LAT/AP: Sharon Remains in Coma 9 Days After Stroke

[DeepModem Mom]

Sharon Remains in Coma 9 Days After Stroke
From Associated Press


JERUSALEM -- Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's failure to wake up from a coma nine days after suffering a massive stroke does not bode well for his recovery, some doctors said today.

With extensive brain damage looking likely, Israelis have begun to look ahead to life without Sharon.

Sharon, 77, remained in "critical but stable" condition today, showing no change from the previous day, said Hadassah Hospital spokesman Ron Krumer.

Israel's Channel 10 TV and Army Radio cited Hadassah officials as saying they were worried Sharon has shown no signs of awakening, even though doctors have begun weaning him off heavy sedatives used to keep his blood pressure in check and give his brain time to heal.

However, Krumer and outside experts cautioned it's too early to make conclusions about Sharon's long-term prospects. He's still receiving minimal amounts of sedatives, Krumer said, adding, "The period of time it takes a patient to wake up from such a condition after undergoing such an event differs from one patient to another."...


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-011306sharon_wr,0,1716913.story?coll=la-home-headlines&track=morenews

[DemInDistress]

1. hope he becomes a vegetable... sorry !! nt

[KDLarsen]

2. That's not very nice..

While I personally loathed his track record, especially the trip to Temple Mount, his current condition is going to have a VERY negative impact on the peace proces. With elections coming, Kadima, whom most consider to be nothing without Sharon, is probably going to see a lot of members & votes return to Likud, thus making Benjamin Netanyahu a new PM. And with Benjamin Netanyahu in the PM seat, the peace proces is going to come to a VERY screeching halt.

Ariel Sharon is/was the only politician who could combine the Israelis' hunger for security with the same hunger for peace, and neither Amir Peretz (leader of Israel's labour party & promoter of peace) or Benjamin Netanyahu (promoter of security through strict control of the Palestinians) can do both things. And I personally fear the Israelis' are going to chose security over peace.

[Wordie]

4. After leaving Likud so dramatically, Those members of Kadima who left

may be far more likely to stay where they are. After all, they left Likud for a reason. Most polls in Israel still show Kadima way ahead, and Likud comes out 3rd after Peretz' Labor party. Netanyahu is still a force to be reckoned with, but a large portion of the Israeli electorate is apparently tired of him. (A very good thing.) In the words of one Knesset member, "He has experience -- the trouble is, it was not a good one."

Everything will depend on whether voters continue to support Kadima once it gets closer to the actual election, and that's still a long way off (March). All the saber-rattling and rhetoric about Ahmadinejad (sp?) in Iran, and the possibility of Iran going nuclear (which many experts say is still years off), could help Netanyahu, as he is the most hawkish. The more percieved threat, the more the voters may tilt right.

All the stories about the Israeli illegal settlers destroying Palestinian farmers olive trees, on the other hand, which are fairly unknown here, but really important to Israelis, might cause problems for Netanyahu, who tends to support the settlements more than the other candidates.

Here's a link to a recent Mail & Guardian article that explains the candidates positions:

Possible successors
Ehud Olmert: His public statements indicate a greater willingness for compromise with the Palestinians than Ariel Sharon. But he is committed to Sharon’s desire to draw Israel’s final borders to annex the main settlement blocks in the occupied territories. As acting leader, Olmert is likely to be hawkish on security to establish his security credentials with the public. He is a skilled politician, if not particularly popular. But he is trusted by the United States and is likely to be its favoured candidate.

Binyamin Netanyahu: The leader of Likud does not support the creation of an independent Palestinian state. He would like Israel to hold on to as much of the occupied territories as possible, and to afford the Palestinians only limited self-government. He was opposed to the Gaza pullout and has said he would not hand any territory to the Palestinians without a negotiated agreement. But he is also against talks with the Palestinian leadership.

