In society today, technology has a great significance on our lives. Cell phones, laptops, TVs, iPods, etc. rule our every day lives and we are constantly working towards improving these technologies. Every few months another new high-tech gadget comes on the market, knocking out the old one and prevailing as the number one gadget until another gadget is introduced and takes its place. With this constant strive of improvement in our possessions, it is expected that we also improve our biological lives by increasing it and avoiding things that hinder it, such as age and death. Celine Lafontaine's article "The Postmortal Condition: From the Biomedical Deconstruction of Death to the Extension of Longevity" and Melinda Cooper's article "Resuscitation: Stem Cells and the Crisis of Old Age" address the issues of advancing technologies to prolong our lives and resist ageing and death.
While reading these articles, particularly Lafontaine's, it reminded me of the popular sci-fi show Battlestar Galactica. The premise of Battlestar Galactica is based on an ongoing war between humans and their machine-creations, the Cylons. The Cylons were created by humans to first serve as soldiers and as workers, however, due to mistreatment the Cylons rebelled against the humans which led to the First Cylon War. An armistice was signed after the five Cylon leaders agreed to share their technology in exchange for peace. The Cylons then disappeared for 40 years and later reemerged with even greater technology so that there were seven Cylon hybrid models that looked exactly human that were used to infiltrate human-inhabited colonies and destroy them. Although the machine Cylons existed, they were mostly used as soldiers and workers much similar to how the humans had ruled them 40 years prior.
A couple of interesting aspects about the Cylon hybrid models is that one, they display super human abilities such as greater strength and stamina, two, they do not age, and three, they can be resurrected when their biological bodies "die". This means that their memory is downloaded onto a "resurrection computer" when they die and another body is formed and the information is uploaded into the new model, also known as virtual immortality. These aspects really reminded me of the aforementioned articles in regards to prolonging life using technology. "The technoscientific desire to indefinitely prolong life is based on a particular conception of human perfectibility." (Lafontaine, pg. 301) Granted, many people desire to overcome the limitations of the biological body and create a superhuman being that can maintain youth and health and defy death. This is what a lot of science fiction is based off as well, hence the Cylons and their superhuman abilities and optimal performance.
In this day and age, biotechnology is focusing on ways to prolong life, avoid death, and maintain youth. The elderly are viewed as diseased and useless, "... a fluke in evolution." (Lafontaine, pg. 300) This negative representation of the elderly only encourages the advancement of technology and to discover ways of increasing longevity and the health of society. We have come up with anti-wrinkle creams, various vitamins, and stem cell research to regenerate youth in the elderly. However, as Cooper mentions, "as new technologies, [these products] run the risk of unforeseen side effects..." (Cooper, pg. 15) The first side effect that comes to mind is abuse. This relays back to the Cylons in which machines were created in order to aid humankind but instead, were mistreated and abused and eventually caused a rebellion. Although I doubt that the anti-ageing products and regenerative medicine will revolt against humans, I do feel that we will abuse its uses which can lead to detrimental results (sci-fi dystopic/utopic societies, anyone? Terminator series, Brave New World, The Island, Gattaca, etc.) Cooper's article emphasizes the economic factors of commodifying life and, "... its transformation into a source of speculative surplus-value." (Cooper, pg. 11) This goes hand-in-hand with the abuse of power that biotechnology can bring, especially in regards to defying age and death. A great disparity will be created in which the wealthy, upperclass, Euro-American societies can benefit from this bio-tech revolution of prolonging life.
