Evidence for God from Science

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-05-voa59.cfm

I understand that the medical differences between the situation of Wallace and Terry Schiavo are different so the comparison is not completely fair, however; The actual differentiations in this case based on a Radio Report I heard from the CBC have only been recognized since 2002. Further, there is a lot of emerging information and a lot yet unknown about the regenerative capabilities of axioms in the brain.

Does this situation and new information shed any new light or possibilities upon situations like the highly publicized Terry Schiavo case?

Are there ethical and moral considerations that this situation brings to light in favor of caution and being more conservative in the case of feeding tubes etc?

The ability for the human brain to rewire itself has been a fairly recent discovery. Experiments on axon growth and even the discovery of new nerve cell growth has been documented.

We are not sure what the limits of the brains ability to recover and regenerate are. We don't know to what extent memories and personalities can be recovered.

The only thing I know is that 100 years ago and even 40 years ago people such as Terry Wallis, and Terry Schiavo would be considered dead.

I think at this point in time it is best to leave these sort of choices to individuals and their families.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:The ability for the human brain to rewire itself has been a fairly recent discovery. Experiments on axon growth and even the discovery of new nerve cell growth has been documented.

We are not sure what the limits of the brains ability to recover and regenerate are. We don't know to what extent memories and personalities can be recovered.

The only thing I know is that 100 years ago and even 40 years ago people such as Terry Wallis, and Terry Schiavo would be considered dead.

I think at this point in time it is best to leave these sort of choices to individuals and their families.

I'm not entirely sure I agree. With medicine's knowledge incomplete, it can be argued that where the potnetial for restoration that society still has an ethical and moral obligation to protect life.

We don't allow the families of down's syndrome babies to allow their children to die (unless of course, they are not yet born.)

I realize there are different dynamics involved and I am not insensitive to the families pain and burden, but matters of life and death are not left to individuals in other situations.

This is demonstrative of a lot of the dilemmas that rapid advances in medical knowledge and technique creates. Where medicine has the ability to preserve or promote life, does the fact that it could not do so a few years prior, create a license not to use every means to preserve life and allow for the opportunity of these restorative "miracles" to take place?

Did medicine cause those axons to regrow? Does medicine create life?

I think we're in for more of thewe tyes of questions. Not addressing the ethical concerns consistently in these cases opens the door to lower standards where society has already determined it has an obligation to protect and preserve life.

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-05-voa59.cfm

I understand that the medical differences between the situation of Wallace and Terry Schiavo are different so the comparison is not completely fair, however; The actual differentiations in this case based on a Radio Report I heard from the CBC have only been recognized since 2002. Further, there is a lot of emerging information and a lot yet unknown about the regenerative capabilities of axioms in the brain.

Does this situation and new information shed any new light or possibilities upon situations like the highly publicized Terry Schiavo case?

Are there ethical and moral considerations that this situation brings to light in favor of caution and being more conservative in the case of feeding tubes etc?

First of all YOU GET CBC??

bizzt wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-05-voa59.cfm

I understand that the medical differences between the situation of Wallace and Terry Schiavo are different so the comparison is not completely fair, however; The actual differentiations in this case based on a Radio Report I heard from the CBC have only been recognized since 2002. Further, there is a lot of emerging information and a lot yet unknown about the regenerative capabilities of axioms in the brain.

Does this situation and new information shed any new light or possibilities upon situations like the highly publicized Terry Schiavo case?

Are there ethical and moral considerations that this situation brings to light in favor of caution and being more conservative in the case of feeding tubes etc?

First of all YOU GET CBC??

I was in Ottawa this last weekend for a funeral.

I do occassionally listen to it on the internet and on a clear night I can tune it in on 800 AM (Windsor) or 1010 AM (Toronto).

You can take the boy out of Canada .......

Canuckster1127 wrote:

bizzt wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-07-05-voa59.cfm

I understand that the medical differences between the situation of Wallace and Terry Schiavo are different so the comparison is not completely fair, however; The actual differentiations in this case based on a Radio Report I heard from the CBC have only been recognized since 2002. Further, there is a lot of emerging information and a lot yet unknown about the regenerative capabilities of axioms in the brain.

Does this situation and new information shed any new light or possibilities upon situations like the highly publicized Terry Schiavo case?

Are there ethical and moral considerations that this situation brings to light in favor of caution and being more conservative in the case of feeding tubes etc?

First of all YOU GET CBC??

I was in Ottawa this last weekend for a funeral.

I do occassionally listen to it on the internet and on a clear night I can tune it in on 800 AM (Windsor) or 1010 AM (Toronto).

You can take the boy out of Canada .......