Re: I'm appalled

[Guest guest]

Gail wrote:

>

> ....well,I don't want you and those like you getting this country

in the

> same hellish mess that Holland is. Go move over there,where you

can kill

> yourself legally....this country was founded on Christian

principals,and one

> of those is Thou shalt not kill.

>

>

There once was a time when dying of natural causes may have included

such things as dying of cancer, dying of a heart attack, dying from

an infection, because science had no way of determining who had

cancer, or who might have a blood clot forming in an artery, or what

would work to rid someone of an infection. The advancement of

technology, of science and medicine has forced us all to consider

alternatives to death. Some of those alternatives are minor in

comparison; taking an antibiotic, or insulin for examples.. but then

you start bumping into the categories I personally include under the

header of " invasive procedures. "

My husband recently had a heart attack. He had a blood clot in his

coronary artery. The artery is currently held open by a stent and he

is now taking medications he will have to take for the rest of his

life. His medications come to a little over a thousand dollars a

month and his co-pay is approximately $120. As he says, " I am paying

$120 a month to stay alive. " Lucky for him he has insurance. If you

were to ask him, despite the fact we just had a baby a year ago and

our relationship is now relatively solid, he would say the procedure

wasn't worth it to stay alive. He still has chest pains. He has

limitations now. It's his perogative to feel the way he does, as

it's his life, his body.. no matter what I might personally feel

about it. If he has another heart attack, he will end up having a

bypass.. major invasive procedure.

My point is this. Fifty years ago he probably would've died from

that heart attack. Has the advancement in fifty years changed death

from natural causes to murder? Must we believe we are murdering

ourselves simply because some of us would rather opt out of having

any invasive procedures done? I personally would never agree to

having bypass surgery done on my own body. I wouldn't have agreed to

the stent. I avoid doctors like the plague, so I can hardly blame my

husband should he choose to avoid it also, as extremely difficult as

that is to say.

The human body is only meant to function for so long, and sometimes

things happen that shorten that time. We play God by prolonging

life.. and a good example is this. I have an online aquaintance who

is a nurse in a cardiac unit, who currently oversaw the care of one

88 year old woman who had just undergone a triple bypass. Once she

was recovered, they planned to do hip replacements, and this woman

is in an advanced state of alzheimers. Someone is guilty of

something here in this woman's case.. be it negligence in not making

a will, or abuse by her doctors in persisting to provide life saving

measures to someone who can no longer appreciate it.

" Killing yourself legally " inplies to me ideas such as assisted

suicide when depression is the cause, not when someone would die

anyway without artificial breathing and a mind not capable of making

a choice. I cried like a baby over Terry Schiavo.. for her life, for

the loss, for the media exposure, for the legal battles that took

place that should never had to be. Common sense sometimes dictates

when a person should no longer be living, and sadly that poor girl

was a case such as that.. and I say that completely aware of the

relief in not having had to make that decision. I was also equally

upset at hearing about the 88 year old cardiac patient.

My personal decision.. eat right, exercise, stay as fit as possible

for as long as possible. If you mean to bring " christian principles "

into it.. take care of your " temple, " your body as it was designed

to require.. but as far as " invasive procedures " go.. there has to

come a time to say " enough " and that should not be considered

murder. If I can't tell you my own name, that means enough.

Becca

[Guest guest]

>

>

> > Agreed.  I believe one other " Christian principal " has to do with

> not

> > passing judgement, and allowing others to make their own choices. 

> If

> > there's a God, it's up to him/her to judge us, thank you, and we'll

> > live wherever we please, and die with dignity where we can.  

> > Freedom of

> > religion anyone?

>

> Actually, passing judgement on choices is allowed and even explicitly 

> commanded.

>

> Passing judgement on the heart is forbidden.

>

> > Good healthy level of tolerance there, I see.  And once again

> missing

> > the point.

>

> Tolerance has nothing to do with not saying someone else is wrong.

