- It's wrong to keep animals for entertainment purposes.
- We should not support businesses such as Seaworld because they rely on animal abuse to make profits.'
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Here's an excerpt from a report they published in 1998: 'The US bishops' Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which strongly prohibit abortion in Catholic hospitals, also say that "operation, treatment, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child."
"It may seem that this directive permits all life-saving abortions, but that is not the case. The language closely mirrors Catholic teaching on abortion, which forbids direct abortions in all circumstances, even to save the life of the mother. The word "direct" is critical. Indirect abortions are allowed - but there are only a few cases where this applies. In a case where a woman's life was threatened by pregnancy, abortion is directly intended and therefore not permitted.
"The full meaning of the directive played out in 1998 when a pregnant woman on Medicaid in need of an emergency abortion was denied services at a merged hospital in Manchester, N.H. The 35-year-old patient, who had miscarried in the last year, rushed to Elliot Hospital when her water broke at 14 weeks. When she arrived her physician determined she needed an emergency abortion in order to prevent a life threatening uterine infection and other complications. However, because Elliott had merged with Catholic Medical Center in 1994, abortions were banned in 1997 from Elliot at the insistence of its Catholic partner.'
This week I had a look at how our collection of atheist thought, 50 Voices of Disbelief, is doing on amazon. I was delighted to see that it has received a reasonable 4.5 rating (out of 5) on amazon.com and some 11 or so reviews. Check out the comments some of the readers left behind, here. I thought the most critical review (aka 3*** out of 5) is still quite complimentary. Glad the volume is holding up nicely in terms of sales!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
My own view on the issue is that the lack of benefit to the patient in its own right would not be a good reason to discontinue his/her existence, especially if - as is the case in PVS patients - there is no pain or suffering involved in their continued existence. While there are people about who care about such patients' ongoing existence and who would find the patients' discontinuation distressing, we have a good reason to keep them alive. The only counter argument I can see on this front is that resource allocation concerns might tilt the scales toward discontinuation.
In any case, back to the Belgian man. Imagine the excitement of our Christian campaigners when the Belgian doctor of the patient demonstrated that the locked-in man was even able to 'talk' to us. He 'talked' to us by means of a helper who assisted him typing his words (aka answers to the questions asked by the attending physicians) onto a touchscreen computer. I was skeptical in my original blog entry that this widely discredited method of communication was to be trusted this time around. I mean, how likely is it that a guy who hadn't moved for more than two decades would suddenly engage in (albeit assisted) small-talk. Well, it turns out that I was right. An investigation of the matter by the German weekly newsmagazine DER SPIEGEL confirmed that it wasn't the patient who said anything but his assistant (thanks to Art Caplan for bringing this to my attention!). So, now we know what his assistant thought the patient would have answered if he hadn't actually been unable to answer. Here's what the magazine reports:
'The staff at Houben's care center first tried an on-screen keyboard that he could operate using his right index finger, which is not fully paralyzed. For a while, it seemed like a good idea and, after some practice, Houben was able to type rather quickly. He made many mistakes, but his messages were understandable. Still, using that method required the assistance of a speech therapist, who stood behind him to support his hand. At one point, Laureys, the neurologist, claimed that he had ruled out the possibility that it was actually the speech therapist doing the writing. But it turns out that his checks weren't quite thorough enough. Obtaining reliable results requires a rather protracted procedure. Patients with serious traumatic brain injuries are not always capable of following difficult instructions. They also sleep a great deal, and sometimes they sink into extended periods of delirium. In order to rule out false negative results, repeated tests need to be conducted over the course of several weeks.
Laureys has now carried out those tests, and his results hold that it wasn't Houben doing the writing after all. The tests determined that he doesn't have enough strength and muscle control in his right arm to operate the keyboard. In her effort to help the patient express himself, it would seem that the speech therapist had unwittingly assumed control. This kind of self-deception happens all the time when this method -- known as "facilitated communication" -- is used. (As a result, the things that Houben was attributed as saying to SPIEGEL for anwere also not authentic.) In the more recent test, Houben was shown or told a series of 15 objects and words, without a speech therapist being present. Afterward, he was supposed to type the correct word -- but he didn't succeed a single time.
This doesn't necessarily discredit facilitated communication altogether. Laureys analyzed another paralyzed test subject who answered all 15 control questions correctly despite having a comparable brain-damage diagnosis. "That means it is really necessary to verify every single case," Laureys says. Now the work with Houben will have to start all over again. But there is one thing for sure -- images taken of his brain activity reveal that it is behaving only slightly differently from that of a healthy brain. As a result, researchers are fairly certain that Houben is conscious -- and they find themselves in the desperate position of a rescue team trying to dig out a person from under the rubble.'
It is troublesome that no major news organisation has picked up on this revelation, so their flawed initial reporting about the ongoing communications from this patient remains uncorrected.