…and this is a 
A tragic tale, made worse by dogma
Category: Religion
Posted on: November 11, 2008 4:38 PM, by PZ Myers
Twelve year old Motl Brody has died. A tumor destroyed his brain, and the consequences are unambiguous.
Unlike Terri Schiavo or Karen Ann Quinlan, who became the subjects of right-to-die battles when they suffered brain damage and became unconscious, Motl's condition has deteriorated beyond a persistent vegetative state, his physicians say. His brain has died entirely, according to an affidavit filed by one of his doctors.
His eyes are fixed and dilated. His body neither moves nor responds to stimulation. His brain stem shows no electrical function, and his brain tissue has begun to decompose.
This is sad, but final…except for one little problem. The boy's family belong to a sect of Hasidic Jews who cling to an archaic belief that life is determined by the presence of a beating heart, and this particular body is hooked up to drugs and machines that keep the tissue flailing away futilely, and so the parents are taking the hospital to court to keep prodding the corpse into this semblance of life.
There's another weird twist to the story. The parents are not in denial. They know there is no hope at this point. They are sticking to their insistence that the hospital must tie up their facilities in this useless endeavor entirely because they must dogmatically follow their religion's laws.
Jeffrey I. Zuckerman, the attorney for Motl's parents, says they have been "utterly shattered" by the hospital's actions. He stressed that the family's demand for continued life support was based on their obligations under religious law, not an unrealistic hope that their boy will recover.
In other words, they know their religious beliefs are invalid, but they're going to abide by them, and damn the pain and grief and expense and waste. It's zombie religion.
Comments
Posted by: Luke | November 11, 2008 4:40 PM
Heartbreaking.
Posted by: the Rev Jerry Gloryhole | November 11, 2008 4:42 PM
If only, Luke.
Posted by: chris | November 11, 2008 4:42 PM
Wouldn't they have to pay for this out of their own funds? Surely insurance or any indigent fund wouldn't cover it. If that's so, it shouldn't last long.
Posted by: Chris Davis | November 11, 2008 4:44 PM
Hmm. Seems brain-damage runs in the family.
Posted by: Oolon Colluphid | November 11, 2008 4:44 PM
A sad case, but you have to understand the viewpoint of the family: If they pull the plug on their son, he may be posthumously baptized by Mormons.
Posted by: Alverant | November 11, 2008 4:44 PM
This comes from the day when it was thought the soul (or whatever you wish to call the force that animates the human body) was in the heart and not the brain. If they would adjust their beliefs to fit into science, this could have been avoided. RIP little boy, you have already died and your parents are keeping your body in a parody of life.
Posted by: Luke | November 11, 2008 4:45 PM
Motl Brody has a (i)mortl body.
Posted by: Liberal Atheist | November 11, 2008 4:46 PM
Zombie religion indeed, in more ways than one. When are we finally going to say enough is enough, that these primitive and sometimes barbaric customs and religions have no place in an enlightened civilisation?
We can go to the Moon, we build skyscrapers hundreds of metres tall, we can communicate instantly across the planet, we can transplant organs and we know the age of the universe... and yet there are millions of people who prefer ancient myths and fantasy. Why?
Posted by: Fishnchimps | November 11, 2008 4:46 PM
this proves that religious folk are as much prisoners of their beliefs as they are followers
Posted by: Martin | November 11, 2008 4:47 PM
Wow. And I thought Christianity was all about worshiping death!
Posted by: Michelle | November 11, 2008 4:47 PM
And here I thought the religious law implied that the heart must sustain ON ITS OWN and not with drugs and machines that did not exist in Abraham's time?
Remove the machines, which were created by EVIL SCIENCE, and the heartbeat will go away pretty fast like it should.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | November 11, 2008 4:47 PM
I too, am concerned as to who is paying the bills. I think any one other than the family and right to life groups paying the bills should not be allowed. If they won't pay, pull the plug. Their religion is irrelevant to required any third party to pay the bills.
Posted by: terrylong | November 11, 2008 4:48 PM
This is as good a metaphor for all of religion as Mike Huckabee pretending to talk to god on a phone that's connected to nothing.
Posted by: Raphael | November 11, 2008 4:48 PM
That's absolutely ridiculous, and disgusting.
If his heart wouldn't beat without medical support, then there's the long and short of it right there.
I'm fairly sure that when the bible was written, the biggest medical advance was [maybe] bandaging a wound. Therefore, the advances we have today should never, ever be a consideration in something like this.
