From: cboeker@batph78.bnr.ca (Craig Boeker)
Subject: Re: Should humans assign "status"?
Reply-To: cboeker@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Atlanta
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:18:34 GMT

In article <BvD7pB.2B3@wpg.com>, russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
|> From article <1992Sep29.204047.9811@brtph560.bnr.ca>, by cboeker@batph78.bnr.ca (Craig Boeker):
|> cb> Lets review the points from the Rich Young quotes:
|> cb> 
|> cb> * A brain-dead human is not really alive.
|> cb> * A brain-dead or kidney deficient organism cannot continue to live without
|> cb>     external assistance.
|> cb> * A brain-dead human is a non-functional organism.
|> cb> * A carrot (apparently when pulled from the ground) is still a functional 
|> cb>     organism.
|> cb> * A brain-dead or kidney deficient human is effectively dead.
|> cb> 
|> cb> All these statements seem quite reasonable to me.  
|> 
|> I know several people with dysfunctional kidneys who would take 
|> issue with Rich's claim that they're "effectively dead".   They still
|> lead full and rewarding lives and might resent the notion that
|> human existence is defined by limbs and organs, rather than by
|> thinking and feeling abilities.
|> 

I fully agree with your second sentence here.  My understanding of the
statement "A brain-dead or kidney deficient human is effectively dead"
was that without external assistance neither organism could continue to
exist.  I think this internalization of the statement came from using the
other quotes as a context because of the ambiguity of the statement taken
alone.  Without some context I think there are too many terms that could
be interpreted in different ways to really extract much meaning from that
quote.

|> cb> Now how do you
|> cb> extract Rich feeling it's OK to kill a brain-dead human but not a
|> cb> kidney-dead human from this information?  I'm really quite interested
|> cb> and will subscribe to this group for a while to find out how that
|> cb> works out.
|> 
|> Perhaps Rich will surprise both of us by telling the world that it's
|> really ok to kill kidney patients, but I doubt it.    
|> 

I believe the statement was something like "Why is it OK for Rich Young to
kill a brain-dead human but not a kidney-dead human."  Leaving the issue
of whether that is actually a statement of Rich's position I'll address a
modified version of the question, "Would it be (not Why is it) OK for 
Craig Boeker to kill a brain-dead human but not a kidney-dead human?"

The short answer is "maybe".  It depends on how you define the word "kill"
in relation to life-support equipment (which depends on how you define
"life" in relation to that same equipment).

Scenario #1:  Kidney dead patient, not brain-dead.  This person has to make
  his/her own choices regarding life-support.  I would in no way be involved.
  If asked (ie family member) I would strongly recommend taking all measures
  to continue/extend life.

Scenario #2:  Brain-dead person, autonomic functions may or may not work,
  requires some life support even if just feeding.  The only way I could
  see myself involved is if it were a member of my family.  If they left
  no instructions (living will) then I would probably discontinue life
  support after some time.  How much?  I don't know.  I have not been
  exposed to or studied this situation.

Basically, I think the decision on this type of thing should occur in the
following manner:

1) the individual.  Either through concious decision (sound mind and body,
   etc.) or living will.

2) the family of the individual.

3) if no family exists then the state must have some policy regarding
   how long to provided life support.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Craig Boeker                                                              |
| cboeker@bnr.ca        It was like that when I got here.                   |
| BNR Atlanta                                                               |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+