I ran across a story about a man choosing to kill himself while still in a coma – yes, it’s true. The story clearly stated that they woke him up from his coma to let him decide whether he would live or die. Or, the way I read it, whether his family including his pregnant wife could help society save a ton of money by letting him be snuffed legally.
So what was the reason for this decision? He faced a potential future as a quadriplegic.
Here is a link to the story: http://news.yahoo.com/injured-indiana-hunter-chooses-end-life-support-181336165.html
Now, nobody knows how bad his injury was. The idiot doctors – along with the somewhat ignorant and (quite naturally) shocked family – made the decision to kill him the very day after his accident. They could not even wait for the swelling to go down so they could see what kind of damage he might have suffered before they decided on this course of action. Granted, the man had fractured his third, fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae. But he was still in a coma!!! There was no way of knowing how badly his spinal cord was damaged from just looking at the bone damage.
In my mind, this can only be interpreted as downright and premeditated MURDER!!
And I certainly hope somebody in the Indiana or US disability community sues those who were in charge of this decision for this act of homicide.
There is no excuse for killing a man under these circumstances whatsoever. I understand how his family will not be able to think straight in such a situation and therefore they should not be faced with this sort of decision. Whoever came up with the harebrained idea that they should be given this choice are the real culprits in this murder case. All they see is a man in a coma with a tube down his throat.
According to the story the tube played a major role in the decision to kill him. Of course nobody wants to see their loved one live with a tube stuck through their mouth and down their throat. And that is probably why I have never seen a quad who needed ventilation having a tube through his mouth. Ventilation is a high tech kind of thing and depending on the person, it can be very non-intrusive. But again, nobody knows what this man might have faced – because he was never given the chance to find out for himself. Nobody had the patience to wait until they could make a logical and thoughtful decision before they killed him.
And please notice that the story clearly states that he might have needed ventilation. It doesn’t state that he might never be able to walk. But my 47 years of experience with SCI tells me that there is no way in hell anybody can make a clear statement about these things within the first 24 hours of somebody’s injury. That is why this is clearly a case of premeditated murder and nothing less. There is no way that any person who knows anything about disability and is able to think straight can perceive it any differently.
The main excuse that the story states for killing him is that he wanted it for himself. The same doubt applies to him as does to his family. How can a man, injured the day before, woken up from a coma, only able to speak if they pull his life support away from him, ever make any kind of rational decision? Especially being presented with the idea that he has to live with aforementioned tube for the rest of his life – a blatant and utter lie. I have been in post surgery many times and wished there was a plug to pull when I woke up… also three days later when I was still feeling like crap, being hopped up on morphine as my only saving grace.
Of course the man wants to die. No matter how they presented the prospect of him not being able to walk or needing life support in the future, the mere idea of letting him know of these things (all of which were conjecture to everybody at the time) was so wrong that I don’t understand how there are no regulations in place against it. Let the man recover to the point where everybody have some kind of knowledge of what his prospects are before letting him know of his situation. And (this makes me want to throw up, just thinking about it) allowing him to consider any major life decisions should not be given until he has learned what his future life would potentially look like, which requires him to go through some sort of rehab in order for him to even be able to begin looking at his future in a somewhat rational light.
All of us who have been there in some capacity know that it might take years to get to the point where ‘the new life’ dawns on us and we see all the things that lay ahead of us – great and not-so-great – and we all know that this decision could never be made by someone who was just woken up from a coma.
How the doctors and administrators are allowing this sort of deliberate neglectful act is beyond my scope of comprehension. I am astounded to my deepest core. And I strongly believe it is a clear violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
I wonder if there is some kind of anti-disability legislation in Indiana that I am not aware of. Some pro-prejudice, disability-phobic law making that allows such a brutal murder to happen. And as if that wasn’t enough, letting a news agency, like Associated Press, make it into a positive story. I just have no way of showing the true level of my disgust in regard to all these people. It stinks to high heaven how little a human life is worth in Western societies in general (and Indiana in particular) where the mighty dollar and corporatism has taken over and left behind all decency and – now also – human life.