If they want to determine whether or not their son is truly 'dead' by what they believe, fine. But there shouldn't be a condition attached to it factored in by modern advances: "The presence of life is indicated by a beating heart.. and whatever means necessary to keep it beating"
Posted by: SC | November 11, 2008 4:53 PM
Wow. And I thought Christianity was all about worshiping death!
Christianity?
Posted by: christopher | November 11, 2008 4:54 PM
You can't drag modern medicine into ancient religious beliefs. If the kid was given the same treatment that he would have been when those laws were placed down, then he'd be dead. That should satisfy them. At least they aren't in denial about it, but it makes it no less stupid.
Posted by: Pete Rooke | November 11, 2008 4:54 PM
It's called principle, in this case it happens to be misguided because the mental manifests itself in this world through the brain.
Posted by: Lowell | November 11, 2008 4:56 PM
What an awful story. Just so you know which court is going to make this decision, the federal court in D.C. remanded the case to the D.C. Superior Court on November 5, the day after the parents filed the federal suit.
The D.C. Superior Court held a hearing Monday, but it put the matter over to Thursday, when the parents and the hospital's experts are expected to testify: http://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2008/11/cnmc-v-brody-hearing-continued-to.html
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 4:57 PM
Exactly. That's why Christian Scientists are the only religious group who actually have 'real' faith in their god. Of course, it means a lot of them die, but they probably think that's their fault anyway.
Posted by: Lowell | November 11, 2008 5:04 PM
. . . must . . . fight . . urge . . to . . debate . . dualism . . with . . Pastor Pete . . . .
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:04 PM
With the Jewish diaspora and the compulsion to cling to tradition and faith, it's easy for many modern jews to compartmentalize reason and faith.
My discussions with Catholics about whether priests should marry was rivaled by the discussions with jewish friends on the rationality of kosher laws. It's like climbing into a bag with a semi-tame alley cat and then poking it with a stick.
At least the child isn't aware, and it's not as if his "soul" must be released from his body. (suck on THAT you believers in Cartesian DUELISM). Sad, sad case.
My problem with the Schiavo case was this: when is feeding an extraordinary circumstance? Dialysis -sure, heart/lung machine - yep, but food and water do not constitute extraordinary life saving measures. They are basic measures to sustain life. Terri Schiavo had no hope for recovery but I still think that starving her was unethical.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:06 PM
Wow, Lowell:
You read my mind.
Posted by: TSC | November 11, 2008 5:06 PM
Oy stupid.
Posted by: Bluegrass Geek | November 11, 2008 5:08 PM
Posted by: SC
Christianity?
Yes, Christianity. The religion whose entire existence is due to the mythical death and resurrection of its founding member, and whose entire focus is on the rewards one will receive after death.
Posted by: kamaka | November 11, 2008 5:09 PM
The parents are "utterly shattered" at the hospital's actions
They insist on this bizarre shit, then play victim when someone balks...typical religious nonsense
Posted by: hubris hurts | November 11, 2008 5:11 PM
Bluegrass Geek @24 - I think that SC was trying to point out to you that the members of the family in this story are Hasidic Jews, not Christians.
Posted by: Jello | November 11, 2008 5:11 PM
Medicine is for the living, not the dead. The hospital should have been well within its rights to yank the cord on the grounds that the equiptment is better used by someone who isn't a corpse, religious beliefs or not.
Posted by: Marc Abian | November 11, 2008 5:11 PM
4.40 PM. Heartbreaking
4.42 PM. If only, Luke.
Just 2 Minutes.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 5:11 PM
I think SC was questioning why you brought it up, since the family involved are Jewish. I'm guessing that you didn't, and that you were effectively saying '...and I thought Christianity was all about worshipping death!' rather than '...and I thought Christianity was about worshipping death.'
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:12 PM
Um, you did read the part about "the boy's family belong to a sect of Hasidic Jews."
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 11, 2008 5:13 PM
"Motl Brody of Brooklyn was pronounced dead..."
Brain dead = dead. Time to ship him to the morgue.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 11, 2008 5:14 PM
Continuing kamaka's thought: The parents are utterly shattered at the hospitals action ... but "Motl's mother and father, Eluzer and Miriam Brody, haven't been to the hospital since July."
Sorry, they lost my respect right there.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 5:16 PM
One assumes they have insurance; surely the insurance company isn't going to keep paying the bills?
