A Buddhist might, if you count them as atheistic. But otherwise I agree, and it isn’t consistent with “standard” atheism.
I’m not sure I would since they don’t really fit well into the usual definition of “atheist.” OTOH, they don’t really fit the standard definition of “theistic,” either. Buddhists is weird.
I’d like to ask something. Let’s assume that I want to be euthanasied (is that a word in English??) in case I would end up brain dead. Let’s say I sign a notarized statement to this effect, and right after that, an anvil randomly falls on my head and I end up brain dead (so, there no conceivable way I could have changed my mind meanwhile). Also, there’s no doubt that I’m actually brain dead (no tears, no wailing, nothing).
Would you still, in the name of the sanctity of life, and against my own wishes, fight hard until the very end against my euthanasia?
I would hope not; here in the US (the word you want is “euthanized”), the kind of document you describe is called a Living Will. I’m not familiar with all the law surrounding it, but as I understand it, it’s supposed to be the final word as regards the sort of situation you describe; a family member cannot, AFAIK, override it.
There is no one that can say whether or not she knew what was going on, no one. I hope the right decision was made.
Wishful thinking.
Yes, I wish people would stop posting so much blue crap on the internet.
Unless one reads about the condition of her brain, in which case one can be pretty damn sure she had absolutely no idea.
You can read all you want, no one is an expert on consciousness. People have awoke from years of being in a coma and lived a normal life. Consciousness is the unknown. Terry is gone, but not forgotten. I hope those who made the decision to starve her to death were right for their own sakes.
And you can say “nobody knows” as often as you want, the evidence is still pretty clear. As as far as your comparison goes, it’s being made from ignorance. I know people emerge from comas. Show me somebody who was in the same condition she was, with a brain mostly melted into liquid after more than a decade in a coma, who woke up and lived a normal life and then we’ll have an actual basis for comparison.
Medical evidence has nothing to do with it. As I said before no one knows for sure, and that is wisdom speaking. Our consciousness or “us” is spiritual and does not follow physical laws. Anything is possible with spirit. I know you don’t believe this, but it is true nevertheless. What we believe means nothing, only was is, is important.
People have lived normal lives before with little brain.
I’d ask you for a cite for this, but you’d probably just link to your homepage and the story of the bad dream you had one time, so, skipping ahead, I’ll say this is nonsense.
And we know it’s true because you’re totally unable to prove it.
I know.
However you’re comparing unlike cases here, since a small brain caused by a condition that might have set in gradually is not the same as a brain that became small due to severe injury.
As a Buddhist, I also consider myself atheist. Or rather the question does not matter. Whether god(s) exist or not has no bearing on the Dharma. And a key concept of the dharma is anatta. Essentially what is ‘you’ is merely in a constant state of flux, is never permanent, and ultimately does not matter either. When one achieves Nirvana, one realizes that ‘self/no-self’ does not apply to reality, but is only a mental construct which hinders more often than it helps.
Or so I understand it, but I am not a Dharma teacher, only a student.
I’m a student, too. Or at least I was an Intro to Buddhism student in college, and now a member of a Zen-based faith. Maybe that’s not the same thing. 
Afternoon IP! (Well, it’s afternoon here, so greetings to you wherever you are.)
It wasn’t the presence of tears that indicated Terry was not brain dead, but that the tears were shed in response to being told she was going to have her feeding tube removed. One of the primary tests we use to determine the level of a person’s (any person’s) cognitive abilities is their response to stimuli of varying kinds.
Terry displayed, on numerous occasions, all recorded on video and broadcast worldwide, marked response to the presence of people she knew. The response she displayed to those she liked, such as her mother and father, was markedly different from the response she displayed to those she feared and/or disliked, such as her estranged husband and his live-in girlfriend.
The fact that Terry responded consistently at all to anyone, for any reason, indicates the presence of consciousness, however minimal. I wasn’t there and so cannot comment on her clinical level of consciousness, but that she was conscious and responsive to stimuli of different kinds is inarguable. One doesn’t require to be a neurologist to ascertain responsiveness in a patient - even EMT’s can and do routinely assess that.
Jesse.
P.S. I will also stipulate that, in my opinion, regardless of the state of her brain, it was indeed wrong to end her life.
My morality in this area isn’t absolute, since I might agree to administer a lethal dose of morphine to a patient who was suffering horribly and was hours away from death with no hope of recovery.
No, I wouldn’t fight you, but not because you signed a document or had a living will. I believe I have to answer to a Higher Court, and it is the Law of that court I am primarily concerned with violating.
My morals and ethics dictate that the only circumstance under which I would be willing to end your life personally, would be if you were suffering and I was unable to ameliorate your pain, and there was no possible chance you could recover.
Medicine, as far as I am concerned, is meant to prolong the living process - not the dying process. It is barbaric to keep people who are in unspeakable agony hooked up to an IV, on oxygen, or on limited doses of morphine. All arguments about addiction to pain meds are absurd in terminal cases. Who cares if a terminal patient becomes addicted to morphine? I don’t, and were it me, I would not wish to scream my way out of this world when I could have, and (without unnecessary palliative intervention) would have, peacefully died a month earlier.
We all have to follow the dictates of our conscience, and when one of my patients requests an intervention I do not feel I can accommodate in good conscience, I refer my patient to another physician whose beliefs are more in keeping with theirs. In your given scenario I would refer you to one of my colleagues. Most physicians operate as I do. The prudent thing to do is to determine in advance that your primary care physician’s belief system is in keeping with your own regarding the preservation and/or ending of life.
In addition, I advise all my patients to have a living will and someone whom they can trust to be there to see that it is enforced. We don’t always die in a facility near home and the final hours of our life may be managed by strangers. This is why your contact numbers should be kept current and with you at all times. In the absence of a personal advocate, someone else’s morality and code of ethics will determine your fate.
Agape - Jesse.
An advice I cannot follow since there’s no such thing as a living will in France.
Thanks for your answer.
I have a coworker who raises carp. Stupid fish, but big and pretty. When he comes to the pond, they’ll swim up to him because they know him. They’ll swim away from strangers. Nevertheless, fish are not conscious.
Please provide evidence stronger than her lawyer’s testimony that this actually happened.
Please provide a cite for this. You haven’t said what sort of response, which is ridiculously important in assessing consciousness.
Responsiveness is a huge category. Do you mean heart rate, perhaps? Autonomic arousal can operate quite independently of consciousness. The brain can have an automatic emotional association to voice–say, the particular timbre and flow of her ex-husband’s–which causes this arousal. In fully functioning people this can and regularly does happen completely outside of consciousness.
A farm goat may recognize and respond to stimulus, but we would never say it possesses human consciousness.
Do you know if she cried regularly or randomly? Do you know if she had cried before that? Do you know that she was capable of even understanding the question?
This is going to require a cite, and a very good one, because it is the exact opposite of all medical information I was able to find about the case. From what I’ve read, she was unresponsive the majority of the time, and the times she did respond were random and unconnected to stimuli. She had almost no motor response, did not respond to visual stimuli, and did not even blink to communicate. The few videos available to the general public were released by Terri’s parents, and were heavily edited and designed to make it look like she was responding. She was completely brain dead, and had been this way for 13 years. The real tragedy is not that she was allowed to die, it’s that her parents wouldn’t accept it and held on for so long.
Go read about PVS. Reflex responses do not require brain activity, and are not good response indicators. She gave no voluntary ones. She was brain dead.
So the suffering of the people who don’t want to have to see her like this, who might want her to have some kind of dignity, and to be able to move on with their lives doesn’t count?