>

> That said, I am not anti-euthanasia because I'm a Christian.  Sure, 

> that strengthens my beliefs in that, but I was against abortion, 

> euthanasia, and the death penalty long before I was a Christian.  I 

> am against anything that will cause Grandma to want to kill herself 

> before she wants to (and that includes euthanasia where she has an 

> easy way out for the sake of her family).

>

> The reason is simple - the wrong of killing someone who shouldn't 

> have been killed is far worse then not killing someone who should 

> have been killed.  Because all three of these areas (abortion, 

> euthanasia, and death penalty) have significant gray areas, and you 

> never know for sure if you are right - regardless of whether or not 

> you believe some people should be killed, I feel it's better to error 

> on the side of caution.

>

> It's plenty possible to hold that belief without sharing my religious 

> beliefs.  And many disability organizations definitely don't share my 

> beliefs (in some, I'd be shocked to find a Christian or a 

> republican!), but do hold the belief that euthanasia is wrong (most 

> don't make a statement on abortion or death penalty, although most 

> that do support abortion and oppose the death penalty).

>

> People do confuse issues quite often in this type of debate.

It wasn't you that I was replying to. And yes, Christianity was pulled

into it, and it was also mentioned that anyone who disagreed with

Christian law should leave [the country]. THAT's the intolerance I was

referring to. People weren't simply being told that they were " wrong " .

(Which IS a matter of opinion.)

I grew up in a strict Christian environment (Anglican). It was nothing

but hypocrisy.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Red wrote:

> Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> > ...I just simply can't believe what I am seeing here!

> That's because you are totally out in left field.

> There is no comparison to be made.

What, no reasoned argument, just a bullying putdown?

That's about what we've come to expect from you.

Clay

[Guest guest]

> I'd also say I don't want the state telling me to pay taxes.

.... or telling me how to drive my car, but those are different

from " termination of life " issues.

- s

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> I'd also say I don't want the state telling me to pay taxes.

>

> ... or telling me how to drive my car, but those are different

> from " termination of life " issues.

Agreed. But the issue they have in common is that personal choice

needs to be balanced with the needs of society as a whole.

[Guest guest]

At 09:00 AM 12/12/2005, wrote:

>Agreed. But the issue they have in common is that personal choice

>needs to be balanced with the needs of society as a whole.

Okay. To avoid misunderstanding here, I want to define in advance the

precise situation I am talking about.

I am speaking very specifically of brain death, that not only am I in a

coma, but brain activity is non-existent, meaning that there is no

consciousness. I do not want " minimally conscious " to be mentioned, because

I am not talking about a situation where I would be minimally conscious. I

am not talking about babies, because I'm not a baby.

I fail to see how it benefits anyone except perhaps the health care

professionals being paid to tend me, be it at home or in an

institutionalized setting like a nursing home. Now, if the economy is so

poor that we need to keep as many jobs as possible, that's fine, I'll allow

my body to be a sacrifice to the cause of less unemployment.

I don't understand how society needs to spend hundreds of thousands of

dollars keeping a corpse's heart beating when that money would be better

spent on the living. I can't get into a quality of life argument because

there is no consciousness to have any quality of life at that point. I

would far rather a do not resuscitate order, and no extraordinary means to

keep me alive, including a feeding tube.

My daughter is my next of kin and in charge of these things for me. I put

it to her very simply. " If there is a chance I will recover to an extent,

life support is okay. If I am brain dead, though, pull the plug and donate

my organs. "

Just because we are capable of doing something doesn't mean we should.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com and find out how you can

win the Gift of Big O!

[Guest guest]

> I don't understand how society needs to spend hundreds of thousands of

> dollars keeping a corpse's heart beating when that money would be

> better

> spent on the living. I can't get into a quality of life argument

> because

> there is no consciousness to have any quality of life at that point. I

> would far rather a do not resuscitate order, and no extraordinary

> means to

> keep me alive, including a feeding tube.

I don't buy into the zero-sum game at all. That's been used far too

long to justify all sorts of awfuls.