Posted by: Geoff | November 11, 2008 5:16 PM
I lived close to real Hasidic jews and they wouldn't call an ambulance if one of them had a heart attack on their sabbath. Presumably these shouldn't countenance treatment on one day each week. These parents sound like they are in it for the trouble they can cause.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:16 PM
Pet Rooke:
That "ghost in the machine" crap won't fly here. Show me exactly where and how this "soul" interfaces with the brain.
Posted by: JRobel | November 11, 2008 5:17 PM
I once had this explained to me by a friend who was a practicing Jew and since have had a few others confirm it with me.
All that the Jewish faith actually requires is the dogma. It doesn't matter (according to their religious customs) whether or not you actually believe, so long as you follow the rules.
This means you will often get practicing Jews who, possibly even going so far as to keep kosher, are still capable of knowing and understanding that God doesn't actually exist, but they'll still act like he does.
Lots of Jewish religious stories (many from the Talmud) and their practices reflect this as well. Consider all the stories of rabbi's arguing with God over the technicalities of his law, an example:
It is the tale of another oven that needed to be declared kosher. This oven was a new invention created by a certain man named Achnai. Achnai brought his new oven to the rabbinical court at the house of study for them to give his contraption their imprimatur and deem it appropriate for Jewish use. With the exception of Rabbi Eliezer, every sage at the house of study declared that the oven was un-kosher. Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument to try and convince the other sages that the oven was kosher, but none of his colleagues was convinced. Rabbi Eliezer was getting frustrated, and he shouted at them: "If Achnai's oven is in fact kosher, as I say it is, then let this carob tree prove it!" And the carob tree flew out of the ground and landed a hundred cubits away. Unimpressed, the other sages retorted: "No proof can be brought from a carob tree." Again Rabbi Eliezer implored them: "If the oven is kosher, then let the stream of water prove it." And the stream of water flowed backwards. "No proof can be brought from a stream of water," the rabbis rejoined. More frustrated than ever, Rabbi Eliezer cried out: "If the oven is kosher, as I say it is, let the walls of this house of study prove it!" And the walls began to fall inward. But Rabbi Joshua rebuked the collapsing walls saying: "When scholars are engaged in a disagreement over a point of Jewish law, what right do you have to interfere?" And the walls did not fall in honor of Rabbi Joshua, nor did they resume their upright position in honor of Rabbi Eliezer. Again Rabbi Eliezer said to the sages, "If the law agrees with me regarding the fact that Achnai's oven is kosher, then let it be proved by heaven." And a heavenly voice cried out: "Why do you rabbis argue with Eliezer? He's always right in his interpretation of the law!" But Rabbi Joshua arose and exclaimed to the sky: "It is not in Heaven" (Deuteronomy 30:12). One must follow the majority!" At that moment, the sages say, God laughed, saying "My children have defeated me! My children have overruled me!" (So that oven remained technically un-kosher. You win some, and you lose some).
Not that it can be counted as an apology for these parents. Just pointing out that the absurdity of Judaism is particularly full of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: John Morales | November 11, 2008 5:17 PM
It's perverse - it seems clear the parents, in effect, are denying those medical facilities to those who can be helped.
NoAstronomer, reading further:
Posted by: Lowell | November 11, 2008 5:18 PM
No good could possibly come from it.
Posted by: H.H. | November 11, 2008 5:18 PM
Yeah, Wowbagger gets it. The comment was like "Wow, and I thought Christians were bad!" in comparison to this story on Hasidic Jews. Seemed obvious to me.
Posted by: Jules | November 11, 2008 5:21 PM
I just don't understand. "God's will" would seem to be that the child passes away. Would it not be insulting to God to keep plugging your child into machines?
Of course, I can sit here and say I'll never do this to my own child. But if my child were to have a horrible accident or illness, I cannot speak as to how I would truly react. I might lose my mind and my judgment. I'd be a wreck if something happened to my child. It would be up to the rest of my family to calm me as a mother and provide a rational voice.
Posted by: SC | November 11, 2008 5:24 PM
Wowbagger,
I considered that, which is why I phrased it as a question. But then I don't really get it, since I don't see this as "worshipping death" in any sort of relevant sense.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 5:28 PM
I wonder what treatment protocol Zuckerman expects for "rotting dead brain". I suggest the classic "take two aspirin and call me in the morning".
