Ann.Stalnaker@f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Stalnaker) (03/16/90)
Index Number: 7185
Pat, I think perhaps I didn't really express my feelings on the issue
of Euthanasia the way I wanted to and I hope I didn't offend you by
some of my comments. I'm very opinionated and often run across others
who can't understand my liberal viewpoints. They often accuse me of
being immoral or stated I must have been in a situational circumstance
to have these strong opinions. Neither is true. I look at the overall
picture of things and have been exposed to several situations. (Nothing
in my personal life)
I was not speaking of the Disabled alone in my statement about Euthanasia,
I was also referring to those with AIDS, cancer, and the like. This
is a very sensitive topic as well as controversial but I do feel one
has the right to make the decision on this topic. If I'm ever in a
position where I can't function without life support systems, I do
NOT want to be kept alive. In other words, I mean if my brain is dead.
I cannot see spending thousands and thousands of dollars in hospital
costs/nursing home fees in a coma and knowing I would never come out
of that coma. I would want the plug to be pulled. But, as I've mentioned
before, it all depends on the circumstances. If I'm 70 years old and
have been diagnosed with inoperable cancer, I would opt for Euthanasia
rather than allow my family to suffer the pain, grief and expense of
caring for me for a long length of time. At that age, I can accept
that I've lived a full life. We all are going to die sometime.
Of course, there is always hope but there is also a limit. I am not
really saying I would opt for abortion but I do believe a woman should
have the choice of one if she should wish. I can remember the days
of coat-hanger abortions and if we make abortion illegal, we'll go
right back to those days. Each and every situation is different.
I know the facts of having a living will. In fact, you'd be surprised
at the number of people who do have one. I'm not a youngun, Pat, in
fact, am in my mid-40s. I feel I'm being realistic about thinking
of the future.
I also have a close friend whose son has been in a coma for over 20
years now. There has never been any change. This friend and her family
spent every dime they had in medical costs and have had to sell their
home and move into a smaller home. The state has taken over the medical
costs now and all life support systems have been removed. It's been
a very traumatic 20 years for this friend of mine and I doubt if she'll
ever get over it. So...like I've mentioned, each case is different
(Boy, I'm beginning to sound repetitious!)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!385!14!Ann.Stalnaker
Internet: Ann.Stalnaker@f14.n385.z1.fidonet.orgera@ncar.ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) (03/16/90)
Index Number: 7200 In article <10607@bunker.UUCP> Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org writes: |Index Number: 7139 | I think that euthanasia is a very great threat to the handicapped. |This is because it is generally expensive to help a disabled person to |function as normally as possible. Other people are often not willing to |bear the expense. All many of them need to push them over the fence into |not being willing to bother is the idea that it is legitimate to |question the quality of life of others. ... and questioning the quality of life of others is something we're starting to see more of in the health-care mess. States which are attempting to deal with the health-care crisis by establishing "prioritized" systems (e.g. Oregon), will probably end up shortchanging disabled people unless each one of us creates a real ruckus. In this state, the legislator who is trying to pass such a bill to take care of the medically indigent, has established special-interest committees; and persons with disabilities were not included. It was obvious from questioning her that she had not thought through the issues of how one defines quality of life for persons with disabilities. Neither had her M.D. henchman. If you see this happening in your state, be sure to find out whether persons with disabilities are included in the committees and other groups supplying legislative input. Otherwise, the decisions on priorities will end up being made by M.D.s, and it should be obvious where most of them stand. -- Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(w) era@ncar.ucar.edu [128.117.64.4] * era@ncario.bitnet * era@ncar.uucp "See, the human mind is kind of like ... a pinata. When it breaks open, there's a lot of surprises inside." --Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
era@ncar.ucar.edu (Ed Arnold) (03/19/90)
