How arrogant to subvert the "scientific we" to presume to know things that you cannot ever empirically know through the scientific method.

No, "we" never knew how "aware" these patients were. Speaking for myself personally, I never knew; I've never been in a PVS but I do affirm that any person who is in a PVS deserves dignity, the right to life, and the right to ordinary sustenance, such as food and hydration.

I lived through the very traumatic case of Terri Schiavo, whose husband hated her guts and really, really needed her to die ASAP. But I only recently learned of Karen Ann Quinlan, whose parents were quite devout and merciful, and had perceived that the "treatment" (a breathing tube) was causing much discomfort and distress to Karen, yet the medical establishment insisted that removing the tube would be "MURDER" and they engaged in a protracted legal battle against the "MURDEROUS PARENTS" who simply wanted them to withdraw this barbaric medical treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Ann_Quinlan

Karen's level of cognizance was fairly obvious to any observer: that she was feeling pain and distress, that she was capable of emotion and rational response to stimuli, and that changing those stimuli resulted in distinct changes in her responses. That much is true.

Karen Ann Quinlan's quality of life improved immensely after the tube was removed. She began breathing on her own. She lived a good life (in a PVS) for a significant period of time and was not, in fact, ever murdered by her loving parents or by her physicians.

▲

heavyset_go 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The right to privacy that Quinlan's parents' case was decided on was derived from the conception of privacy from Roe v. Wade that was reversed in Dobbs, as in the judge explicitly used Roe as framework.

	▲	ButlerianJihad 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes. Indeed. Ironically, the privacy matter involved with the Quinlan case is that the parents/guardians sought to terminate a medical treatment. The medical establishment regarded this termination as tantamount to murder. That is, without the treatment, Quinlan’s prognosis was death. While based on the same reasoning in regards to personal privacy and medical treatment decisions, surely we can appreciate the diametrically opposite case of withdrawing an extraordinary, unwanted and ineffective treatment, vs. demanding to undergo one that affects not one life, but two, and again, parental rights over the very life and continued existence of a person who is dependent and reliant on others, and wholly incapable of answering or advocating for themselves.

▲

michaelmrose 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Analysis of Terri Schiavo's brain revealed that it was mush.

To put it more analytically

"She had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo, a condition marked by enlarged ventricles filled with cerebrospinal fluid, because of this profound loss of cortical volume"

Half her brain was gone and it was the part we have identified as the seat of identity.

Her brain was so far gone that believing she still existed requires dualism.

▲

tredre3 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Karen Ann Quinlan's quality of life improved immensely after the tube was removed. She began breathing on her own. She lived a good life (in a PVS) for a significant period of time and was not, in fact, ever murdered by her loving parents or by her physicians.

You seem to be guilty of the same thing you accuse the doctors of doing. You have no idea what was going in her mind (or not going). You have no idea if she was still suffering. You have no idea if she wanted to die.

You're the "compassionate killing is wrong, we must preserve life at all cost and quality of life be damned" type of person, and it's simply impossible to have a conversation when your view of the world is so black and white.

	▲	ButlerianJihad 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you wanted and desired to die immediately, but you had no means of articulating it or indicating those wishes beforehand, would someone grant you that wish? Would that be a licit and legal thing for someone else to take action upon your death-wish? Karen clearly did not wish to die at all; nor did her parents or physicians wish to deny her a right to life. Her parents and physicians all agreed (after the fact) that the removal of the machine proved to relieve her immediate suffering and distress, just by judging those outward signs and her struggles against the relentlessly opinionated machine. There is nothing “compassionate” about killing; it is an oxymoron and a political slogan for eugenicists. You seem to desire that some assassin had stepped up and murdered Karen against everyone’s wishes, and against the law. You and your ilk have a similar mindset to Dr. Mengele, and y’all seem very very proud of that mindset.