Saturday, November 28, 2009

Right to Life? or Cries of the Reborn?

Right to life? or Cries of the Reborn?

A recent article caught my attention, as I read it -it caught my imagination. Below is a link to the article.


The guy in the story had been in coma for twenty some years - or so they thought. Actually maybe in coma, then a vegetative state. Either way he was diagnosed as unconscious. Three years ago a therapist thought different, his parents always thought so.

It seems now that he was conscious all the time and even though doctors and scientists felt that he could not sense the world around him, he could.

I could not imagine being conscious for twenty years and no one knew it, and that I couldn’t communicate that knowledge. His mother said she now likes “talking” with her son again even though his sentences are laced with “black humor”. I personally can’t say as I blame him for that.

Doubters of this story are popping up. Read the article linked below to get a taste.


I’m writing this blog to point out that scientific consensus can sometimes be wrong. Consensus is fine when we are trying to decide a business issue. When it deals with life – possibly my life – I want to be the sole decider. I wonder how often he overheard hospital personal talk of pulling his plug without being able to join the debate. How many orderlys took advantage of his paralyzed state? “Black Humor” indeed. This is one dude that if he recovers enough to fire a gun Homeland Security should take heed.

I’m pissed off enough reading about it, I can’t imagine living it.

This is doing for the public awareness of the actual people in coma and their plight what ultra sound has done for the unborn. Should the cries of the unborn and their reaction to pain be any less palpable than this case?

Wonder how the new Health Care bill would handle this. The therapy would probably not be accepted and paid for. It wouldn't be cost effective. Perhaps the Czar in its wisdom and “consensus” would have already pulled his plug. If the family tried to go around them they would probably have to pay a fine. They would at least be called selfish. Which may not be a bad thing.

Finally this case points out to me the relativity of the “value” of life. One’s own regardless of circumstances, is always more important than others. Only in the rarest of cases this is not so - that is how we measure courage. Either way the decision is a personal one that should not be left to others; when it is - it becomes the measure of tyranny.

Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative