Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#41

Post by adrianN »

scotty79 wrote: post #40
nonbel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Does that mean babies don't feel pain? Because that is what the medical profession concluded. Here is a good overview: http://nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

You are in an accident and have to be operated on, but using anesthesia would drop probability of survival from 90% to 10%. They can give you instead a drug that will prevent you from remembering pain that has no influence on probability of success operation. What would you chose? I'm not saying that this is the exact case with infants. Just trying to illustrate there might be valid reasons to inflict temporary pain…

Technically we don't know whether general anesthesia actually prevents you from feeling pain, or whether it just prevents you from forming memories. As far as I know at least.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#42

Post by scotty79 »

My SO is currently in hospice after 6 brain surgeries for brain cancer (4 over last year with her state gradually deteriorating). For the last year she was severly disabled and had to be help with sitting down, standing up, lying down and adjusting pillows and blankets as she had very limited use of her hands and general body coordination. She had to be kept safe while walking. It wasn't as good life as she had before but it was life. She was spending time with family, watching ton of netflix and movies, enjoying meals, especially when on steroids. She even managed, with a bit of help, to throw a party for my 40th birthday in march this year, that was cool enough to stave off my usual birthday downward mood swing.

Now she's lying in hospice bed with only minor control of her eyes and even less of her mouth. Barely concious. At most minimally responsive. Feeding tube, oxygen, urinary catheterer, central venous catheter. She's kept alive and somewhat sedated.

First reccurence she had after 5 years after initial treatment and diagnosis. Last recurrence happend in two months. It's already a month past last operation.

I'm a bit torn because I'm firm realist and I believe no matter how bad life is, it is the only thing that has a value for you because it's the only thing you have. When your life ends, there's nothing else, no new game, not even admiring your high score. Your life has an ultimate value to you and you have to try to make the best of it even if it consists of sleeping on morphine all the time till your body just falls apart.

On the other hand... she wished to die on an operating table under general anesthesia. Unfortunately she had too good surgeon for that to happen. If she were to spend 5 years like that I think she'd wish for her cancer to grow faster.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#43

Post by gekkeboom »

scotty79 wrote: post #42

My SO is currently in hospice after 6 brain surgeries for brain cancer (4 over last year with her state gradually deteriorating). For the last year she was severly disabled and had to be help with sitting down, standing up, lying down and adjusting pillows and blankets as she had very limited use of her hands and general body coordination. She had to be kept safe while walking. It wasn't as good life as she had befor…

I don't think that life in and of itself is valuable even under terrible conditions. Especially if there is no positive outlook, that things will be better, no reason to hang on.

I think only one thing really matters: QUALITY of life.

Life is not intrinsically sacred. QUALITY of life is to me.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#44

Post by gekkeboom »

scotty79 wrote: post #40
nonbel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? Does that mean babies don't feel pain? Because that is what the medical profession concluded. Here is a good overview: http://nocirc.org/symposia/second/chamberlain.html

You are in an accident and have to be operated on, but using anesthesia would drop probability of survival from 90% to 10%. They can give you instead a drug that will prevent you from remembering pain that has no influence on probability of success operation. What would you chose? I'm not saying that this is the exact case with infants. Just trying to illustrate there might be valid reasons to inflict temporary pain…

death for sure.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#45

Post by gekkeboom »

D_Alex wrote: post #31
sysbin wrote: post #28

Insane! Stories like this one make me question if it should be a requirement for every person to have on file his/her AMD for situations related to this outcome. People shouldn’t fear death or existence may be an extreme prison of torture. Why people continue to allow this is beyond me. Heck only till recently in all of humankind has this kind of torture become a thing. Geese..

>Why people continue to allow this is beyond me. If, in the end, the patient recovers, what a happy ending that would be! And we might learn how to better assist others in this condition. The alternative is giving up forever on such cases. This is also partly why I lean "against" on euthanasia.

And I'm so happy I live in a country that permits Euthanasia. And the rules for it are clear: (some of them) 1. Intolerable suffering 2. No outlook on any improvement

There are cases where people recover after years being in coma. However, there are many, many, many more people in the same state who never recover, who are just plants.

