Another Democrat

[hugo]

The fact is we are all a burden at the beginning of life and many of us will be a burden at the end of our life.The ones who should shoulder the burden is our family. Our parents when we are young, our children when we are old.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

You are right. It is partly based on my Christian beliefs but mostly due to just being a decent human being with some form of compassion.

Ok... let's just say everyone has a huge amount of compassion. When and where does mercy come into play? After the infirm has writhed in pain?

I know your injuries were not that serious during the war but let's say the shrapnel did more damage than it did and you were now paralyzed from the neck down. Should you be killed? You were born naturally, paid your taxes, served your country, and were a productive member of society until that point. Although you would probably rather not live that way, for argument's sake, let's say you wanted to live. Should someone step in and tell you that you were going to be euthanized because you were no longer able to contribute to the greater good?

No... the USMC instilled in me not to fear death. I do not fear death, but what I do fear is a cage. The bed would be my cage and I would greatly desire to be released from bondage.

Now to stop dancing around the "what if?" question you posed; I would hope that if I wanted to live I could mumble the words "kill me".

 

[Phantom]

Ok... let's just say everyone has a huge amount of compassion. When and where does mercy come into play? After the infirm has writhed in pain?

That is a good question. Although it still leaves room for abuse (like greedy relatives wanting their inheritance), things should be up to the family members. In this case, the family gave the boy up for adoption and another took on the responsibility. As long as it is left in the hands of the family and not the government, that would make things a little more fair.

Honestly, euthanasia has been a sensitive issue for years. For me to offer a definite solution to the problem would be foolish. Personally, if they are in pain or would prefer death, then they should be allowed. Not many would prefer to be in a comatose or paralyzed state. However, if they cannot choose for themselves, then it should be up to the family.

No... the USMC instilled in me not to fear death. I do not fear death, but what I do fear is a cage. The bed would be my cage and I would greatly desire to be released from bondage.

I had a feeling you wouldn't want to live so I tried to switch the hypothetical situation over to you wanting to live. If someone wanted to live, it should be their right. If someone wanted to die, that should be their right. If someone is incapable of making the decision, then it should be up to the family.

Now to stop dancing around the "what if?" question you posed; I would hope that if I wanted to live I could mumble the words "kill me".

Most people would probably prefer death in a situation like that.

 

[hugo]

An interesting article,

In the Blink of an Eye: A Look at Locked-in Syndrome
Shadia Bel Hamdounia

"Twelfth Night", "Freaky Friday"--we are all familiar with the many scenarios that depict a common fear—being trapped in another's body. But there exists a bigger nightmare. Imagine the horror of being trapped in one's own body. For those with locked-in syndrome (LIS), that fear is a reality.

LIS describes one of the most debilitating conditions in which a person retains consciousness. The result of head injury, brain-stem strokes, or neurological diseases like ALS, locked-in syndrome is caused by a lesion in the nerve centers that control muscle contraction or a blood clot that blocks circulation of oxygen to the brain stem(6),. First introduced in 1966 by Plum and Posner, the term has since then been redefined as "quadriplegia and anarthia, with preservation of consciousness".(1). (Anarthia refers to the neurologic inability to speak, as opposed to an unwillingness to speak.) Unable to either move, or speak, yet fully cognizant of the world around them, these individuals are virtually locked in. An accurate diagnosis of LIS depends on the recognition that the patient can open his eyes voluntarily rather than spontaneously in the vegetative state.(4). Although horizontal eye movements are usually lost, the ability to open their eyes and blink is retained.(4) Therein lies the key to communication with the outside world.

I first learned about this extremely rare condition while helping a friend with a French paper. The subject, Jean-Dominique Bauby's, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly", piqued my interest. On Dec. 8th, 1995, Bauby, a 42-year-old father of two, was test-driving a new car when he suffered a massive stroke. He awoke from a coma two months later to find himself paralyzed and speechless, but able to move one muscle: his left eyelid.(3) Due to his privileged position as an author and editor of a popular French magazine, he was afforded the opportunity to do the unimaginable—share his experience with the outside world. With the aid of a secretary and an elaborate alphabet in which each letter was recited to him in the frequency with which it occurs in the French language, he was able to blink his novel.(3)

It was Alexandre Dumas who in 1820 first described LIS when he created Monsieur Noirtier de Villefort in his novel, The Count of Monte Cristo. He described his character as a "corpse with living eyes"(1), but Bauby's tale contradicts this commonly held notion. He recounts his struggle with the realization that he is trapped within a paralyzed body—the diving bell—in which his mind flies like a butterfly:

"I am fading away, slowly, but surely. Like the sailor who watches his home shore gradually disappear, I watch my past recede. My own life still burns within me, but more of it is reduced to the ashes of memory. Since taking up life in my cocoon, I have made two brief trips to the world of Paris medicine to hear the verdict pronounced on me from medical heights. I shed a few tears as we passed the corner caf

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

The "brainless" are actually all of the people who think that only one party or the other is corrupt, and thus beleive voting makes a great difference. The people who blindly support "Democrats" or "Republicans", and watch either "liberal" or "conservative" news, adhering to one or the other as if they were rival football teams. Aside from that, this is a sad story.