Posted by: castletonsnob | November 11, 2008 5:29 PM
A perfect example of how one can string words together and not make any sense whatsoever.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 5:31 PM
SC,
I was giving Martin the benefit of the doubt; I agree it still doesn't make that much sense - unless you consider 'keeping a brain-dead human alive' to be worshipping it - but I would hate to think someone wouldn't have picked up on the key phrase in the article, 'Hasidic Jews', before commenting on it.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:32 PM
I admit I missed it, even though it came from SC.That said:
I don't think any religion is comparatively better or worse than any other, though. After the "they really believe the cracker actually Jesus and you should die and suffer the torments of hell" people and the "we are evangelicals who let our daughter die of diabetes because it was the Lord's will" and the Islamic "let's stone a 13 year old rape victim", how can you say one is more irrational than the next?
Posted by: amphiox | November 11, 2008 5:34 PM
Let these parents buy their own ventilator, learn how to use it, along with how and when to administer all the appropriate medications, and buy them, set it all up in their home, and take their boy home. (Let their faith community donate the necessary funds and expertise if they so desire)
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:36 PM
Luke is too clever by half. This man needs a rimshot.
Posted by: SC | November 11, 2008 5:39 PM
Thanks for the compliment that I think is in there, but what is going on this week? That didn't come from me. Didn't. Not me. All I did was question whether Martin had read the post thoroughly enough.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:39 PM
Amphiox:
There you go again being reasonable.
Posted by: Mooselet | November 11, 2008 5:40 PM
"This hospital wants to kill him instead of treat him," Zuckerman said.
I'm afraid the tumor already did that, not the hospital. I wonder what the boy's code status is - that is when he eventually goes into cardiac arrest despite the intervention he is currently receiving will the staff be required to call a code and try to resuscitate him? Is there a Do Not Resuscitate order? Or will the staff be required to waste time attempting to re-establish a heart beat in order to comply with the religious beliefs of these parents who haven't been at the bedside in at least two weeks, possibly as long as several months.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 5:40 PM
E.V. wrote:
I suppose you could say that one religion is irrational about more things than another. We could draw up some lists and see which has the greatest number of wacky-woo beliefs.
Posted by: Rabbi Mordechai | November 11, 2008 5:41 PM
Number 35, you say "I lived close to real Hasidic jews and they wouldn't call an ambulance if one of them had a heart attack on their sabbath." I am an orthodox Rabbi and I can tell you it is a standard rule in Jewish law that you break the sabbath to save a life. There are even orthodox volunteer EMTs in Orthodox Areas. So with respect something doesn't add up, which messes up the rest of your point. And before you say "there may be different sects", everyone holds this view that human life takes precedence.
Judaism is LIFE AFFIRMING
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikuach_nefesh#Shabbat_and_holidays
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:43 PM
It was a compliment and oops! as I check back, it was Martin who said, "Wow. And I thought Christianity was all about worshiping death!" and has since explained the remark. Nevermind... carry on!
Posted by: JStein | November 11, 2008 5:44 PM
This is pretty ridiculous. I talked about it yesterday, but the truth is, it's an expensive way of postponing mourning and, like all religion, it distances the family from reality.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 11, 2008 5:45 PM
I always try to give those who are in mourning, especially over the loss of a child, a lot of room to say illogical things and make ridiculous requests. If they are going to pay for the life support I don't have a problem with it; but if they expect the insurance company or the hospital to cover the cost, than that's absurd.
My biggest beef is with their religion. Their minds have been taken over by a parasite that is now interfering with their ability to properly grieve.
Posted by: Donnie B. | November 11, 2008 5:45 PM
Just wondering... why does life require affirmation?
Posted by: pharynguphat | November 11, 2008 5:46 PM
I was fully prepared to join my voice to those suggesting that it would be in Motl's best interests to pull the plug. . .but then YOU chimed in.
So now I say, "KEEP HIM VENTILATED TILL 2050! SEND THE BILL TO LITTLE PAUL MYERS!!!!"
Posted by: Frasque | November 11, 2008 5:46 PM
His brain is DECOMPOSING? And they still won't let the poor little kid die peacefully? Absolute insanity, and no excuse for it.
Posted by: Robert W | November 11, 2008 5:48 PM
Sad sad state of affairs. Just goes to show how religion turns people into sheep.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 5:48 PM
Religion: prolonging people's misery since...well, as long as we can remember.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | November 11, 2008 5:50 PM
Recommending another book, pretty new, on Orthodox Judaism:
The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs: Fundamentalism and the Fear of Truth, by Solomon Schimmel. Part of the growing skepticism toward this sort of cruel nonsense. I still hope that a critical mass is coming where people realzie that religion often does great harm.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:54 PM
Rabbi:
First let me say thank you for setting the record straight on shabbat/heart attack.