Sure, if it truly is a case of limited resources, then decisions do

have to be made about who is helped and who is not. An example would

be emergency response immediately following a disaster - there may

not be enough medical personnel and supplies to help everyone, so

clearly people that can wait and people who have very little chance

of survival aren't the first priority.

That is not the situation being discussed here.

The money spent keeping you or me alive would not go to help someone

else who wouldn't get help otherwise. The insurance company would

pocket the money or the government would spend it on roads, bloated

contracts, or somesuch. You would not save 200 people with Malaria

in Africa.

We have plenty of healthcare resources to provide good healthcare to

the whole world. We simply choose not to do it ( " we " referring to

countries that have relatively good health care systems that are

fairly accessible). I don't see how that will change whether someone

is kept alive or not.

That argument also allows people to say things like, " It costs over a

million dollars to educate an autistic person. Why wouldn't they be

better off being killed before they are aware enough of the world to

want to live? " After all, education is underfunded in many places,

and a million dollars could educate a lot of NTs... (the first

arguments towards telling women who could and couldn't have children

were put in terms of what is financially good for society - see the

US and Germany in the 1920s, 1930s).

[Guest guest]

At 09:24 AM 12/15/2005, wrote:

>The money spent keeping you or me alive would not go to help someone

>else who wouldn't get help otherwise. The insurance company would

>pocket the money or the government would spend it on roads, bloated

>contracts, or somesuch. You would not save 200 people with Malaria

>in Africa.

Insurance doesn't cover everything, and there are a great many

out-of-pocket costs. Furthermore, unless one is fortunate enough to receive

a multi-million dollar settlement for such care, Medicare pays and then

Medicaid. Of course, for Medicaid to pay, you can't have a lot of assets.

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/family/a2003-01-21-understandingmed.html

Furthermore, the insurance company doesn't come up with money out of

nowhere to pay for this care--people pay into it for their future needs. I

realize it's a very unfashionable view, but an insurance company is also a

business, meaning they have to make a profit in order for them to stay in

business.

As long as health insurance is privately funded, that's how it works. There

are very few for-profit businesses that operate out of the goodness of

their hearts. They have to make money, too.

I would rather my kids get my assets, whatever they are, rather than have

them disappear to pay for a corpse that happens to be breathing. And again,

you keep dragging other things into it that are completely irrelevant to

what I'm saying. When to pull the plug on my life is my decision, just as

when to pull it on yours is your decision. I have a right to say " enough " .

By your argument, all autistics ought to be forced to take the drugs du

jour because it's for the good of society, and I say you can't have it both

ways. Either we have a right to choose what medical treatment we will or

will not accept or we do not. If we do, then I have a right to say " no

feeding tube, no extraordinary measures " just as much as you have the right

to say " no drug treatment for my autism. "

I do not know how to get you to understand this simple fact. This is not

euthanasia because I'm the one who decides, and it's my right to decide

what kind of medical treatment I will or will not have. It has nothing to

do with the good of society, because society is just a concept, and arises

from the individual decisions of the people in it. My limit is not your

limit, but I have a right to choose it just the same.

You are, in my opinion, doing to me what the chelators and mercury true

believers try to do to us, saying we don't know what we are refusing and we

owe it to everyone to use any means to become " normal " . If you can't make

this simple connection, that it's my body and I have right to decide on my

medical treatment, then there is little point in discussing it further.

Z

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Merry Heaven's Day! Visit http://www.savebigo.com and find out how you can

win the Gift of Big O!

[Guest guest]

> You are, in my opinion, doing to me what the chelators and mercury

> true

> believers try to do to us, saying we don't know what we are

> refusing and we

> owe it to everyone to use any means to become " normal " . If you

> can't make

> this simple connection, that it's my body and I have right to

> decide on my

> medical treatment, then there is little point in discussing it

> further.

Think what you want about me.

I will not say that something that causes people who don't want to

die to die is good.