What do you all think about this Right to Die case in Florida?

[Lurch1982]

Fail to see how pulling the plug is any different though. If you're going to kill someone, at least make it humane.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

Sleeping and being hooked on machines to live is completely different.

Except that both of them aren't doing much for society at the moment, which was my point. If you ask me, considering that someone like this woman who has to be hooked up to a machine is not only raking in some profit for doctors, but she's also making news and imposing a challenge of morals on our country, I'd say that, in being a "vegetable", she's contributing a lot more to society than a normal, healthy person who is asleep. Or awake, even.

Babies are a different case

How so?

animals aren't even remotely related

Okay, maybe the animals were a bit of a stretch.

and when someone has been incapacitated and hooked on tubes for 15 years and not even responsive, they aren't functioning or even (arguably) living.

That sounds almost prejudiced. That probably isn't your purpose, I know, but, still...because this woman isn't alive by some standards, she's basically unhuman, and therefore it would be okay to kill her?

[ October 28, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

^ I agree. I don't really have a final, final opinion on this, except that this isn't something that should be treated as a "yes" or "no" question. It's something we should take the time to think about in more than one way, against our values, against our emotions, against logic, against the Constitution, against different perspectives...well, like KK said, it's complex.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

[Link47]

Yea, KK and I had to write about the editorial that Bill Press wrote about it. Here, i'll type out what i wrote:

I disagree with what Bill Press says about this case. A person does have a right to die but the means of doing it needs to be looked at. Starvation? No way, that’s not a humane way to die. Use lethal injection or some other quick method. The argument for dieing with dignity can't even be argued in this case, because causing more and prolonged suffering in the name of right to die is hypocrisy. The Governor had every right to intervene. This is not how right to die, if legal, should work.

Look at it this way. You have a dog that is sick. If you wanted to let him die, and you tried to starve him, the PETA would be doing a commando style raid on your house, and then dray you off to jail.

So let’s compare the two. Dogs get a quick humane death, and people get a long drawn out death. Congratulations Bill Press and other liberals: you've just made a dogs life worth more than a humans. Thanks for another slash in this nation’s morals.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: [px] Link47 ]

[Zelda the Beautiful]

That sounds almost prejudiced. That probably isn't your purpose, I know, but, still...because this woman isn't alive by some standards, she's basically unhuman, and therefore it would be okay to kill her?

No one ever said she isn't human, nor is this question of convenience. The woman's parents can't bear to let her go and her husband doesn't want her to go on like this - one party is being a lot less selfish than the other, if you ask me.

If she can't be euthanized, then what else are they planning to do with her? She isn't going to wake up, and those machines can keep her flesh alive indefinitely. What can she do in this life except be looked at all day? It's ridiculous, pointless, and just plain selfish. Especially being that she requested to be euthanized under these conditions.

[ October 28, 2003, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Zelda of Hyrule is sick of homework ]

[Zelda the Beautiful]

I know plenty of people from both sides of the fence who support it. I, for one, think euthanasia should remain a legal option, but under tight restrictions - it should only be used if the person in question has slipped into an irreversible coma and previously requested to be euthanized in such a condition - as is the case in point. The quicker and more painless, the better.

This raises a great movie plot: a person with a terminal illness requests to be euthanized, but is sued by a family member who doesn't want them to die...

[ October 28, 2003, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Zelda of Hyrule is sick of homework ]

[DARTH BOWSER]

Who needs a happy ending?

[Vinny]

Jay, starving is seriously painful. Once the body has consumed all its fat, it will move on to the muscles and the organs, including the heart. Really the purpose of the body is to keep the brain functioning, and it will do anything to achieve that. And when the body is starved it will eat through everything that composes it, including bones and eyes, until you just can't function anymore. Trust me, it's not pretty.

The fact that they would have to pull the plug because euthanasia is illegal is just plain sad.

If she consented to it I see no problem with it. What can a lifeless person live for? The only thing she can do is painfully wait until she dies. What's the point of life if you live for the purpose of dying? I mean she's gonna die eventually and she's not coming out of this, so why not save herself a few years' worth of suffering in the process? Of course, if she hadn't consented I would be very much against it.

Morality, an interesting issue. It is, of course, based on religion or the lack of it. However, at the risk of starting a religious debate which I don't really want to do, I'll ask this to anyone who for religious purposes believes that killing her would be wrong: God didn't invent these machines that are keeping her alive, humans did. So what's to say that God inflicted her with this terrible illness because he meant for her to die, but we have her plugged in and are actually defying God's will?

