Saving the Soldiers, Has Medical Science Over Stepped Itself?
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:08 pm
I just an article in AARP the other day that was themed on caregiving. The subject of the story was a young man who had been severely injured by an IED. Now his father and step-mother have taken on responsibility for him either around the clock for them or with breaks in respite care. This young man is I believe 26.
Part of his brain was removed to reduce life threatening swelling. He has had to relearn walking, talking, simple tasks, and regaining bladder and bowel control. In my opinion only aren't there some injuries that it's more humane to let someone die? I have two sons, one a teen and one just turning thirty.
If one of them had chosen to enlist I would have supported their choice. But if they were sent home with brain injury that would affect the rest of their lives. Multiple amputations...with or without brain damage...I'm sure they wouldn't want to live like that. There's death with dignity, not having them scoop up the pieces and see what they can put back together.
Likewise with the premature babies they're able to save now. They can save babies that even ten years ago wouldn't have had a chance after birth. But the potential for long term or lifetime health complications rises dramatically with the very tiny ones. Is that ethical? To save a child who will be disabled and connected to a respirator and wheelchair for it's life because it was born at five months gestation because they can?
Obviously for the devout right to life side the question is easily answered. But for the rest of us it's something to think about.
Part of his brain was removed to reduce life threatening swelling. He has had to relearn walking, talking, simple tasks, and regaining bladder and bowel control. In my opinion only aren't there some injuries that it's more humane to let someone die? I have two sons, one a teen and one just turning thirty.
If one of them had chosen to enlist I would have supported their choice. But if they were sent home with brain injury that would affect the rest of their lives. Multiple amputations...with or without brain damage...I'm sure they wouldn't want to live like that. There's death with dignity, not having them scoop up the pieces and see what they can put back together.
Likewise with the premature babies they're able to save now. They can save babies that even ten years ago wouldn't have had a chance after birth. But the potential for long term or lifetime health complications rises dramatically with the very tiny ones. Is that ethical? To save a child who will be disabled and connected to a respirator and wheelchair for it's life because it was born at five months gestation because they can?
Obviously for the devout right to life side the question is easily answered. But for the rest of us it's something to think about.