tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post8686169720874201189..comments2007-03-14T09:47:15.643-07:00Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652wjs@wesleyjsmith.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-46317334790239579982007-03-14T09:47:00.000-07:002007-03-14T09:47:00.000-07:00Kinda reminds me of Isaac Asmiov's short story "Franchise." One guy in all the US gets picked to vote for the rest of the country, only he doesn't make a deliberate choice for the president, he is just asked a series of questions and a computer takes his answers and extrapolates what the rest of the country would vote.<BR/><BR/>The guy's father-in-law complains about it - "What if I change my mind about how I would vote, or what if I would just vote differently for the hell of it?" That's just like this - what if a person says "Pull the plug" but changes his mind at the last minute, or remains conscious while his body can't move? He's totally disenfranchised - and we're letting that happen.T E Finehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02145212330537906750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-2983582170643332242007-03-14T09:37:00.000-07:002007-03-14T09:37:00.000-07:00What a disturbing article. It is really impossible to determine that you wouldn't want to live under a certain set of circumstances without actually being in the condition.<BR/><BR/>When most people are asked would want to live in state like Terri Schiavo or even asked would you want to live your life in wheelchair like a quad, 99% of people are going to say NO.<BR/><BR/>However, their decision may change if they find themselves to in those conditions.<BR/><BR/>Without something in writing or specific explicit instructions, food and water (feeding tube) should never be withheld from a person who isn't dying.<BR/><BR/>And even if they have given permission, some pause should be debated.<BR/><BR/>In a few days it will be the 2 year anniversary of Terri Schiavo's court ordered death by starvation and dehydration.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492444775891075523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-46961867446139076232007-03-14T09:00:00.000-07:002007-03-14T09:00:00.000-07:00Tim: Thanks for commenting. You nailed it. Bioethicists have already come up with a subjective quality of life test knwown as QALY. Indeed, it would be very easy to program the computer to apply it or some other form of subjective measurement as to whether the life was worth spending resources upon. <BR/><BR/>Of course, all of this takes away the professional nature of medicine.Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-5838338802312020792007-03-14T01:30:00.000-07:002007-03-14T01:30:00.000-07:00Talk about setting the stage for socialized health care. The 1% criteria is the starting point, an "objective measure" despite, as you point out, an objective test. Budgets, resources, etc., will eventually be used to fine tune (increase) the cut-off by factoring in what is best for the patient and society. Just watch the next study show the exponential rise in cost and a decrease in quality of life as the treatment cut-off is lowered...<BR/><BR/>Yep, Bobby got it right.Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03254896583044446198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-1385020397457853562007-03-13T13:24:00.000-07:002007-03-13T13:24:00.000-07:00Damn.JacqueFromTexashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16188690301652938376noreply@blogger.com