Biology Blog

I am known to be an ethical person in my blogs. However, the ethical case here (dehydration, starvation, is wrong) is simply one I do not agree with. This is because of the simple fact that the dehydration was NOT painful. She did not feel it. How can I say this with such certainty?

My aunt, who is in the last stages of cancer, made the decision last week to stop all nutrient IVs. This will essentially starve her through dehydration. However, she will not feel any pain or hunger because of it. She chose that path because it is painless. Granted, she is on a large amount of painkillers. However, their effect is less than that of a full-on coma. She is awake and aware, and the dehydration is not making her suffer. So how can I argue that dehydration made a person in PVS suffer?

Once past the cruelty argument, you come to a black-and-white decision. You either let her go or you don’t. Some would say it is a decision to kill her or not. However, in my opinion, Terry Schiavo was already dead. Her awareness, perception, and cognition were literally destroyed as a result of oxygen deprivation. She was declared to be in a persistent vegetative state by countless neurologists. All of her behavior-even that in the videotapes released by her parents to plead their case-was determined to be either reflexive or instinctive. She was gone, yet the mechanics still remained working. Terry Schiavo was dead; it was time to put her body to rest.

In my humble opinion, death is when the brain is no longer aware of surroundings, and there is no hope for recovery. Then the person, the entity, is gone, and only a shell of a body remains.

The below picture shows a normal 25-year old brain (on the left), and Terry Shiavo’s brain (right) when she was 38 years old.

HIV is a heartbreaking disease, especially when seen infecting young children. Though I feel extraordinary sympathy for all who have HIV, I do not support integrating infected children into schools. I came to this decision after considering the situation from the views of many of the groups involved.

First are the children themselves. They have to have some understanding of what is infecting them. Whether or not they know of the full implications is irrelevant; they know that they “have” something others do not, that others even seem afraid of. This must make them feel different. It is also very likely that the other children have been told by their parents to avoid this one child. These parents have every right to do so; I have to admit that I would if I were in that position. This will make the child feel even more ostracized. I believe that they would be happier in a place where this tension did not exist.

Next are children’s classmates. Children in elementary school are not likely to have a concept of what HIV really is. However, if their parents tell them to stay away from a certain child, then they are likely to follow orders. Once you get into middle and high school, the perception of the disease becomes much more apparent, and children would probably avoid that one child simply because they understand what HIV can cause. The risks to these classmates are low, but they still exist, especially in the lower grades where children are constantly getting scraped playing outside.

            Now we will examine the parents of these classmates. I believe they would be very much on the side of keeping their children away from HIV infected youth. Any small risk is still a huge concern for a parent. Ignorance would also come into play here. Many people do not know how hard it is to “catch” HIV, and ignorance combined with a maternal/paternal need to protect their offspring at all costs (to ensure the survival of their genetic code) could lead to parents going to desperate measures to keep their children away from risk. This could include many things: from instructing their children not to associate with the child, to petitioning the school board about the issue, to pulling their children out of that school, and placing them in a “safer” environment.

            Finally, there are the HIV-infected children’s parents. They most likely want their children to have a good, equal education. They want them treated just like any other child. But that is just the thing. Their children are not just like any other children. They are infected with a life-threatening disease. Harsh, but true.

 So, my position is this: HIV-infected children should not be allowed in schools with other, healthy children. There are other options. These include online schooling (something that is becoming very widely used), home-schooling, and even schools especially for children with HIV. The only loss I can see that would come to a child being denied school access is loss of social interaction, as equal education can be found elsewhere. And what good social interaction would come to a child that is ostracized by their classmates?

Comments (both supporting and opposing) are welcome.

If I was able to travel back in time and speak to the scientist of my choice, I believe I would decide upon the late 1630’s and the brilliant physicist, astronomer, astrologer, and philosopher Galileo Galilei. Galileo was an amazing man, who-among many other things-improved the telescope, discovered lunar geography, determined the correct mathematical law for acceleration, wrote the basic principle of relativity, built the thermometer, and contributed to the heliocentric model. There was great controversy over this last contribution. The Church authorities were adamantly against the idea that the Earth rotates around a stationary Sun, and they ordered Galileo to stop supporting the heliocentric model. However, when a new pope came to power, he asked Galileo to write an unbiased book comparing the arguments for and against the idea. Unfortunately, the resulting work was obviously one-sided, favoring heliocentrism and making the Church’s side seem under-supported and even foolish. The pope took great offense at this, and ordered Galileo to stand trial for heresy. The sentencing banned the recent work of Galileo and all his future publications, required Galileo to recant all allegiance to the heliocentric theory, and imprisoned him, later reducing the sentence to house arrest, under which he stayed for the remainder of his life. I would come to Galileo after his sentencing when he was under house arrest. I cannot imagine how horrible he must have felt, knowing he was right yet never being able to explain himself in future writings. I would tell him what I believe was the thing he most wanted to hear: He was right. He was right, and some day the general scientific community would whole-heartedly accept his heliocentric theory as fact. I would tell him how he is revered for his work, and often called “the father of modern physics,” “the father of modern astronomy,” and even “the father of science.” I would explain how his works contributed to some of the most famous scientists in the world, such as Georg Cantor and Albert Einstein. I believe that these words would put this brilliant man’s heart at rest. Even though he was secluded then, he would be able to know how much his life’s work really mattered.