The article that I am looking at was published on February 4th on the Star Tribunes website. It is titled “Brainwaves”. The problem I see with the way science is being deployed in this article is quite clear. People in vegetative states are being depicted as “living”, and in a sense, capable of normal human function. I think that this is potentially dangerous because it could cause a great increase in reluctance to “pull the plug” which can be very hard on the family and also very costly.
Dear Editor,
Your article published on February 4th titled “Brainwaves” portrays patients in vegetative states in a very bizarre way. It suggests that they are capable of “normal” human function. While this is true to a certain extent, this article does it in a somewhat misleading way that could lead to many potential problematic issues. New scientific breakthroughs have made it possible for us to look deeper into the minds of these patients and discover that in many of them, more is going on than we had previously thought. While it is quite amazing that some of these patients can form basic thoughts, it by no means makes them anymore living than they had been. They still can’t walk, talk, or even keep their organs functioning on their own. Saying that some patients “demonstrated the ability to imagine themselves walking through the rooms of their homes” can be very misleading to the average reader. I can see it causing a great increase in reluctance to “pull the plug”. We all know how expensive it can be to keep a person on life support. This can be very costly to the average taxpayer. More importantly this reluctance can be very detrimental to the emotional well being of the patients family. I have personal experience with this sort of situation. I found that the longer my cousin was on life support, the harder it became for our family. The false hope created by not pulling the plug and recognizing the truth became more painful as time went on. While your article does address this issue, it only does so in a small paragraph near the very end. I propose that this be a more substantial part of future articles on similar topics and will help clarify things significantly for the average reader.
What do you guys think? (I know it’s too long, I need to decide what to cut)
I don't know why the second half of my post is darker. That's weird. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteDylan - I can't believe that, out of all the articles in the Twin Cities, you picked the one I chose. As you said, "whatever." I'll write my letter, and then you look at mine and I'll look at yours (that didn't sound how I meant it). Whatever. ;-)
ReplyDeleteOK, I'm back. I didn't consider the emotional component of this story. I worked in a major hospital for about five years; I've seen the plug pulled, and I've seen the family out in the hall looking so sad that you just want to hug them all. I think that the crux of your argument centers around this emotional piece, and I understand why. But I think that your letter lets them get away with a few things like saying that they knew what a patient was imagining, without a good explanation of how they knew this. It's a really tough subject and I get why the emotions run high: defining what is or is not human life - life worth preserving or saving. That's the biggest of all questions - it's the exact reason why abortion is such a hot-button matter too. But you did a great job expressing your opinion. See you Tuesday!
ReplyDelete