extraordinary means of preserving life

What are extraordinary means?  By my
standards, I believe if you cannot
breathe for yourself, your heart cannot
function, and machines are doing the
‘living’ for you, this is extraordinary
means.  Whether a person is dead or not
is usually determine by if the brain
is ‘dead’ or not.  So a person may not
be able to function, but have activity
in their brain and therefore still be
considered alive.  But is it worth keeping these people alive?  It’s
hardly natural.  And does this idea of letting nature take it’s
course when someone would be dead if not for extraordinary
means apply to revival techniques such as CPR?  When I was
presented with this, CPR was acceptable to me.  I think because
it doesn’t seem like such a drastic measure to keep someone
alive.  Maybe it’s because of how media  [movies especially]
present this, but CPR doesn’t seem like such an unnatural way to
revive someone.  I think then, anything with machines doing
things that a human body should be able to do simply to live is
to be considered extraordinary means.  Sure, some people may
be angered or torn with this, especially if they or a loved one
uses or used extraordinary means to stay alive.

Another point that shocked me was a story of a woman who was
braindead – meaning that the brain was totally unable to do
anything including breathing, heartbeat etc. and had no activity
at all who was being kept alive because she was pregnant.
Definitely unnatural and I don’t think I found out about the baby,
but imagine being in the womb of a dead mother?  It’s creepy –
definitely something right out of a horror story.  Someone recently
pointed out to me that this does not happen often however because
the first thing that doctors do is try to deliver the baby prematurely.
It is only in extreme cases where the child cannot be removed that this would be a problem.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1