lekatt, it is precisely because I respect death that I supported the decision to allow her empty husk to cease functioning.
Your suggestion that “respect” for death means desperation to avoid it at all costs is pure-D wrong, IMO. That’s not respect, that’s terror.
Jon Stewart: “I don’t think he realizes that CSpan has cameras”
The only way you and the others could come to the conclusions you post, is by not understanding a word I said. Or by not reading my post. Comprehension error.
I would say that when the “comprehension error” is as widespread as this one is, it’s the fault of the distributor of that information, not the consumer…
Wow.
Simply wow.
I am truly sitting here in awe and wonder that you wrote such a thing.
No matter what is written or what proof is provided, you are immune to being educated or changing your mind.
You are the antithesis of this board.
I am the antithesis of ignorance, fighting ignorance, but it is taking longer…
Death is not always an adversary, but often a friend.
Depends, actually there is no such thing as death, unfinished business carries over into the spirit world, then back into the physical. Denial, running away, rationalization, justification, nothing removes personal responsibility. Face your demons as you meet them and learn from them before you overcome their influence with knowledge, truth, and Love.
Then why are you so desperately afraid of accepting death as a natural part of life?
Uh… no, you most certainly are not.
But you won’t come to the Pit to hear the unvarnished truth, much like you ignore the truth here.
Just a suggestion here-you might try looking up both “antithesis” and “ignorance” in the dictionary before you try to using these words again in a sentence.
Death of the body is a natural part of physical life, But you are not your body. As for fear of physical death, I have none. Nor do I fear returning to the spiritual world, it is really OK there, but one does have to review their physical life.
You are right, I will not go to the pit and trade temper tantrums with those old enough to be adults.
As for unvarnished truth, what is offered here is heresay, theories, opinions of doctors, opinions of judges, other opinions from both sides of the disagreement, but not truth. In the Terri Schivo case only a very few (2-3) key players know what happened, the rest of us don’t. Those key players have told their stories to their advantage. This pretty much the way it happens all the time.
The main objection was to the way Terri was killed. There are lots of unanswered questions that may never be settled. This not a case where one side is any more pure than the other, except in opinion, of course.
That’s because that is the only objection that remains. Originally the objection was that a “disabled” woman who “could recover” from her brain damage was “in pain” at being “starved.” Since it’s now indisputable that she had major and irreparable brain damage, people focus on the “starvation” because they have to.
Then why the adamant opposition to allowing Mrs. Schiavo’s shell to end its functioning?
This is a pretty good throw down for the GD!
If you object to the method of ‘allowing to die’ which was used in this case would you please give a suggestion for a method that you find to be more appropriate?
What few people seem to grasp is that lingering and fatal conditions ususally result in starvation, or the pneumonia that follows weakness from that starvation, or dehydration. Teri Schiavo’s case was not different from thousands of others that occur regularly.
The only things was that her family became hysterical and politicians and others seized (i before e except after c or when sounded like a as in neighbor or weigh; or in any number of irregular cases) on that. It’s enough to make a person puke.
I’m thinking the solution lekatt would have preferred is an endless living death.
I doubt any option other than the constant application of extreme measures would do.
I doubt they’d respect a DNR(Do Not Resuscitate) on a patient’s chart.
I don’t particularly object to the method, but I’d have preferred a bolus of morphine.
perhaps the question should have been "if you object to the method, which legally permissable method would you have preferred?
I would have preferred ordering up some morphine for my dad. Law wouldn’t allow me to do so. Active assistance is not permissable, but non action (withdrawl of feeding tube) is. Any bets on wheter those decryig the inhumanity of the method would be in favor of euthanasia?