Now, where do you stand on poor Motl's condition?
Posted by: Tim Fuller | November 11, 2008 5:55 PM
Sad. Superstition rules the day.
Enjoy.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 5:58 PM
pharynguphat:
Yeeech.
JStein:
Could you be more specific on what you find ridiculous; the extension of life beyond reason or this particular thread?
Posted by: Jello | November 11, 2008 5:59 PM
Amphiox
That might seem like a reasonable way to solve the dispute but the fact remains that valuable medical equiptment is still being used to animate a corpse. The kid is dead. Forcing his heart to beat and his lungs to inflate and deflate does not change this as the signal that the brain provides that regulates thess processes is gone. This is a clear cut case of a religious couple stubbornly clinging to an outdated and demonstatable incorrect definition of death.
Posted by: Alex | November 11, 2008 6:00 PM
Can't they just keep the heart beating in a jar or something? It seems that sure would save some space.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 6:00 PM
Since, from what I know of Judaism*, much of it is about finding ways around the prohibitions - e.g. hiring goyim to do stuff like light ovens - surely some clever scholarly type could conceive some sort of roundabout way of switching off the life support that doesn't break the 'rules'? Then everyone (esp. the boy) could rest easy.
* thanks to The Simpsons, The Big Lebowski, the novels of Michael Chabon - and pop culture in general.
Posted by: converse02 | November 11, 2008 6:02 PM
Imagine one day when doctors are able to keep a heart beating for 500 years or more. What will they do then?
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 11, 2008 6:02 PM
That cow heart in the Nine Inch Nails "Closer" video must really blow these people's minds.
Posted by: tariqata | November 11, 2008 6:05 PM
EV, I think the Schiavo case, whether one agrees with the decision or not, is a bit more complex (and I know, slightly off-topic to the post - sorry!). As I recall it, the argument revolved around whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state, without mental function and once any hope of recovery was gone. The dispute arose because her husband had one opinion on her wishes, while her parents had another, and it became unclear who should make decisions on her behalf.
I am a bit uncomfortable with the decision in the Schiavo case because I really don't see how a solid conclusion about her wishes could have been reached in the absence of a written directive, but I don't think it's necessarily unethical to withdraw a life-sustaining treatment. I'm not totally sure that this is what you're arguing, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to say that an individual could make the decision ahead of time to forego a treatment like a feeding tube. If the individual had clearly made that choice and recovery was clearly not possible, would it be unethical to withdraw a feeding tube?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 11, 2008 6:08 PM
Thus spake SC:
I think I'm going to see if I can start a new in-joke where the first post in every thread is attributed to you... whether you wrote it or not... or maybe just randomly ascribing other posts to you :o)
Posted by: SEF | November 11, 2008 6:11 PM
But medical intervention is against their god's will and his evident wish to kill their son and take his imaginary soul.The hospital should disconnect the body from that unnatural abomination of machinery and make the family perform the heart massage etc manually themselves for as long as they and their god think they can keep going with it.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | November 11, 2008 6:14 PM
Out of curiosity, what do Hasidic Jews believe about heart transplants? At some point of the transplant operation circulation is maintained by an external pump, is the patient 'religiously dead' at this point?
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | November 11, 2008 6:19 PM
Coughlin's Law: Bury the dead. They stink up the place.
-Cocktail (1988)
Posted by: SES | November 11, 2008 6:19 PM
But it's not like she wanted to eat and they were keeping food just out of her reach. Feeding her through a gastric tube is extraordinary. You can justify that on an acute basis but when there is no hope for recovery it just doesn't make sense.
I'm always amused by those who say that only god can decide when someone should die and then use that as an excuse to keep people going through extraordinary means. Isn't that going against "god's will?" I mean, god shut them down to the point where they would be dead without human intervention, right?
Sort of like folks who sustain a life-threatening injury in a major accident and then thank god for the miracle of saving their lives. What? Why didn't god just keep them from getting into the accident in the first place? Is he just #$%^&*@ with them?
It's all post-hoc rationalization to support a belief system.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 6:23 PM
Posted by: gort | November 11, 2008 6:24 PM
@73
That question is the polar opposite of the current situation. Saving life is a paramount concern of Jewish law, so re-starting a heart is fine. The current problem is whether it is proper to stop a heart by removing the life supports. IANAR, but I think that there is a variety of answers on that question.
Posted by: Don | November 11, 2008 6:29 PM
I sigh when I think of the perfectly good organs going to waste.