 

[hugo]

The brainless are those that do not understand that even though two parties might be equally corrupt that one of 'em might better reflect your personal interests.

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Pandering to your interests in public speeches does not equate to actually working to fulfill them in any meaningful way.

 

[Phantom]

The brainless are those that do not understand that even though two parties might be equally corrupt that one of 'em might better reflect your personal interests.

I feel the same way. Although the Republican party has done some shady things either as a whole or from time to time, I still feel they are the lesser of the two evils.

 

[hugo]

Pandering to your interests in public speeches does not equate to actually working to fulfill them in any meaningful way.

That is why you check their voting record.

 

[ToriAllen]

Michael Schaivo was villified in the news media and by the religious right for making a humane decision. Wait until this boy is sick and dying or goes comatose, it will overshadow the whole Schaivo case.

Michael Schaivo was vilified because the circumstances of his wife

 

[Phantom]

Michael Schaivo was vilified because the circumstances of his wife’s condition were questionable. He moved on to a new woman and had children but stayed married to Teri for what reason? Oh, yeah, he had control of her insurance money. He refused to allow therapy, which seems a little odd to me considering it could have helped her be less dependant. He should not have been allowed any say in the situation. When he found a new woman his rights should have been void and a divorce granted.

AMEN!

Also, I would not consider starving to death, or dehydrating, a humane way to die. If it is a humane way to die, then maybe we should consider it for prisoners. It seems much cheaper than the alternatives.

AMEN!

As for the current case, I do not agree that a human should be discarded. I agree that due to advancements in medical technology there are a lot of people who are surviving that would not have in the past, but I think we have an obligation to do everything necessary to give every human a chance at life.

AMEN!

Are pacemakers an unnecessary advancement keeping people alive that should have died years before? Should we stop trying to save people who are in car accidents or soldiers injured in war? Perhaps we should just let the veterans who need medical assistance die, because they are a drain on society. Is that what you guys are suggesting? All drains on society should be cut off from medical assistance?

AMEN!

Most people looking to adopt want to adopt healthy children. Very few want to adopt children with special needs, and I respect those who choose to take care of those children. Every human should get the chance to experience love regardless of handicaps.

AMEN!

Now have some rep (even though you are capped).

 

[ToriAllen]

Now have some rep (even though you are capped).

Gee thanks .
Maybe next time you could just tell me it was a good post...At least until you figure out how to use the rep feature.

 

[Phantom]

Gee thanks .
Maybe next time you could just tell me it was a good post...At least until you figure out how to use the rep feature.

AMEN! hehehe

 

[TooDrunkToFuck]

I'm against spouses deciding someone's life or death in general. I'd prefer the law to be changed so that the family decides it, assuming the person's said nothing about it in the will. The parents in particular, if they're still alive at the time.

 

[hugo]

There is a big difference between shutting down a respirator and removing a feeding tube.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Michael Schaivo was vilified because the circumstances of his wife

 

[snafu]

Exactly.

Michael Schaivo would not have been villified by the media if the situation had been kept in the private sector. Instead it became a huge media circus.

No matter how wrong Michael Schaivo was, the law is the law. He was within his rights.

Yeah well Michael was a villain! Didn't matter if it was in the spotlight or not.
That was the point. He wasnt' in his rights. He got away with murder.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

Yeah well Michael was a villain! Didn't matter if it was in the spot light or not.
That was the point. He wasnt' in his rights. He got away with murder.

The binding laws of the land aside, yes... Schaivo is a miserable *****.

 

[ToriAllen]

No matter how wrong Michael Schaivo was, the law is the law. He was within his rights.

That was the law as defined by one judge. That is the funny thing about laws; they can be interpreted differently by different people.

 

[RoyalOrleans]

That was the law as defined by one judge. That is the funny thing about laws; they can be interpreted differently by different people.

Deja vu all over again.

shutter