant. They are human beings who have no brain but a brain stem, or have little to no brain action but sometimes with the exception of a brain stem. The brain stem is what controls all human organs. So yes it is possible to live without a brain (I have been taking an EMR course and the paramedic who taught me had to transport a girl without a brain and only a brain stem). Anyways I'm am now sounding a lil redundant and am getting off topic.
This topic is about how you feel towards pulling the plug (or however you have to stop the heart beat) on a human in this "vegetable" state.
I will most likely come back and argue points for both sides, but atm I would like to see how the AG community finds this topic.
I could argue that. They are not capable of any thinking, let alone higher thinking. They are homo sapien, but are not human. They are another organism that does nothing.
I don't know about America, but in general I do believe the medico-legal guidelines are as follows:
Doctors are within their rights to make the decision to "ull the plug" (i.e. withhold treatment) if it is known that the patient has not exhibited any signs of cortical activity for... I forget how long, and it has been established that treatment is "futile". In the event that the family refuses or it's taken to court etc. this decision can be taken out of their hands via legal injunction on the recommendation of two appropriately qualified clinicians.
I think that's how it goes anyway. Our job isn't to preserve life at all costs. Not all the time. Sometimes we end up doing that anyway, because what "futile" means is variable and in an emergency, it's hard to objectively decide when too much is too much.
I think we should remove the decision from family. They almost always make the wrong decision.
Who's qualified to make the "right" decision? It's their family member; if they can afford the medical bills then I say hell, let them keep the person alive for as long as they'd like.
I don't know about America, but in general I do believe the medico-legal guidelines are as follows:
Doctors are within their rights to make the decision to "ull the plug" (i.e. withhold treatment) if it is known that the patient has not exhibited any signs of cortical activity for... I forget how long, and it has been established that treatment is "futile". In the event that the family refuses or it's taken to court etc. this decision can be taken out of their hands via legal injunction on the recommendation of two appropriately qualified clinicians.
I'm fairly certain that in the U.S. it's up to the family whether or not the person is kept on life support. The doctor is not allowed to withhold treatment as long as the family is able to pay for the service. I'm not doctor though, and I'm not very knowledgeable in that field, so I could be wrong.
You're correct Green. At this point, it's unconstitutional to withhold treatment to paying patients. They are trying to change the laws to permit "ulling the plug" after a certain number of days.
What about the woman in Florida that a judge ordered couldn't recieve food or water cause her bastard of a husband wanted her dead while her parents had to watch her die?
'Pulling the plug' on them would be a good idea. They are not capable of thinking for themselves, and letting them die prolongs their pain, if they can feel it. But even if they can't, it prolongs it to the family.
