An Italian coma victim who recently regained consciousness after two years in a nearly dead state, awoke saying he heard and understood everything happening around him during his long ordeal.  His coma was caused by a road accident in 2003. Doctors thought his condition was hopeless and that he would be dead in three to four months. 

Salvatore Crisafulli, a father of four, is describing his case as a "miracle" which proves that lost causes are anything but hopeless and his recovery appeared to strengthen the hand of Italians opposed to end-of-life solutions.

Even though the case is not medically comparable, his brother called Crisafulli "an Italian Terri Schiavo case" with reference to the brain-damaged Florida woman who died in March after her feeding tube was removed.  "The doctors said that I wasn't conscious, but I understood everything and I cried in desperation," Crisafulli was quoted as saying in Italian media on Wednesday.

Can or should we trust doctor evaluations of "hopeless" cases?  Does this make you rethink how long life-sustaining measures should be provided to patients who have been diagnosed as beyond hope of recovery?

Can or should we trust doctor evaluations of "hopeless" cases?  Does this make you rethink how long life-sustaining measures should be provided to patients who have been diagnosed as beyond hope of recovery?

I've been slow to respond to this question because I find this kind of issue much more difficult than almost any other.  I usually have a knee-jerk liberal's ability to render a snap judgement on most political and moral issues because I know I'm right. <g>

But on "life" issues, I think my Catholic upbringing interacts with my liberal tendencies and leaves my knee twitching aimlessly rather than jerking.

Specifically, my head says it's important to be "pro-choice" at both ends of life, leaving those horribly painful decisions about abortion and euthanasia safely in the hands of the individual most involved, or when necessary his or her family, and that there's no place for government or for rigid law in this deeply personal process.

But my heart says that life is precious and that killing is wrong. 

It's a dilemma, and not an easy one, but I ultimately come down on the side that it has to be an individual decision, unencumbered by law; and that if such a decision must be made at all, it should be made wisely and prudently and with good, objective advice.

I loved what Bill Clinton (and Hillary, too) said about abortion: It should be legal, available and rare. And I feel the same about euthanasia. Don't rule out the possibility of easing a loved one's journey to the other side when the end is near, pain is intractible, and there's no quality of life and no hope of restoring it. We do it for our pets (and that's a horribly painful and difficult decision, too). So we should be able to do it for our human loved ones.

But it would be horrible if we step onto a slippery slope that leads to euthanasia simply because grandpa is old and frail, or the new baby has Down Syndrome, or Johnny fell off a cliff and will have to be in a wheelchair now.

So, circling back to the original question, the family should seriously consider the doctor's advice. But the decision should be that of the individual and the family, not the doctor and certainly not the law.

No easy answers on this one.  I hope this makes some kind of sense.

In my normal authoritarian manner I instructed that the final decision was more about the living than the dying. They all knew that I would pull the plug in an end of life situation but it was more important that there was complete consensus among the threee of them in what was to be done with me than any consideration of my state of pain or lack of awareness.

Good points all, Jim.  Of course, when it comes down to it, the biggest issue in the Schiavo case was that the husband and the parents disagreed, and by all accounts came to despise each other; and amid really nasty charges in both directions, they were never going to agree.

If there's any lesson here, it's the one you make implicitly above: Have a firm, clear and unambiguous living will, and get legal advice about ensuring that the person you want to carry out your decisions holds an unchallengeable durable power of attorney if you're not competent.

Of course, a big part of the problem in cases like Schiavo's is that the debate falls into two categories that aren't entirely parallel.  On one side, there's the argument about who should make the decision and the individual issues in this particular case; on the other, there's the broader argument about "life" issues and whether euthanasia is permissible at all and under what circumstances.

This man was clearly not in PVS...he was just in a coma....a coma means the brain is still INTACT...the brain is injured and the brain shuts down due to the injury but not dead or damaged beyond repair or recovery.  He cannot be compared to Terri Schiavo at all because Terri was PVS and this Italian man was NOT.  People seem to confuse and lump coma with PVS.  They are 2 very different thing.   Actually, a PVS patient APPEARS more alert than a comatose patient does, but PVS patient is beyond recovery because the brain is so heavily damaged and atrophied, and ther patients' movement are enabled by the brain stem, the only part of the brain that is still intact in most PVS patients.   Comatose patients have brains that are still functional, still intact, with some possible damages that can be rehabiliated.  

This man came out of his coma, able to speak, convey message, share his thoughts...that is a classic comatose patient, not PVS patient.   He can be comparable to TERRY WALLIS...an Oklahoma man who suddenly woke up after 19 years in coma and started talking a month later...however, his brain was so damaged his progress has been very slow and very limited, yet people compared him to Terri....NOT COMPARABLE.  Wallis was comatose, like this Italian man, and Terri was NOT comatose.

 I think you said it quite well.

Thanks, Cy.  I misquoted Billary, though, now that I look at it ... they said "safe, legal and rare" which puts it even better.

I believe it's not our choice when we die, nor should we choose a time for anyone else to die. I believe Terry Shaivo's case was a type of murder, or at the very least negligence. Barbara in Florida

With respect, though, Barbara, that's not a "debate," it's a flat statement that "This is the way things ARE."  You certainly have a right to declare that Schiavo was "murdered," but most of us are here to look closely at issues and try to consider the moral and ethical implications with a somewhat more open mind. 

 I help to take care of my mother who has had a stroke and is on a feeding tube. I've been paying close attention to this subject. When Mother Theresa visted the White House, she  appealed to Mr. Clinton to stand for the cause of the unborn. The audience stood to it's feet in applause, all except the Clinton's and the Gore's. After the event, the Presdient was asked about what Mother Theresea had said, to which he replied, "It's hard to argue about a life so well lived" Abortion is not RARE, it is an in most cases a quick remedy for a compromising situation.

It was Dr. Suess who said, " I person is a person not matter how small". We have lost repect for the unborn, and I believe  that the extreme violience in our society  is an out pouring of lack of repect in what Jesus called, " The least of these" at any stage in life.

God is the giver of life and He should be the taker as well. I do agree  with you that each  person should had it wriiten out legally about certain artifical means to sustain life after a long period of time and when to have it cut off, but only if there is no brain activity.  But in Terri's case the family was willing to care for her. If we must  ere, let us ere in the side of caution. I am sure that this man is glad that his family did not terminate his life.