Opinion ID: 2276022
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Medicinally-Induced Permanent Unconsciousness?

Text: It is even more serious to realize that the lack of improvement in Woods' condition may have been the result of his being medicated by a paralyzing drug. Ostensibly for the purpose of diminishing an occasional jerking motion, Woods had been placed on a medication designed to paralyze his movements. Such medication is at least likely to be the cause of permanent unconsciousness. In a motion to the court filed June 23, 1995, Dr. Suhl was noted to report that the administration of the paralyzing drug had been stopped on the date of the hearing. In addition to saying, his myoclonus (twitching/spasms) improved, he noted that, in the next couple days: it became apparent that Woods was able to open his eyes and look at him when he was awakened; Woods appeared to show pain when he was struck with an intravenous needle; and, through neurological analysis by Dr. Robertson, Woods was no longer in a Persistent Vegetative State. In other words, when the paralyzing drug had been stopped Woods's condition improved. Restarting the medication placed Woods back in a state of perceived unconsciousness. In a letter dated June 2, 1995, Dr. Robertson had re-evaluated Woods and drawn the conclusion that Woods's recovery was temporary because the response to external stimuli had dropped. However, he also noted that the myoclonic jerks had diminished as perhaps the result of medication. Medication made for the purpose of paralyzing seems likely to produce a coma-like state. There was no indication in Dr. Robertson's letter that the downward turn in Woods's condition was not the exclusive result of medication. Woods became awakened and showed signs of pain when the paralyzing drug was removed. According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, Awake means 1: to cease sleeping 2: to become aroused or active again 3: to become conscious or aware or aware of something. The only fair inference from evidence that he could be awakened is that Woods was no longer permanently unconscious. The majority opinion has a different interpretation of this evidence, but that's a difference of opinion, not a matter of accuracy as it suggests. Therefore, it is unclear as to the extent to which the paralyzing drug administered to Woods had on contributing to his appearance of permanent unconsciousness, nor is it clear that the paralyzing drug did not hinder his recovery. Dr. Hurst, who treated Woods at St. Joseph Hospital, had ordered withdrawal of food, water, and ventilation because of certain seizures Woods experienced. It should be noted that the majority opinion cites part of the impassioned plea made by Dr. Hurst, Frankly, I do not see much difference between what we are doing here and some of the atrocities that we read about in Bosnia. The remarks by Dr. Hurst could be subject to various interpretations as he offered no further explanation. However, it can be reasonably inferred that the true atrocity is the termination of Woods's life. Because of the improvements and the potential for recovery, Dr. Suhl had retracted his earlier recommendation of withdrawing mechanical ventilation and specifically recommended continuation of artificially provided nutrition and hydration and all care needed for his comfort and hygiene. Such life-sustaining treatments, i.e. food, water, and air, are necessary for every person to live, including those who are conscious. Dr. Suhl still recommended a lesser standard for resuscitation, meaning no longer providing life-prolonging treatments such as resuscitation or surgeries. However, the key is that Dr. Suhl separated food, water, and air from other types of medical treatments. Despite Dr. Suhl's retraction and Woods's potential recovery, the majority opinion conveniently ignores this evidence and asserts that the eleven members (including four physicians) of the hospital ethics committee unanimously agreed with the recommendation.