Regenerative medicine does have its perks because it can overcome the limitations of human life in regards to those who are health compromised (i.e. cancer patients, organ patients, etc.). It's goal is, "... no longer to supplement biological life with the spare parts of the industrial machine but to 'reawaken' the body's latent capacity for self-regeneration." (Cooper, pg. 10) This also brings me back to the idea of the Cylon hybrids in which the body is capable of virtual regeneration but they are no longer defined as a machine. But as technology continues to prosper in the field of medicine, Lafontaine discusses the several forms that the body may take through technosciences: "...either a complete remodelling of the biological body through genetic engineering and nanotechnologies or the downloading of the contents of the brain to a computer." (Lafontaine, pg. 303) So far, science has been focusing on genetic engineering using stem cell research to generate organs and as a means to prolong life, as noted in Cooper's article. If we ever do the reach the point of downloading our brains onto computers, we will be heavily relying on technology for sustaining life (this can relate back to life-sustaining technologies). But if we are relying on technology for life, would that make our life meaningful? Lafontaine continues to say, "the transfer of the human mind to an artificial medium would assure the transformation of Homo Sapiens into Machina Sapiens -- a supreme form of intelligence liberated from the torments of mortality." (Lafontaine, pg. 303)
Perhaps this formation into Machina Sapiens is our mode of evolution. Despite the fact that this may be true, we still have to understand that biological life is meaningful, that biological death is inevitable, and technology only blurs the line between life and death. We are confronted with this issue of "playing god" again, not to be cynical, but does an individual really want to life forever? Isn't the aspect of death the thing that makes life meaningful? The idea that an individual could die at any moment, that death lingers and one must make the most of his life in the time that he has? Even if that's the case, Lafontaine concludes that, "... the human body is inevitably called on to be transformed to adapt to its new technoscientific environment. The much-awaited technological revolution will be a salvation, since it carries the hope of an existence spared at long last from illness and death." (Lafontaine, pg. 305)
Perhaps we are just like the high-tech gadgets that we invent. We are replaced with better models that perform better. Human Being Version 2.0. Our own technology to prolong our lives and eliminate the inevitable may make the next generation superior, the Machina Sapiens (it does have a good ring to it, too...). However, our biggest issue at hand is to solve ethical matters in what is moral and humane. Eliminating death can eliminate the meaningful aspect of life. And of course, abusing the powers can have terrible results that can backfire due to our negligence. I don't think the human race is ready yet to advance to "Machina Sapiens" nor do I think we ever will be. Just look at how the Cylons and the Humans ended up -- always at war, the child attempting to rid its parent, the human as a fluke in evolution.
Sources:
Battlestar Galactica, Season 1 - Season 4. 2004 - 2007.
Céline Lafontaine, 2009. The Postmortal Condition: From the Biomedical Deconstruction of Death to the Extension of Longevity. Science as Culture 18(3): 297-312.
Melinda Cooper. 2006. “Resuscitations: Stem Cells and the Crisis of Old Age.” Body and Society 12(1): 1-23.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
The Terri Schiavo Case
Life and Death.
Amongst all else that we cannot separate completely, this is yet another topic that falls into the not-so black and white model. Living cadavers, as referred to by medical authorities, seems to be a paradox in itself. A cadaver is associated with a biologically dead body so how is it possible that it could be living? In the case of brain death, that is exactly what the patient is: a living cadaver. Brain death is determined when an individual cannot sustain life without the support of an artificial ventilator, lacks of consciousness, and the end of brain activity in general. The situation of brain death is very similar to that of Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), although there is minimal consciousness in the patient.
Many people are familiar with the case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who suffered from a collapse due to cardiac arrest and ended up in PVS. She was placed on a feeding tube which brought about a load of legal controversy after her husband Michael Schiavo decided to take the feeding tube out despite three years of endless trials of rehabilitation with no progress. Terri's parents on the other hand were against the removal of the feeding tube. After reading Eric Krakauer's "To Be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age" and Margaret Lock's "Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death", I saw some similarities between the two articles and the case of Terri Schiavo. It is difficult to determine who was right in her defense; her husband and his will to end her suffering or her parents and their faith and hope in the rehabilitation of their daughter. Granted, it was a very difficult situation for both husband and parents because of that human connection. A CT scan of her brain was shown in comparison to a healthy brain. In the image, Terri's brain showed a loss of significant brain tissue and liquid in the center of the brain, indicating hydrocephalus. Dr. Timothy Quill, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center states, "Computed tomographic scans [CT scans] of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms were flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex." (N Engl J Med, 2005) In order to be kept alive, Shiavo was sustaining life through a feeding tube. The topic is a very sensitive one and from where I stand, I do believe that Michael Schiavo made the right choice in removing her feeding tube, especially after the unsuccessful rehabilitation and stimulation of the brain stem procedures. With life-sustaining technologies, such as feeding tubes in this example, Krakauer mentions that, "... experience showed that life-sustaining technologies not only had an obvious potential benefits for patients but could also be very burdensome... the great gift of this technology brought with it the unforseen danger of exacerbating suffering." (Krakauer, pg. 382) However, Dr. Quill also goes on to explain that Schiavo was not suffering only because, "... the usual definition of [suffering] requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity." Personally speaking, the feeding tube itself was a burden to Schiavo. Though she had no conscious suffering, Schiavo was essentially on her way to becoming a living cadaver, especially due to the continuous death of brain tissue which would lead to her lose function of respiration.
