This is a discussion on Good News for Special Olympics and Paralympics? Or Bad? in the Open Discussion & Chit-chat forum
http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFrie...storyID=579558 ...
DISCLAIMER Any resemblance between the views expressed above and those of the owners and operators of this system is purely coincidental. Any resemblance between these views and my own are non-deterministic. The existence of Vin DSL is questionable. The existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is problematic. The existence of the reader is left as an exercise in the second-order coefficient.
.![]()
Last edited by lokki; 09-08-2004 at 11:13 PM.
Vin it's time for another break. Get out and get some fresh air.
Looking Out - Playing Bloodletting
Before everyone explodes...![]()
"it is very well known, that they are every day dying...as fast as can be reasonably expected"
Can you name that author?
At least I hope that is where you are coming from Vin...lol.
Euthanasia is wrong for anyone at any age.
Originally Posted by mattsiegman
I couldn't agree more!
Regardless of how much pain an individual has to endure or the lack of brain activity involved, the potential for scientific and medical advancement is greatly enhanced by using said individuals as human guinea pigs.
Tell 'em to shut up and take one (I meant it) like a man!
Well, they started off by killing sick adults (living wills and creeping euthanasia via denied resuscitation in medical care facilites, et cetera). Then, it was unwanted babies (abortion), followed by lonely old ladies (euthanasia). Now, they want to get rid of ill adolescents, e.g. creeping infanticide. Many countries, such as China and India, already practice female infanticide (baby boys seem to be more valuable commodity).
The trend is already in place. I'm just wandering who's gonna be left to participate in the Special Olympics, and so forth.
DISCLAIMER Any resemblance between the views expressed above and those of the owners and operators of this system is purely coincidental. Any resemblance between these views and my own are non-deterministic. The existence of Vin DSL is questionable. The existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is problematic. The existence of the reader is left as an exercise in the second-order coefficient.
<sarcasm> Yeah. We should force everyone in nursing homes to be violently resuscitated, and ventilated (perhaps for years) against their will. That's liberty and respect for life. </sarcasm>
Having just gone through hospice care with my mother, I am fully prepared to argue for the right to die.
I've got my boxing glovesand my RedSox batting helmet d8^) on.
Discussion anyone?
PS How 'BOUT them Sox?
Resuscitation is entirely different. All you have to give a person is reasonable medical care. If someone is going to die, they'll die. As long as you give food and water and medicine, i'm ok with it.
Euthanasia is murder. It's that simple. It isn't letting someone die when it's their time, it's killing them.
Well, if you keep it generic, I'll discuss the issue. But I'm not going to get into some circular argument with you over whether or not your mother is better off dead than alive! You're probably still going through the grieving process. I don't know if you're relieved, mad, happy, or whatever. I'm probably the wrong person to discuss those kinds of things with anyway.
Having considered this for quite some time, I think we're all better off dead. After all, like Hank Williams sang, "No matter how you struggle and strive, you'll never get out of life alive." What do they always say? "Oh, that's too bad, but they're better off (dead)." My immediate thought is, "Yeah, aren't we all?"
I understand ppl don't want to watch their life savings go down the drain, while junior lays in bed and craps all over himself, but how do they deal with putting someone to death, just 'cause they're tired of dealing with them being alive?
What are the Special Olympics all about anyway, if not the celebration of modern day holocaust survivors? When they're all done away with... whose next? I think that's where I was going with this...
You know, they say what goes around, comes around. Many of you ppl have one foot in the grave. How are you going to feel when your 'loved' ones have had enough of you, and the mounting bills - watching their inheritance slipping away?
Ppl, these days, generally lead a healthier lifestyle. It used to be the big three - cancer, heart disease and stroke - and you went pretty fast. Now, by taking care of yourself, all you are doing is insuring that you will die of some hideous, lingering ailment. At some point, you will meet the same fate, no?
DISCLAIMER Any resemblance between the views expressed above and those of the owners and operators of this system is purely coincidental. Any resemblance between these views and my own are non-deterministic. The existence of Vin DSL is questionable. The existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is problematic. The existence of the reader is left as an exercise in the second-order coefficient.
via what means?Originally Posted by mattsiegman
How do you feed/water/medicate a person who is unable to do so for himself?
What do you do if they simply refuse to be fed/watered/medicated?
What do you do if they're not conscious?
What do you do if they're unconscious and have asked not to be kept alive?
What if they have not made clear a preference?
My arguments won't be circular.Originally Posted by Vin DSL
Let's start out by defining the statement. Who is denying the resuscitation? Family? Government policy? Other?Originally Posted by Vin DSL
The moral intent is to end the suffering of the patient, not the survivors. Unfortunately, it's difficult to make that distinction sometimes. I'd say euthenasia should be allowed if the person is able to make that decision in a legally sane way (full comptency), and the condition is not reversable or treatable, and will cause unreasonable suffering to the patient. The financial burden to the survivors should not be an issue, thought that's arguably a very harsh approach.
Oddly enough, I take a liberal view in that here's one thing I think the state should be able to intervene and pay for... money should never be a question in sustaining life in reasonable circumstances. Lots of grey area that I don't have time to get into right now, so please give me the benefit of the doubt and leave 'stupid' arguments aside...
Oh, you know, the kind that's been going on for years. You go home to change your underwear and brush your teeth. When you get back to the hospital, they tell you Aunt May suffered another heart attack while you were gone, and they resuscitated her. Everyone leaves the room, and the doctor takes you off to the side. He whispers that this is just going to keep happening, and suggests that maybe next time it might be better if they just let her slip away peacefully. Wink, wink! Nudge, nudge!Originally Posted by Ron
Last edited by Vin DSL; 09-09-2004 at 10:55 AM.
DISCLAIMER Any resemblance between the views expressed above and those of the owners and operators of this system is purely coincidental. Any resemblance between these views and my own are non-deterministic. The existence of Vin DSL is questionable. The existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is problematic. The existence of the reader is left as an exercise in the second-order coefficient.
Sorry, bro, but I'm calling bull on that...Originally Posted by lokki
DISCLAIMER Any resemblance between the views expressed above and those of the owners and operators of this system is purely coincidental. Any resemblance between these views and my own are non-deterministic. The existence of Vin DSL is questionable. The existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is problematic. The existence of the reader is left as an exercise in the second-order coefficient.
Copyright © 2011 JaguarPC.com
Bookmarks