Life is not sacred. Quality of life is.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#46

Post by wycy »

adrianN wrote: post #41
scotty79 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are in an accident and have to be operated on, but using anesthesia would drop probability of survival from 90% to 10%. They can give you instead a drug that will prevent you from remembering pain that has no influence on probability of success operation. What would you chose? I'm not saying that this is the exact case with infants. Just trying to illustrate there might be valid reasons to inflict temporary pain…

Technically we don't know whether general anesthesia actually prevents you from feeling pain, or whether it just prevents you from forming memories. As far as I know at least.

I would imagine that we must know that by now. We should be able to just see on a brain scan whether the pain centers are lighting up in response to pain.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#47

Post by scotty79 »

gekkeboom wrote: post #43
scotty79 wrote: post #42

My SO is currently in hospice after 6 brain surgeries for brain cancer (4 over last year with her state gradually deteriorating). For the last year she was severly disabled and had to be help with sitting down, standing up, lying down and adjusting pillows and blankets as she had very limited use of her hands and general body coordination. She had to be kept safe while walking. It wasn't as good life as she had befor…

I don't think that life in and of itself is valuable even under terrible conditions. Especially if there is no positive outlook, that things will be better, no reason to hang on. I think only one thing really matters: QUALITY of life. Life is not intrinsically sacred. QUALITY of life is to me.

My belief is that since there's nothing except for life, life of any quality is infinitely better than no life.

However this belief of mine is currentlly being viscerally challenged.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#48

Post by technothrasher »

gekkeboom wrote: post #43
scotty79 wrote: post #42

My SO is currently in hospice after 6 brain surgeries for brain cancer (4 over last year with her state gradually deteriorating). For the last year she was severly disabled and had to be help with sitting down, standing up, lying down and adjusting pillows and blankets as she had very limited use of her hands and general body coordination. She had to be kept safe while walking. It wasn't as good life as she had befor…

I don't think that life in and of itself is valuable even under terrible conditions. Especially if there is no positive outlook, that things will be better, no reason to hang on. I think only one thing really matters: QUALITY of life. Life is not intrinsically sacred. QUALITY of life is to me.

I can respect both positions. I understand completely why people want to hang on to life no matter what, and I also completely understand wanting to be done with a life that offers nothing but pain.

This is why it's desperately important to be honest with your loved ones about what your wishes are, and to respect and help them with theirs.

Personally, I want to live now, and I suspect from watching other people at the end of life, I'll know when I'm ready to go.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#49

Post by leppr »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #35
chillfox wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That really depends upon how bright you think the future is. If you think the future will bring amazing medical breakthroughs and immortality, then tubes is only temporary and all you gotta do is hang on long enough.

Even if immortality were to become reality, what incentive could there be to cure the ill? Perhaps I'm just unimaginative, however I can't really fathom a world in which it would make economical sense to cure the ill rather than simply prevent people getting sick. Economically those with illnesses and/or genetic conditions (myself included) unfortunately seem like a bit of a lost cause.

I think more than an external incentive, it would provide an incentive for workers to be able to afford their own immortality, prior to debilitating diseases.

Re: Kept alive with tubes for nearly 17 years

#50

Post by falsedan »

adrianN wrote: post #41
scotty79 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are in an accident and have to be operated on, but using anesthesia would drop probability of survival from 90% to 10%. They can give you instead a drug that will prevent you from remembering pain that has no influence on probability of success operation. What would you chose? I'm not saying that this is the exact case with infants. Just trying to illustrate there might be valid reasons to inflict temporary pain…

Technically we don't know whether general anesthesia actually prevents you from feeling pain, or whether it just prevents you from forming memories. As far as I know at least.

General anesthesia is usually a combination of multiple drugs. We know exactly what each drug does, medical science isn’t so good at explaining why the drugs have these actions. anesthetists combine these drugs to suit the requirements of the procedure and the patient

Anesthesia usually includes drugs with distinct, separate actions, like an analgesic (to block pain receptors), muscle relaxants (so patients can be moved/organs accessed), CNS depressants (to prevent unexpected spasms disturbing the surgeon), coma-inductors (so patients don’t chat with the staff and freak them out after practicing on cadavers for years), and amnesia-inductors (because surgery is kind of gross).

Post reply on HN