This is a great argument against "pulling the plug" on folks in vegetative states.
If you ever end up in a persistent vegetative state, it's grueling for your family & loved ones. We now have the tech to keep you sort-of alive for many years, but it's not cheap, of course.
There have been ridiculous controversies in the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case for a good example) about families that have decided (with the support of medical professionals) to pull the plug after years of suffering... and there may be protests from the devout (because to some people, any action or explicit inaction that causes a life to end is murder), political interference all the way up to high levels, etc..
It's also somewhat sad that if it's time to give up on restoring a person to working order, the ways of doing that may be limited to somewhat slow & cruel methods (like removing a feeding tube) rather than more humane methods, due to the legal terrain.
There's a certain level of brain damage from which it's not possible to recover a functional person; it's hard to draw that line (see OP for emphasis on that), but it's a line that people in real life are obligated to draw on a regular basis.
If you make a living will that specifies that you do not wish to be kept on life support if your brain activity is below X for Y time (a bit of research required here), you can save the people you leave behind a great deal of heartache by not foisting the decision on them.
Coincidentally at the same time, I had to have my cat put to sleep. The vet came to my house, he received a single injection, and then he peacefully fell asleep in my arms without so much as a twitch. The entire process took not five minutes altogether. I know which way of dying I'd prefer, if it was my terminally ill body at stake.
Her parents wanted to keep feeding her while her husband fought to remove the feeding tube and prevent anyone from feeding her by mouth.
Conveniently for Michael, Terri was allowed to starve to death and he was free to spend whatever remained of the 2 million dollar medical malpractice judgement on himself, his new consort and their children.
I still don't know most of these details, and have forgotten most of what I learned at the time, and honestly that's for the better. It's none of my friggin' business, except that it highlighted some serious problems in the US legal system. And we could have learned about that problem without ever hearing the name "Terri Schiavo" or knowing anything about the personal lives of her & her family.
Until the problems are fixed (if they can be), it's important to make a living will. It shouldn't be left to your husband and parents (and the news anchors, and higher elected officials of your country) to battle each other over who has more right to say what should happen to your brainless body.
Make sure the people who need to know understand roughly what you want, and who you trust to make decisions on your behalf about palliative care, life-prolonging treatments, etc.. Google has lots of advice, free templates, etc..
Wikipedia says Terri was brain-dead for 15 years before she finally died. I don't think I know anyone who'd want their body kept alive that long. I know I would not.
Saying that Ms. Schiavo was "brain dead" is an inaccurate description. Terri was severely brain damaged. She was in a persistent vegetative state. She exhibited a profound loss of brain mass. She would have never recovered but she wasn't brain dead either.
Brain dead people don't react to their mother's voice. Terri did. Brain dead people don't track moving object. Terri did.
It's not like she was on life support. They gave her food and water through a tube. She breathed on her own and her heart beat on its own without any external assistance.
She wasn't allowed to die; she was starved to death and again, that makes me angry.
There was apparently 6 hours of video that her parents cut down to about 6 minutes that seemed to show her reacting to her mother; but the judge who watched the whole thing didn't have that impression (and the majority of the doctors evaluating it also said she was in a typical persistent vegetative state).
Maybe she did have enough brain left to occasionally have some low level of awareness? I can't pretend to know.
But if I were in that state, I would certainly not have wanted to be kept alive as long as she was; I would want to be euthanized. Perhaps you would not, and I certainly don't know what Terri would have wanted.
But that's my point, really -- people have different ideas on how to make these decisions, and it shouldn't have been left in the hands of her husband, family, etc..
If my wife wants to move on with her life -- remarry, whatever -- and I'm in a state like Terri Schiavo was, I sure as hell don't want it to be her decision whether I live or die, based on vague memories of what I've said in the past. I'd far rather my wishes were clear, and she could let me go with as little trauma as possible.
Sure, it's possible this line of research could lead to recovery, but the idea that the brain is "on pause" while in a persistent vegetative state and would be capable of returning to normal function is probably not reality.
Keep in mind TDCS isn't a fancy brain machine interface that's intelligently interacting with neurons, it's just dumb direct current that's being sent into tissue...
I think the overall line of research certainly is worthwhile pursuing, just that this specific tDCS project may be being overhyped in just how much it means...
> An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind