I’m not sure why you are digging up this old discussion six months later…
but can we cut out the bias words such as “monstrously” complicated? There’s no such thing as “monsters”, mind you.
The family and their supporters are more than happy to keep this child’s cells “animated”
(whether legally “alive” or not). And it’s not being paid for by the hospital or US taxpayers.
Is this any worse than putting a dead body in cryo-storage?
But the real point here is to let the family, not the state, decide “when to pull the plug” and “when to let go”.
From: sbharris1 To: Gerontology Research Group Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 6:23 PMSubject: Re: [GRG] Legal Dilemma of Coma/Brain-Stem Death
The philosophical question is not if the body is alive, but whether it is alegal living person with rights.There is no such thing as a simple “breathing tube”. Or if there is, itisn’t here. Since at the other end of such a tube is a monstrouslycomplicated ventilator, since this girl does not breathe for herself.A headless body, very carefully prepared, could in theory continue to have aheartbeat and metabolism. Even incubate a fetus to maturity. Is this whatyou consider a “person”? If we separated head and body and kept them bothalive (as we very have the technology to do) do you think that now we havetwo people? Or does that apply only if we lose the head? Or it dies?The brain of a brain-dead person is not being perfused with blood (you caneven
do a perfusion scan to see this). It eventually fills the skull withliquefied decomposed brain, like a milkshake. If you want to keep suchmush-filled skull lumps of tissue alive on a ventilator indefinitely, thenYOU pay for it. Or let the family do it if they have resources. Which, ofcourse, at costs of $20,000 a week at least, they do not.Steve Harris