Pangloss Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/06/italy.euthanasia.berlusconi/ Eluana Englaro has been in a vegetative state with irreversible brain damage for 17 years after a car accident. The parallels with the Schiavo case are legion -- family split over whether to end her life, a prior statement from the victim asking not to have this done, and the government intervening on moral grounds. Gee. I guess it wasn't just a Bush thing. How 'bout that? ROME, Italy -- The Italian government adopted an emergency decree Friday that could prevent doctors from removing the feeding tube of a comatose woman who has been at the center of a national debate on the right to die.A portrait of Eluana Englaro. Englaro has been in a vegetative state for nearly 17 years. "I will do everything I can to save her life," Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said at a news conference after the Council of Ministers adopted the decree. "Eluana is alive, and she could have children." What a moron. Somebody wanna feed this guy a decent science adviser? I guess my feelings on this are obvious -- what do you all think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 "She could have children." What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Italy went downhill since Berlusconi and his cronies decided to try out politics (according to my Italian colleagues-- weird enough I have more European colleagues here than in Germany, excluding Germans, of course.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 It seems like this is even more straightforward than Schiavo, because I don't see a clear family split. It looks more like the father against part of the state or the church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 You know, this makes me wonder if they really just don't believe the brain damage is irreversible. Why do these people feel so much pride in keeping vegetables alive? Also, has there ever been a misdiagnosis related to irreversible brain damage? I ask because I can only imagine how that could fuel this nonsense even further. Particularly if there was prayer involved before they woke up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Also, has there ever been a misdiagnosis related to irreversible brain damage? People have woken up from comas and other highly damaged states in which recovery had been considered highly unlikely, yes. The problem is that the brain can repair some things, can't repair others, and we still don't know enough to say with 100% certainty which patients will or won't recover, except in extreme cases (either of almost no damage or almost complete destruction). However, that's not to say that we have no idea. In the vast majority of cases, the prognosis proves accurate. In this particular case, I'd say it is, because if the brain hasn't repaired in 17 years, it's never going to. Of course, a quick scan in a fMRI machine should give a lot more info. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 People have woken up from comas and other highly damaged states in which recovery had been considered highly unlikely, yes. The problem is that the brain can repair some things, can't repair others, and we still don't know enough to say with 100% certainty which patients will or won't recover, except in extreme cases (either of almost no damage or almost complete destruction). Hmm, I guess I'm just surprised we don't hear that thrown in our faces when we advocate letting these poor people die. I'm gald, but I'm surprised all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) People have woken up from comas and other highly damaged states in which recovery had been considered highly unlikely, yes. The problem is that the brain can repair some things, can't repair others, and we still don't know enough to say with 100% certainty which patients will or won't recover, except in extreme cases (either of almost no damage or almost complete destruction). However, that's not to say that we have no idea. In the vast majority of cases, the prognosis proves accurate. In this particular case, I'd say it is, because if the brain hasn't repaired in 17 years, it's never going to. Of course, a quick scan in a fMRI machine should give a lot more info. Mokele It's not clear from the article whether any of the above was considered. In any case, the law trumps and euthanasia is banned, it's not right in many cases (i.e it should be allowed), and I'm sure the argument 'where do you draw the line' is flaunted around in such instances. But Mokele does raise an interesting point... we still don't know enough to say with 100% certainty which patients will or won't recover This can be extended to extreme cases, because an extreme case where somebody survives could be just around the corner...*so what then ? *Hypothetically speaking. Edited February 6, 2009 by Snail off topic question deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear's Key Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Gee. I guess it wasn't just a Bush thing. How 'bout that? In a way, yes. It's a centre-right politics thing. Look at his affiliation. Plus his media ownership is a bit disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Thinking about it, I'm not so sure I'd want to be disconnected after all. What if you guys make some break throughs in "brain repair" in the next 20 years? Similar reasoning to cryonics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) Thinking about it, I'm not so sure I'd want to be disconnected after all. What if you guys make some break throughs in "brain repair" in the next 20 years? Similar reasoning to cryonics. Which was exactly the point I raised, the problem legally, is treating such problems on a case by case basis, and the consequences that has on future cases. I.E, so and so had the plug pulled, and how can you ascertain whether that is the right decision if certainty is an issue. A. Like I said before, the line is blurred (despite, personally to me is a silly argument), even though I think such things should be dealt on a case by case basis. B. It only takes one case where there is a recovery, be it partial, to throw the whole thing into disarray...i.e an extreme case. If there's any evidence for the latter, therefore expounding my hypothetical argument, again, what then ? Edited February 6, 2009 by Snail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Thinking about it, I'm not so sure I'd want to be disconnected after all. What if you guys make some break throughs in "brain repair" in the next 20 years? Similar reasoning to cryonics. Consider it, though: Would the potential of a cure be worth being trapped in your own body for 20 years, unable to communicate? Could you even stay sane under those conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 "She could have children." What? If memory serves Terri Schiavo's mother used to say the same thing. In a way, yes. It's a centre-right politics thing. Look at his affiliation. Plus his media ownership is a bit disturbing. Oh, so there is a way to blame it on conservatives, eh? Whew. I thought the world had turned upside down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Oh, so there is a way to blame it on conservatives, eh? Whew. I thought the world had turned upside down! IINM, he may be in England where the concepts which apply to "left" and "right" are reversed from our own. If that's the case, he's actually blaiming liberals. Not that it really matters or helps with the discussion at hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bear's Key Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 It's a sensitive issue, but I don't think politicians should get involved. It's a matter for the courts (at that point where family disagrees), not a means to score in politics. Oh, so there is a way to blame it on conservatives, eh? Whew. I thought the world had turned upside down! lol. Maybe a bit, iNow does has a somewhat valid point. IINM, he may be in England where the concepts which apply to "left" and "right" are reversed from our own. If that's the case, he's actually blaiming liberals. Not that it really matters or helps with the discussion at hand... I stand (partially) corrected. They have elements of both, more one than another, so maybe the party is just confused. As am I now. But across Europe various parties' names seem to have that right-left identity problem. And btw I'm from the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvp45 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 "She could have children." What? There may not be enough single malt on the planet to erase that image from my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 "She could have children." What? It's worth noting that in her condition we have to insert the "be forced to" in just about any statement as to what she could do. "She could be forced to have children." has a slightly different ring to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Yeah, there's something weird about rape susceptibility as a pro-life argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 I had a discussion with an Italian colleague on this and he was pretty sure (and apparently it was also discussed that way in Italian newspapers) that Berlusconi used this as a test run to extend his powers by issuing fast-track decrees. If this decree is upheld one is expect to see more suchalikes in the future. And the sad thing is that everyone knows that he is a crook and yet they elected him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 What a sick way to test your authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now