Posted by: Chris | November 11, 2008 6:29 PM
Rabbi Mordechai: Thanks for the clarification!
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 6:33 PM
Having survived two events where I could not feed myself and was unaware of whether I wanted to eat or not, I don't see this as so cut and dried. Does feeding a pet or a baby constitute special measures? Many elderly require feeding tubes. Maybe I'm thinking too hard on the division of basic human needs and artificial measures. Feeding tubes are very low tech and can be administered easily by non-medical people, so I can't quite see that removing a feeding tube is ethical.Posted by: gort | November 11, 2008 6:33 PM
Re 78,
This kid died of cancer. Out of curiosity, could some of the doctors out there answer if organs from cancer victims are used in transplants? I really hope not!
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | November 11, 2008 6:37 PM
Posted by: Liberal Atheist
That's easy! When we actually *HAVE* an enlightened civilization...
Posted by: Qwerty | November 11, 2008 6:42 PM
It looks like the hospital will have to keep him alive until this is resolved or possibly face a wrongful death lawsuit.
Posted by: SES | November 11, 2008 6:44 PM
Ummm... you left out the part where I said "You can justify that on an acute basis but when there is no hope for recovery it just doesn't make sense."
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 11, 2008 6:44 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that adherents of most variants of judaism don't believe in organ transplants either - the body needs all its 'bits' intact when it's buried or it won't go to heaven.
Posted by: Arthur Sanford | November 11, 2008 6:49 PM
I would argue that the Hadith and Torah say nothing about, for or against, life-support machines. But I'm sure there's some self-supporting religious solipsism against basic ethical engagement.
Posted by: Sastra | November 11, 2008 6:50 PM
Keeping a corpse's heart beating as a matter of "principle" is really just crass display. Hey, look how strained, pointless, useless, annoying, and convoluted our behavior is -- clearly God (and the neighbors) will all be impressed. We're doing things that make an already painful situation a lot more difficult! Our belief defies common sense! Is that humble, or what?
Pull the plug, and let them imagine that God gives them a gold star for piety and -- now -- martyrdom. They've been looked at. That's all they want; they know their son is dead.
Posted by: tariqata | November 11, 2008 6:56 PM
In a situation where it's been established that there is no hope of recovery and there is clear evidence of the patient's wishes, I would argue that it is ethical. I think the patient's wishes concerning particular situations should be given more weight than the degree of the intervention.
For example, if I were to experience a stroke, I would absolutely want medical professionals to intervene to keep me from dying. But if the stroke were severe, and after the event it became clear that I was no longer a conscious being, I don't think I'd want my body kept alive, regardless of the degree of intervention required. This is largely because I find the idea of my body being alive when everything that makes me "me" really creepy, but in any case, I think it should be my decision. On the other hand, if I were still able to think and communicate in some way, I would probably want to be able to live, with a feeding tube or not. Less anecdotally, I believe that it is not uncommon for people with terminal illness who are unable to eat to refuse the feeding tubes.
So, leaving aside considerations of cost, I think that the situation and patient's wishes have to determine the treatment, not the kind of treatment required.
Posted by: E.V. | November 11, 2008 6:56 PM
So at what point do you determine there is no hope for recovery and remove the tube? I'm assuming with Schiavo's case, there was a waiting period on a feeding tube before she stabilized and a long term prognosis could be given. I understand what you're saying and evidently it's also pretty cut and dried to many readers as shown by the lack of response (that's not meant to sound like an indictment).Posted by: Joshua BA | November 11, 2008 6:57 PM
Just wanted to ask the question someone else asked again. What does it mean to say your religion is "life affirming"?
I looked up "affirming" just to be sure I wasn't being confused by a definition in my head that wasn't square with reality. It was what I thought it was: to affirm something is to put fort the position that something is true or has value. How many religions out there don't hold that life has value or that it does indeed exist? I can't imagine that that the ones that DISaffirm life could have all that many followers, certainly not so many that it would necessitate one distancing their own religion from them ("join our religion, nothing you do or are has value" doesn't sound like a good sales pitch).
It seems very odd to me to state proudly that you don't think everyone's life is valueless. That's how most people view things. It's like if I pointed out to people who ask about me that I don't punch myself in the face every morning. Punching myself in the face would be an extraordinary trait and unless I stated that I would do so, it seems to me that I should not need to comment on it. In fact the only reason I can see for commenting on myself not having an extraordinary trait would be to elicit praise and attention for something undeserving of it, to make myself look better in the face of some other crazy thing I was doing.