Image Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/ns/msnbc_tv-the_abrams_report/
Michael Schiavo may have understood the concept that his wife suffered from an irreversible loss of brain function and that 15 years of being placed on a feeding tube was only prolonging her suffering. He may have realized that his wife was no longer is wife but just a body in which the loss of brain function was just reducing her down to a vessel, because what made her her was gone. "... the absence of the person is evident because of the a diagnosis or irreversible brain function, thus ensuring a permanent lack of consciousness, no awareness and no sensation of pain. In other words, a sensate, suffering, individual has ceased to exist because their mind no longer function." (Lock, pg. 141) As Lock continues on in her article, she interviews another doctor who finds consolation in his claim that, "... to remain in a severely vegetative state is much worse than to be dead." (Lock, pg. 142)
Dr. Quill is also the director of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, so clearly he is educated in the field of the use of life-sustaining technology. He believes that the right choice was made for the removal of the feeding tube because it allowed her body to do what it needed to do: to die. "[Terri Schiavo's] family and the public should be reassured and educated that dying in this way can be a natural, humane process (humans died in this way for thousands of years before the advent of feeding tubes)." (N Engl J Med, 2005) Palliative medicine places a great significance on allowing death to happen. It is a response to suffering and determines if life-sustaining technologies will exacerbate it. In the case of Terri Schiavo, there technically was no suffering involved due to her lack of cognitive function. Palliative medicine would view this case with the feeding tube as prolonging a life that is not meaningful anymore, and therefore, "... acknowledges the inevitability of death and to let dying be."
Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube removed on March 18th, 2005 and died of dehydration (under palliative care) on March 31st, 2005. Although her case was muddled in legal issues and a tug-of-war between two families who wanted the best for her, it was obvious that her cognitive functions were not going to improve. Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin, in charge of her autopsy, said, “The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain... this damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.” (Associated Press, 2005)
Sources:
"Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy Compounded". The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Timothy Quill, 2005
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058062
"Schiavo Autopsy Shows Irreversible Damage". MSNBC.com, Associated Press, June 18th, 2005.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/
"Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death". Margaret Lock, 2004
"To be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age". Eric L. Krakauer, 2007
Amongst all else that we cannot separate completely, this is yet another topic that falls into the not-so black and white model. Living cadavers, as referred to by medical authorities, seems to be a paradox in itself. A cadaver is associated with a biologically dead body so how is it possible that it could be living? In the case of brain death, that is exactly what the patient is: a living cadaver. Brain death is determined when an individual cannot sustain life without the support of an artificial ventilator, lacks of consciousness, and the end of brain activity in general. The situation of brain death is very similar to that of Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), although there is minimal consciousness in the patient.