Amir Peretz: The Labour Party leader was a committed peace activist, advocating a Palestinian state long before most Israelis accepted the idea. He says he would open negotiations toward final status talks and only if they fail would he unilaterally attempt to impose a border. Recently he has back-pedalled on support for dividing Jerusalem and the removal of most Jewish settlers from the occupied territories. Peretz has to establish his security credentials, and is likely to take a tough stance if he becomes prime minister.

Shimon Peres: While Peres strongly favours negotiation, he also believes unilateral steps such as the Gaza pullout can draw peace closer. But he is more cautious these days on how to reach a final agreement, saying the flaw in the failed Oslo peace process was the attempt to achieve a deal in one big leap, rather than through a series of advances.

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=261163&area=/insight/insight__international/

[Tom Joad]

7. His contribution to "peace" is already a well-worn myth. The plan was...

always to expand settlements, thereby excluding the hope of peace.

This is a letter from Human Rights Watch to Bush, regarding that Plan, and its impact on human rights. How can anyone say it was a plan for "peace"? Or even security for Israelis?
I do share your concern about the future, and i hope the Israelis do not choose Bibi. However, the current direction under Olmert and Sharon was also a recipe for disaster.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/27/isrlpa12346.htm

Dear President Bush,

I am writing to you with respect to multiple Israeli announcements of its plans to continue expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). This directly contravenes international law and Israeli commitments under the Road Map.

You recently reiterated Israel’s obligations to stop expanding settlements when you said, on October 20, 2005, following your meeting with Palestinian President Abbas: “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.” Israel has acted contrary to these obligations, escalating the building of settlements in 2005. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, in the first half of 2005, there was a 28% increase in settlement housing starts compared to the same period in 2004. Israel now proposes to further expand West Bank settlements in the coming year.

<snip>
Israel’s continuing settlement activity is a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL), United Nations Security Council resolutions, and Israel’s own commitments under the U.S.-sponsored Road Map of April 2003. The Israeli government’s policy of encouraging, financing, establishing, and expanding Jewish-only settlements in the OPT violates two main principles of IHL: the prohibition on the transfer of civilians from an occupying power's territory to the occupied territory, and the prohibition of creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population. In particular, Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "he Occupying Power shall not …transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Under the road map, Israel agreed to freeze all settlement activity, including “natural growth,” and to dismantle all settlement outposts created since March 2001.

[napi21]

3. I don't wish Sharon anything bad, but it's NOT good that he can't

wake up. I know I tend to be a skeptic most of the time, but I expected the announcement of his death last weekend. He's old, and few if any humans can undergo 2 strokes in a very short time, and two surgeries in two days, and come out of it OK.

I'm not sure the Drs did him any favors with what they've done. I believe Sharon would have said "just let me die" if he thought he would be nothing more than a vegetable. He is proud man, and would hate to be in a state like this.

[megatherium]

5. I've read he left no do-not-resuscitate order.

So he could be in this unfortunate state for a long time.

My father recently died of lung cancer. We were told, if you find him unconscious, call the hospice people, do not call 911 -- if 911 sent paramedics, they would be legally obliged to resuscitate if possible, contrary to my father's instructions (specified in his will) to not do so.

[napi21]

6. I don't know about Sharon and a DNR order, but I have MINE!

I don't know what a DNR would mean in the Sharon case though. I guess it depends on how specific you get, but I'm not sure it covers a situation when you are found to have bleading in the brain that the Drs think they can fix?

I just think they went too far.

[megatherium]

9. I should have a will drawn up myself, with end-of-life instructions.

I would expect the DNR would pertain to situations where recovery is unlikely. I don't remember what the article about Sharon I read said, but I think it quoted persons who were saying something to the effect that it is unfortunate he didn't have a DNR, after his second massive stroke.

[malaise]

8. He will never wake up

they should have let him die in peace since last week.

[WhiteTara]

10. I wonder if he is being visited by the people

he massacred? Just because his body is not working doesn't mean he isn't living on a karmic level, just MHO.

[ckramer]

11. Visiting by Arafat?

And all the bulldozer victims?

[WhiteTara]

12. those too n/t