11-23-2009, 07:29 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
I'm curious if this case gives anyone pause, specifically concerning the Schiavo case, but also just generally. Does this case cause anyone to re-examine their right-to-die position? It's not vague at all. It's actually quite simple. What's the test worth to you?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 11-23-2009 at 07:31 PM. Reason: Removed bombastic language. |
|
11-23-2009, 07:48 PM | #12 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
1) I don't know what test they did 2) I don't know how sensitive or specific the test they did is (probably neither do they) 3) I operate in the realm of limited resources, not the GOP fantasy land of no taxes, unlimited spending. |
|
11-23-2009, 08:11 PM | #13 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
My supposition only arose that these rare occurrences often are referred to in times per 100,000 and in the more rare, times per million. But of course we don't know how frequent the nightmare was or could be averted by this unknown "test".
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
11-23-2009, 08:21 PM | #14 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
As far as I know, they are not typically used for clinical purposes--usually just research purposes. |
|
11-23-2009, 08:26 PM | #15 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Laureys is the guy quoted in the article I read.
Quote:
|
|
11-23-2009, 09:24 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Given how dogmatic you get when discussing the death penalty, I would expect that you'd be at least as vigorous in defending innocent life, trapped in a coma. I'm surprised to find you making excuses based on cost.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
11-23-2009, 09:32 PM | #17 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
I could change my mind if it were shown to me that such cases were not extremely rare.
I despise mental midgets like Sarah Palin and her death-panel rhetoric. |
11-23-2009, 09:52 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
I don't understand this thinking. Why does the (assumed, not proven) relative rarity of the condition make it okay to let such a person die?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
11-23-2009, 10:42 PM | #19 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
1) Because of limited resources. 2) Because death is natural. 3) Because a lifetime of being hooked up to machines in a vegetative state is not natural. 4) Because we have to have ethically-reasoned ways of letting people pass on. One might argue that because we have found a person buried alive, that we ought to mandate a system whereby someone buried in a coffin can notify us that he/she is "not dead yet." Sure it's costly, but it could save another life. You may thing this is preposterous, but in the 19th century many coffins had such mechanisms. Of course, the analogy is not perfect, the government wasn't paying for these coffins--the costs were not shared in the same way that many of our current medical costs are. Just because modern medicine can do something, does not mean it should be done. Let's say we develop an artificial kidney from some kind of biological matrix. Great. Many people die due to a lack of kidney. Average lifespan on dialysis is 10 years. But bummer, the new kidney costs $10 million. Is the cost worth the benefit? Are the Texes of the world willing to pay 5% more income tax to pay for this? Even if they are, does this make good sense? In medicine there is this thing called "Number needed to treat." The concept is this--what is the number of people you have to treat with intervention X to get benefit Y. Let's say the number needed to treat among depressed patients with a modern anti-depressant is 5. You have to threat 5 depressed patients with the anti-depressant to get 1 patient who has significant benefit. We are not blown away by its efficacy, but we think it's worth paying for and proceeding with treatment. What if the number needed to treat is 100? Are we willing to treat 99 people who get no benefit, so that 1 person can? In the case of coma, let's say we have a fMRI test that is designed to detect consciousness among these comatose patients. But the NNT (number needed to treat) is 2000. We have to subject 2000 patients to this test in order to ferret out one case where someone benefits. Sure it's expensive, but what's the harm, you say, fMRI doesn't have medical risks. But what if the test has equivocal results for many patients--a patient doesn't meet the pre-determined threshold for "consciousness" (let's call it 60% positive on the test). Now all patients less than 60% are potentially in a quandry, and it is difficult to interpret what it means. And then families decide to extend life, with no real chance for benefit, causing them to linger over a longer time before they die, wasting resources, inappropriately increasing hope and expectations. You may have saved one person, but you have caused a lot of harm and grief along the way. This is why the PSA test has been thrown in the trash. Sure it can save lives, but it causes so much morbidity and grief, that it is not worth doing the test. Anyway, I hope this makes some sense, and I'm not talking out of my butt. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|