This article is somewhat misleading. It is a blatant attempt to attack those who talk about stopping life support for patients with no hope of recovery. According to a previous article, there was never any discussion with the doctors about "unplugging" this patient since he never met the criteria that would be required for that discussion to take place. I find what MSNBC has done with this article to be in extremely poor taste and completely misleading on this very difficult subject. I am very happy that this kid is recovering from his injuries and hope that he has a speedy and complete recovery. That said, he was never in danger of being "unplugged" and should not be used as some poster boy for those who fight cutting off life support under any circumstances. It would be completely disingenuous and make a mockery out of the tough decision that many families must face every year.

You hear the stories of exhumed bodies with scratches in the lids of the coffins. With the 200+ years of modern medicine we can still find that we give up too soon, too often. This is great story.

Stupidhumannetwork are u kidding? Just enjoy the miracle that the family is enjoying! Find something to do!

Catherine: Be careful, you may be in for an onslaught of people telling you that miracles don't happen or exist. Just know that I'm not one of them.

Miracles happen every day. I am very happy that he has come out of his coma.

BTW, I can remember when my daughter, who had just turned 18, had to face college announcements about female students as "women," and she hated it, because it sounded so fake to her; adding "women" to the announcements was extraneous. It is courteous at least to say "man" over 21. Those in the military or working expect formal titles. I'm sick of the political overtones; we're all human anyway.

To get to manhood, you must first grow up. Some never do.

your an idoit

you're

Curiosity: do you ask that of every person who wakes from a coma?

I wouldn't ask it, but I'm sure his doctors and family have.

AMW: I fear that will be one of the unknown consequences of Obamacare should it be fully implemented. There are more than a few who believe that decision should NOT be left to the family.

But as ol Nancy said, "he uuumm have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." I'll bet you a reduction of the freedom of the family to make that decision is in there somewhere. Just a hunch.

You are an idiot who can't even leave your political crap out of a joyful Christmas story like this one.

jt in sd: Perhaps you didn't see the section of the story that dealt with the possible removal of life support. AMW, and for that matter, myself, were taking it to the logical conclusion of the next step. If the support had been removed, there would be an extremely good chance that his organs would have been "harvested" (to use the common medical euphemism).

In this case that would have been tragic. But, like it or not, politics is indeed very much involved in decisions of how particular policies of organ donation are implemented.

To be sure, anyone with a heart (er, no pun intended) would feel good about this story, and you can think me to be an idiot if you wish. Even so, I hope your Christmas was a merry one.

I was in a coma once when I was involved in a UFO crash. I was only 5 at the time and the newspaper called me a "man," so I also lost my childhood in this incident.

The doctors said I had no chance of recovering and my organs were harvested....then I woke up. The doctors were able to transplant in organs from old people who were deemed useless by ObamaCare so I am fine and I know about things I've never done...magic of medicine!!!!

If he had been an organ donor, and the decision was made to euthanize him, sure, his organs may have been used to save other people. I don't see a problem with that, as the potential for him to be an organ donor is not considered during the decision whether or not to euthanize him (Which, as the article makes clear, was up to his family. Not his doctor, not the government, not me, not you).

If he was taken off of life support, he would have died (or not depending on his bodies reaction) - if he did what happens to his organs next is of no consequence really to him. They weren't discussing removing support in order to harvest his organs. If anything Obamacare is more likely to provide families the means to continue life support procedures if they so choose, without bankrupting themselves.

But by all means, consider being ignorant and crazy.

Flying Goat / Capt Tripps: You are correct in that they weren't talking about harvesting his organs, because he was never taken off of life support. Nor were they considering pulling him off of life support in order to do so. That's not the argument I'm making

In order to understand this argument, you have to think a little outside of the box and consider what would have happened had he had been declared brain dead. Had that been the case, they would have in essence killed someone who had the ability to come out of the coma he was in. Yes, I understand that had support been removed and his organs harvested, we would have never have know that. I get that.

I'm just looking at it from the perspective that it was indeed very fortunate that he was not declared brain dead or removed from life support too soon.

I have no problem with organ donation. Should a tragic accident happen to me, I'm a donor myself.

As far as Obamacare in relation to organ donation goes: I don't think you know anymore than I do about what is in the bill. But it appears that my opinion registers me as "ignorant and crazy". But somehow, the fact that you don't know either, but just assume that Obamacare will provide families the means to continue support, even though you have no evidence to support that, makes you reasonable in your own mind.

My assumption is based on the belief that government policy in general, rarely works out the way it is intended. I have no doubt what so ever that Obamacare, if fully implemented, will become an absolute disaster. There has NEVER been a nationally implemented government program that has not cost exponentially more than projected, nor one that has not, over a period of time, grown far beyond its original scope and intent.

It's not what Obamacare starts out as, it's what it becomes over time that is scary. The fact that they started off by using the health care bill as a means to nationalize student loans was a dead give away. And that will only be the beginning.

The doctor was very clear in this case that they were nowhere near taking him off life support. The family may have been frustrated and discouraged, because a chronic condition can cause depression, but the doctor's "one more week" was just a way to put them off. The brain scans didn't look that good either; the doctor was acting in a wonderful, compassionate way. Brain dead is much much worse than he was though.

I've been in discussions like this, because my husband has cancer. It goes like this. "Do you have a living will or a medical Power of Attorney?" "Would you like one?" This is asked, by the way, if you happen to go to the ER with a cold. But if you have a serious illness or condition, they also try to give you an idea about different possible outcomes far in the future. "If he gets worse, what would you want to do?" They really want you to start thinking about it early so that you are able to make plans, not to disconnect for goodness' sake, but perhaps funeral, financial changes, family arrangements, etc. They also ask if you have family or friends who can help with chores or care. This is all part of the SUPPORT for the family. It is asked MONTHS or YEARS before needed. They ask you to talk to pastors, counselors, etc., and they don't want to disconnect you for any reason; they just want to know what MIGHT be necessary down the road.

Now the government breathing down your neck thing: I feel the LACK of government breathing down my neck, specifically people who are against healthcare. If my husband can't work, we'll have to get COBRA for him from his job. After a year we would be able to get Medicare, only FOR HIM. I would have to go to work full time (at the same time as caring for him at home) to get my own insurance. If he can't work there will be no company life insurance either. If he dies I will have nothing. I won't get Social Security either until I reach my own retirement age, so whatever job I might get certainly will not pay for my house payments, and goodbye everything. Why the heck won't people pass Universal Healthcare? Do they hate other Americans so much? Do they hate America?

You might not like me very much, but does it have to so specifically target and invade every aspect of my life?

IMO one of the biggest failures with regard to healthcare in this country was tying insurance to one's employment. It's created a huge burden for the employers, and it leaves so many people hanging out to dry at the very time they need the most help. It's amazing you can spend decades paying into a plan and find yourself adrift without so much as a life preserver.

Conservative - Ask anyone on Medicaid how they feel about it. Everyday the government does ten thousand things right, and you never hear about it. They overspend, overstep and waste like no other, to be sure, but there are things they do (regulatory, infrastructure management, the MAIL) that the private sector couldn't.

Or we could thank the doctor; after all, he has free will.

Just saying.