Many people are familiar with the case of Terri Schiavo, a woman who suffered from a collapse due to cardiac arrest and ended up in PVS. She was placed on a feeding tube which brought about a load of legal controversy after her husband Michael Schiavo decided to take the feeding tube out despite three years of endless trials of rehabilitation with no progress. Terri's parents on the other hand were against the removal of the feeding tube. After reading Eric Krakauer's "To Be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age" and Margaret Lock's "Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death", I saw some similarities between the two articles and the case of Terri Schiavo. It is difficult to determine who was right in her defense; her husband and his will to end her suffering or her parents and their faith and hope in the rehabilitation of their daughter. Granted, it was a very difficult situation for both husband and parents because of that human connection. A CT scan of her brain was shown in comparison to a healthy brain. In the image, Terri's brain showed a loss of significant brain tissue and liquid in the center of the brain, indicating hydrocephalus. Dr. Timothy Quill, a professor of medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center states, "Computed tomographic scans [CT scans] of her brain eventually showed severe atrophy of her cerebral hemispheres, and her electroencephalograms were flat, indicating no functional activity of the cerebral cortex." (N Engl J Med, 2005) In order to be kept alive, Shiavo was sustaining life through a feeding tube. The topic is a very sensitive one and from where I stand, I do believe that Michael Schiavo made the right choice in removing her feeding tube, especially after the unsuccessful rehabilitation and stimulation of the brain stem procedures. With life-sustaining technologies, such as feeding tubes in this example, Krakauer mentions that, "... experience showed that life-sustaining technologies not only had an obvious potential benefits for patients but could also be very burdensome... the great gift of this technology brought with it the unforseen danger of exacerbating suffering." (Krakauer, pg. 382) However, Dr. Quill also goes on to explain that Schiavo was not suffering only because, "... the usual definition of [suffering] requires conscious awareness that is impossible in the absence of cortical activity." Personally speaking, the feeding tube itself was a burden to Schiavo. Though she had no conscious suffering, Schiavo was essentially on her way to becoming a living cadaver, especially due to the continuous death of brain tissue which would lead to her lose function of respiration.
Image Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/ns/msnbc_tv-the_abrams_report/Michael Schiavo may have understood the concept that his wife suffered from an irreversible loss of brain function and that 15 years of being placed on a feeding tube was only prolonging her suffering. He may have realized that his wife was no longer is wife but just a body in which the loss of brain function was just reducing her down to a vessel, because what made her her was gone. "... the absence of the person is evident because of the a diagnosis or irreversible brain function, thus ensuring a permanent lack of consciousness, no awareness and no sensation of pain. In other words, a sensate, suffering, individual has ceased to exist because their mind no longer function." (Lock, pg. 141) As Lock continues on in her article, she interviews another doctor who finds consolation in his claim that, "... to remain in a severely vegetative state is much worse than to be dead." (Lock, pg. 142)
Dr. Quill is also the director of the Center for Palliative Care and Clinical Ethics at the University of Rochester Medical Center, so clearly he is educated in the field of the use of life-sustaining technology. He believes that the right choice was made for the removal of the feeding tube because it allowed her body to do what it needed to do: to die. "[Terri Schiavo's] family and the public should be reassured and educated that dying in this way can be a natural, humane process (humans died in this way for thousands of years before the advent of feeding tubes)." (N Engl J Med, 2005) Palliative medicine places a great significance on allowing death to happen. It is a response to suffering and determines if life-sustaining technologies will exacerbate it. In the case of Terri Schiavo, there technically was no suffering involved due to her lack of cognitive function. Palliative medicine would view this case with the feeding tube as prolonging a life that is not meaningful anymore, and therefore, "... acknowledges the inevitability of death and to let dying be."
Terri Schiavo had her feeding tube removed on March 18th, 2005 and died of dehydration (under palliative care) on March 31st, 2005. Although her case was muddled in legal issues and a tug-of-war between two families who wanted the best for her, it was obvious that her cognitive functions were not going to improve. Pinellas-Pasco Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin, in charge of her autopsy, said, “The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain... this damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons.” (Associated Press, 2005)
Sources:
"Terri Schiavo — A Tragedy Compounded". The New England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Timothy Quill, 2005
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058062
"Schiavo Autopsy Shows Irreversible Damage". MSNBC.com, Associated Press, June 18th, 2005.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8225637/ns/us_news/
"Living Cadavers and the Calculation of Death". Margaret Lock, 2004
"To be Freed from the Infirmity of (the) Age". Eric L. Krakauer, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)