So what is the philosophical and sociological mindset behind killing this man? It is quite simply the ‘disability as tragedy’ view has always permeated Western thought since time immemorial. Disability as tragedy is the most direct outcome of ableism, a subject that many disability activists have talked extensively about so I would not go into it further here, given the importance of this story and the comments I want to make in regards to it.
The thought of living with any kind of life altering condition scares most people. And to a certain extent, it should. People might gripe about their life but when offered an alternative most would say no. It is the human condition to be afraid of the unknown and therefore we would rather choose the badness we already know over the potential badness that is lurking out there in the dark.
Disability is always perceived as one of those bad things that are out there, something that can befall any one of us at any given moment. It is the great bogey man of the old days in modern disguise. It can attack you in the middle of the night – or sometimes even in broad daylight, falling out of a tree.
But disabled people do not necessarily live worse lives than others. No, that’s not true – they do. But the main reason for the lower quality of life is not the disability as such. It is the stigma, the prejudice, the preconceived notions, the fear that others have of it, the lack of opportunity and all the other social barriers that we are faced with making our lives less worthy in the eyes of others.
I fully acknowledge if the man has claimed in the past that if he ever became disabled he would want to be put off life support. But I put as much stock in that sort of statement as I do in one from a young boy who wishes to become an astronaut when he grows up. Neither of them have any idea what ‘adult’ life actually entails preventing them from making rational decisions given their circumstances.
The article talks about ‘end of life care’ and the patient’s decision to pull the plug when facing a terminal condition. There is a blatant lack of ‘end of life care’ in this case, though. What is apparent is a man who had a tragic accident who is not facing an end of life decision. We are talking about a man who more than a reasonable chance of survival if given proper care. Not a cancer patient or someone with an end-stage chronic disease. But a young man whose life was ended by cynical and thoughtless people who couldn’t be bothered with helping him back to life so he could have a chance to see his yet unborn baby.
I am sorry, but I do not believe that ‘end of life as we know it’ qualifies for ‘end of life care.’ If indeed I am in the wrong there would be a plethora of people lining up for their lethal injections.
So who is at fault in this murder case?
Let’s start with the easy one, the man himself. He is not at fault by any means. He is clearly the victim here on all levels. He is the one to suffer the consequences of the decision. He is also the one who is blamed for having given the famous final ‘yay’. In other words, if everybody else will have a chance to live on without the guilt they obviously deserve, they will have to make him the ultimate decision maker. Since he is dead I guess it doesn’t matter too much. But regardless, he will remain the faultless victim on all counts.
His wife is not at fault either. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she was ignorant of her actions, listening to the fucktards i.e. her sister-in-law and the doctors who told her to agree to this murderous act. They should clearly be incarcerated for what they did. It is enough for her to live with the realization that she was part of robbing her unborn baby of ever seeing its father.
His sister, the nurse who claims to know what her brother’s life was going to be like. She is to a large degree at fault. She quite clearly has no insight into the life of a disabled person regardless of her hollow claims. Those claims are no better than the person who thinks she knows everything about sailing because she once went for a ride on a ferry. She is clearly suffering from what I call ‘the clinicians blindness’ a condition that is seen in all places where professionals meet people with disabilities and/or chronic illnesses. The foundation for this blindness is that the clinician only sees the chronic patients when they are at their worst. They encounter all the things that can go wrong with a particular group of people, extrapolating that knowledge to the entire person and their life in general. Of course that is going to skew her view in a very negative direction to the point where she is blinded by it. So for her to make any kind of decisions based on this prejudice downright dangerous. And in this case lethal! I have a hard time holding her blameless for this fratricide, the fact that she doesn’t know better is no excuse for killing her own brother. And quite frankly if she is capable of doing that, my question is, how many other innocent people’s murder can she be held accountable for given her position as a nurse?
As for the doctors and administrators there is just no excuse. They are so at fault that I am not even going to go into the details of why – like I have stated over and over again: They are clearly guilty of premeditated murder!! Like I implied earlier, maximum security, mixed population, bunk beds and no opportunity for parole is the least we can do to rid society of these murderers.
Lastly, if I believed in heaven or hell I would also believe in a special place in the latter reserved for the family and doctors deciding to kill a fellow human being. And furthermore I would gladly apply for a job there with the promise of treating them fairly… very fairly.