reflexive? (That's what she did in that one video, though maybe you'd take
issue with whether or not she was really responding or if it just happened
to be a timing coincidence or some sort of instinctual reaction to the sound
of a voice.)
I'm just sort of pondering this. I've always said I wouldn't want to be kept
alive in a vegetative state (and I still think that's true). But, now I'm
just wondering if I should be more specific about what I mean. (And, yes, I
should probably put together a living will.)
-D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: This is .....
> Its more of a legal term.
>
> Consider this. Back in the early 80's researchers that put EEG electrodes
> in a bowl of jello. They got a similar EEG patterns to what you get when
> you measure someone who is in a persistent vegetative state.
>
> Also remember you can get reflexive action with people in that state, and
> from what I've read that is the only type of movement she's exhibited.
>
> larry
>
> At 12:42 PM 10/21/2003, you wrote:
> >Is "persistent vegetative state" a defined medical or legal term? Does it
> >really meen her EEG is essentially flatlined (no brain activity)? In the
> >videos she seems some what responsive. (Not arguing for keeping her
alive,
> >just wondering.)
> >
> >-Deanna
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Larry C. Lyons" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:49 AM
> >Subject: RE: This is .....
> >
> > > But the woman is in a persistant vegetative state. That means her EEG
is
> > > almost flatlined except for minor fluctuations. Whoever she was
before,
> > > does not exist in that piece of flesh that's in the hospital bed. As
far
> >as
> > > I can see, give her mercy and let her die.
> > >
> > > larry
> > >
> > > At 11:13 AM 10/21/2003, you wrote:
> > > >btw...here's the other side of the tale.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Take a good look.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"
> > > ><http://www.friendsofterri.org/how's%20that%20cold.rm>
> > >
> >
><http://www.friendsofterri.org/how's%20that%20cold.rm>http://www.friendsoft
> >erri.org/how's%20that%20cold.rm
> > > >
> > > ><http://www.friendsofterri.org/Terri%20Big%20Eyes.rm>
> > >
> >
><http://www.friendsofterri.org/Terri%20Big%20Eyes.rm>http://www.friendsofte
> >rri.org/Terri%20Big%20Eyes.rm
> > > >
> > > >They removed her feeding tube, planning on starving her to death.
> > > >
> > > >She was denied therapy to make the minimal steps required for her to
eat
> > > >normally.
> > > >
> > > >"
> > > >
> > > >-Gel
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:02 AM
> > > >To: CF-Community
> > > >Subject: This is .....
> > > >
> > > >....the most assinine thing ever. Why the f$%^ is the state
legislature
> > > >getting involved? The woman told her husband she didnt want to live
like
> > > >this. Man this pisses me off. It's nice to know that if my wife and I
> > > >discuss how we do or do not want to live when comatic or a vegetable,
> > > >that
> > > >our wishes mean nothing. God damn why cant people just let those who
are
> > > >deciding about their OWN lives decide? I
> > > >
> > >
> >
><http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/21/coma.woman/index.html>http://www.cnn.com
> >/2003/LAW/10/21/coma.woman/index.html
> > > ><http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/21/coma.woman/index.html>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _____
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----------
> > > >[
> > >
> >
> >----------
> >[
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
