🚀 go-pugleaf

While I do agree with both of you I am concerned of the quality of life
potential that remained.  I have not been keeping up with the total discussion
and the record on this, however I want to consider all sides of the issue.

Was the individual in this of full mental capacity or was there irreversible
brain damage to where there was no hope of them ever being anything but a total
vegetable.
This is where I start drawing the lines in this issue.  If there is no hope at
all of ever returning to any semblance of recognizable life functions then why
prolong a life that isn't there except for the physical functions of life.
Certain sections of the brain maintain body functions if they are not damaged
the body exists but with no brain function of cognitive ability why have life
except for functions
I would rather consider organ donation as to living like that and my family has
instructions as such.

Dick Crandall
intern@infocom.com

Bruce Coonce wrote:

> I agree. If a person is being kept alive by life supports, I don't really
> have a problem with taking them off. I do have a problem with removing
> feeding tubes, etc. Basically, this is equivalent to starving the person to
> death. I think when we begin playing god in who should live and who should
> die, we're on very dangerous grounds. Who's going to make that decision and
> on what basis?
>
> Bruce Coonce
> Student Development Specialist
> Office of Disability Services
> 601 University Drive
> San Marcos, TX 78666
> Phone: (512) 245-3451 (V/tty)
> Fax: (512) 245-3452
> E-mail: Dc06@academia.swt.edu or
>   Dc06@A1.swt.edu