Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I believe there is a subjective point at which the human body should be allowed to fail if that is what it is inclined to do. As to whether you should starve your Grandmother to death or not, only you can answer that question. I am not a reliqious person. However, what has always confused me in situations like these is my perceived hypocrisy in the religious community: Is TS better off remaining in her current condition, or would she be better off in Heaven with God? Isn't her family's efforts to keep her alive a completely selfish act, preventing her from ascending to a better place? 290893[/snapback] Not being a man of God myself, but having been exposed to religion, the theory is that only God can decide when it's time for someone to die. Anything else is sinful.
Dan Gross Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Not being a man of God myself, but having been exposed to religion, the theory is that only God can decide when it's time for someone to die. Anything else is sinful. 290898[/snapback] Yeah, but is medical intervention in this case God's decision or man's? Or, as the crap-throwing monkey put it, is she really a live person being killed or a dead person being preserved by a feeding tube?
Berg Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Not being a man of God myself, but having been exposed to religion, the theory is that only God can decide when it's time for someone to die. Anything else is sinful. 290898[/snapback] So the logical follow up is how are we as mere mortals supposed to understand what God has decided? I'm sure most religious people don't advocate avoiding any and all medical treatment, so where is the line? How does one know if God has decided it is or isn't Terry's time to die?
OGTEleven Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I believe there is a subjective point at which the human body should be allowed to fail if that is what it is inclined to do. As to whether you should starve your Grandmother to death or not, only you can answer that question. I am not a reliqious person. However, what has always confused me in situations like these is my perceived hypocrisy in the religious community: Is TS better off remaining in her current condition, or would she be better off in Heaven with God? Isn't her family's efforts to keep her alive a completely selfish act, preventing her from ascending to a better place? 290893[/snapback] If heaven is eternal, isn't all time on earth a bonus of sorts?
Berg Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 If heaven is eternal, isn't all time on earth a bonus of sorts? 290922[/snapback] What's your definition of "time"
Mark VI Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 What's your definition of "time" 290927[/snapback] The minute the Bills win the big one.
BillsNYC Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 Maybe its already happened, but I'm waiting for the far-right nut jobs to start saying "She's been off the tube for 13 days...she's flighing to stay alive...can't you see that? She's so strong!"
aussiew Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I'm not a far right nut job but I'm starting to wonder myself.
SilverNRed Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Maybe its already happened, but I'm waiting for the far-right nut jobs to start saying "She's been off the tube for 13 days...she's flighing to stay alive...can't you see that? She's so strong!" 290983[/snapback] I think I started hearing that last week....
BillsNYC Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 What does Terri think of all of this? Oh yeah...NOTHING BECAUSE HER BRAIN IS FRIED! If you were in that situation, would you want to be kept alive?
Adam Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 What does Terri think of all of this? Oh yeah...NOTHING BECAUSE HER BRAIN IS FRIED! If you were in that situation, would you want to be kept alive? 291027[/snapback] Very cold statement, and speaking on something you do not know- because nobody does. If the wishes are not in writting, it is the clear duty of our government to defend our lives. Ex-judge Greer is in clear and defintite violation of the United States Constitution, and must be dealt with in accordance with the constitution. As must the faction that keeps trying to extend the constitution
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Yeah, but is medical intervention in this case God's decision or man's? Or, as the crap-throwing monkey put it, is she really a live person being killed or a dead person being preserved by a feeding tube? 290917[/snapback] Is it not wise if there's a question on this matter to err on the side of life?
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Very cold statement, and speaking on something you do not know- because nobody does. If the wishes are not in writting, it is the clear duty of our government to defend our lives. It most certainly is NOT. And I don't think you'd find more than a small group of people who think like that, except for in the one instance. The person of people who BY LAW are allowed to decide our fate, should be become incapacitated and not have it in writing, is our spouse and then our family. Government is and SHOULD BE kept out of this.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Is it not wise if there's a question on this matter to err on the side of life? Why? To feel all warm and fuzzy inside? Again ask yourself if YOU would want to "live" the was Terri is. Then ask yourself if you'd like to have people "err on the side of life" despite you exisiting in a (from my vantage point because that what I think it would be) living hell.
KRC Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 It most certainly is NOT. And I don't think you'd find more than a small group of people who think like that, except for in the one instance. The person of people who BY LAW are allowed to decide our fate, should be become incapacitated and not have it in writing, is our spouse and then our family. Government is and SHOULD BE kept out of this. 291089[/snapback] There is not question that I agree with you on this. The government is only responsible for defending our lives via National Security. They are not responsible for determining the extent of our medical conditions and whether we should live or die due to those conditions.
Campy Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 They are not responsible for determining the extent of our medical conditions and whether we should live or die due to those conditions. 291092[/snapback] Amen brother.
Dan Gross Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Is it not wise if there's a question on this matter to err on the side of life? 291064[/snapback] I would hope my loved ones would err on the side of my wishes, and that would be to not be maintained if I were in a like state. I would maintain that, even though my wishes are outlined in a living will, my wife, who I have been living with for several years, would know my wishes better than my mother, who being the person that raised me, would much more likely live in denial, not wanting to lose her other son, even though in that state I'd already be "lost," for all intents and purposes.
BillsNYC Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 Very cold statement, and speaking on something you do not know- because nobody does. If the wishes are not in writting, it is the clear duty of our government to defend our lives. Ex-judge Greer is in clear and defintite violation of the United States Constitution, and must be dealt with in accordance with the constitution. As must the faction that keeps trying to extend the constitution 291041[/snapback] Wrong - It is the spouse's decision by law. I'm not cold, just realistic. Her brain is fried, she's a useless blob of skin.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 What does Terri think of all of this? Oh yeah...NOTHING BECAUSE HER BRAIN IS FRIED! If you were in that situation, would you want to be kept alive? 291027[/snapback] Actually, the root of these continuing lawsuits is the initial trial to determine what Terri's wishes would be...where it was determined based on the testimony of multiple eyewitnesses (not just her husband) that she'd want the feeding tube pulled. Given that ruling's held up to something like 20 appeals so far...you'd think there might be something to it.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I would hope my loved ones would err on the side of my wishes, and that would be to not be maintained if I were in a like state. I would maintain that, even though my wishes are outlined in a living will, my wife, who I have been living with for several years, would know my wishes better than my mother, who being the person that raised me, would much more likely live in denial, not wanting to lose her other son, even though in that state I'd already be "lost," for all intents and purposes. 291115[/snapback] That's the issue here, no one can really KNOW her wishes or Michael's motivations. you have to choose to believe Michael. I'm smart enough to have my wishes written down and communicated to EVERYONE I know.
Recommended Posts