L47, I wish you'd stop thinking that all "liberals" are robots that think with one mind and share the exact same opinion on every issue. In fact, why don't you stop advocating or denouncing a political party just because of who they are? Nobody said that you're obligated to stand behind a bunch of people that somewhat represent you. You don't have to be like a zombie to them that submissively agrees with all policies they place before you...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the week:
"Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time." - Catherine Zandonella.
Image of the week:

Pointless fact of the week:
A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

What can a lifeless person live for?

Who knows? Hope? A change in fortune? The people who love him/her?

Don't get me wrong--I have trouble saying that a person should be kept alive against his or her will. But I also have trouble with the treatment of death as an escape route for whenever you feel like you've had enough. Death isn't an escape route. As far as we know, it's the end.

Like I said, this issue is much more complex than "yes" or "no". I honestly have no clue what I'd do if I were in the situation of the husband, the parents, or the woman herself.

God didn't invent these machines that are keeping her alive, humans did.

Who invented the brains and hands that made these machines?

why don't you stop advocating or denouncing a political party just because of who they are?

It's not who they are. It's what they believe. What's wrong with judging people's opinions?

You don't have to be like a zombie to them that submissively agrees with all policies they place before you...

But what if he actually AGREES with what the party stands for? Not everyone who sides with the liberals or the conservatives is being a "zombie".

[ October 29, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Princess Zelda of Hyrule: God Bless ]

[Vinny]

Let's stop being so damn optimistic and face the facts: there is no change in fortune for this woman. Therefore, there is no hope. No possible change in fortune + no hope = no will to live.

I understand that you wouldn't know what to do. I don't think I would be able to deal with it so well either. I'd probably have to think about it for a long time before reaching a conclusion.

I am very well aware that death is the end, and I'm sure she is too. And that's exactly what she's trying to do. End her suffering. Because at the end of the day, we're all gonna die anyway. That's pretty much the central ponit that my argument is based on. Of course death isn't the way out when you're depressed or if your life still has any meaning whatsoever and you're still capable of enjoying it in the future. But if your life has no meaning, like this woman's, I would never tell you to kill yourself, but I don't think I would stop you from doing it, mainly because you're gonna die anyway and there's no purpose in hanging around suffering.

God made the brains that tell people to commit adultery, steal, lie, and murder, didn't he?

Ok, so maybe he does agree with them. I admit that last sentence may have been a bit rash. However, what irritated me was that he seems to think that all liberals think with one mind, as if they were all hooked up to some machine that told them what to think.

"Liberal to HQ. Liberal to HQ. What should I think about the Right to Die case?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quote of the week:
"Time is never wasted when you're wasted all the time." - Catherine Zandonella.
Image of the week:

Pointless fact of the week:
A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.

[ October 31, 2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Vinny the Ninny ]

[Princess Zelda of Hyrule]

Let's stop being so damn optimistic and face the facts: there is no change in fortune for this woman. Therefore, there is no hope. No possible change in fortune + no hope = no will to live.

I'd go on and on about "prove it", but then I'd just look dumb. So I'll give you that.

I am very well aware that death is the end, and I'm sure she is too. And that's exactly what she's trying to do. End her suffering.

I guess I can't disagree with that outside of my personal morals. But what kind of suffering should be ended? Where would you draw the line? Physical suffering isn't the only suffering there is. Should people who are depressed to the point of mental illness be entitled to euthanasia, too?

Because at the end of the day, we're all gonna die anyway.

Of course we are--the whole point of life is that you're constantly dying, and you're always trying to delay it by breathing, eating, etc. But at the end of the day, we're all gonna die anyway, so why should ANYBODY live?

But if your life has no meaning, like this woman's

I disagree--maybe there's nothing left for her to do for herself. But people, like her parents, love her. The fact that they're beating this case to death to keep her alive should tell you how deep their attachment to her is. As long as she's living, she's living for them. Maybe it's Hell, maybe they're selfish and need to get over it, but my point is that her life DOES have meaning.

God made the brains that tell people to commit adultery, steal, lie, and murder, didn't he?

If you believe the Bible, God also made commandments that specifically told us not to do those things. But no commandment specifically gives you an okay if you want to die, and that's where personal morals come into play.

If you're going to use the argument that "man made the machines, and not God" as a reason why people shouldn't be hooked up, then we shouldn't have hospitals to treat curable ailments, either, shouldn't we? Men invented scalpels, too.