Index Number: 7212 In article <10683@bunker.UUCP> Ann.Stalnaker@f14.n385.z1.fidonet.org writes: |Index Number: 7185 | |If I'm ever in a |position where I can't function without life support systems, I do |NOT want to be kept alive. In other words, I mean if my brain is dead. |I cannot see spending thousands and thousands of dollars in hospital |costs/nursing home fees in a coma and knowing I would never come out |of that coma. I would want the plug to be pulled. Ditto. But I don't think the real issue is one's own preferences or action taken in advance of the event. The issue that seems to upset some people the most, is when persons other than the affected person make that decision for them, without the person's preference having been made known (via living will, or whatever) before a disabling event. Even when it's the parents; e.g. the Cruzan case. |I know the facts of having a living will. In fact, you'd be surprised |at the number of people who do have one. One minor point which should be made about living wills: a number of medical/legal advocates are now saying that a legal instrument known as "durable power of attorney" is superior to the living will. I last saw this mentioned in the Feb. 1990 issue of The Peoples' Medical Society Newsletter. If you're interested in what the author had to say, let me know in a followup posting. -- Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(w) era@ncar.ucar.edu [128.117.64.4] * era@ncario.bitnet * era@ncar.uucp "See, the human mind is kind of like ... a pinata. When it breaks open, there's a lot of surprises inside." --Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Jim.Rankin@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Rankin) (03/22/90)
Index Number: 7232
The issues you raise are indeed complex ones, so far
as human suffering is concerned, and no one wishes to be
cavalier on that level. However, no real inquiry into the
meaning of human suffering -- if any -- ever seems to go on.
That is not what occasioned this response in passing,
however. Rather, it bothers me to hear views discussed as
"liberal" and "conservative" and just about everything in
between. I know nothing particularly "liberal" about
euthanasia.
A little thought as to its use in the past -- forced,
or otherwise -- is worth considering.
And euthanasia ("good death") has a very different
meaning in this hedonistic age than it did in the past --
when it was discussed almost daily in terms of dying at
peace with God and with life itself ("at peace with the
world" whether suffering-free or not).
Strange, how people think they change, but ideas
remain essentially the same: plus ca change, plus ca reste
meme. (Sorry about the lack of proper diacritical marks --
this is not a European keyboard.)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!10!475.0!Jim.Rankin
Internet: Jim.Rankin@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Parsons) (04/24/91)
Index Number: 15135
Hi Andy,
AA> Hunt: I agree with SOME,only some of what you say about
AA> euthanasia, I think the word is used mostly for the dramatic
AA> effect it stirs up. I just looked the word up in my "Webster
AA> Dictionary" and can't see anything wrong with it UNTIL I try to
AA> apply it to the entire population of the world,when we should
AA> be concerned with (1) individual.
AA> Andy
Yes, you are right here, but I have to say that the whole thing scares me
greatly. I just *know* that given human nature to be what it is, if you give
leaway, then somebody's gonna take miles and miles. It just makes me cry when
I think of the potential good some of these "euthanizable" people can do. It
may not be measurable in the world's terms, but they improve our lives because
they encourage us to think of others. That, I think is the value inherent in
people the world thinks can be got rid of because they can not speak for
themselves.
Ann P.
AA> --- GoldED 2.29f-
AA> * Origin: The HOUSE of ANDY in Tacoma,WA 1:138/116.11
AA> (1:138/116.11)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!260!207!Ann.Parsons
Internet: Ann.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Parsons) (04/24/91)
Index Number: 15138
Hi Andy,
AA> Anderson: (a continuation) As cruel or harsh as it may sound at
AA> the moment, *I* believe this problem has to be one based on
AA> finances and/or the lack of same. Should we be required to
AA> spend our life savings to keep a person that is in perpetual
AA> pain and in a coma and already 90 yrs old and bed ridden, alive
AA> ?, Then have nothing to provide for ourselves?
Ahem, please check Matthew 5, 6, and 7. "Consider the lilies of the field,
they toil not neither do they spin, but Solomon in all his glory was not
awrayed line one of these." "Think not what ye shall eat or what ye shall
drink......."
You see, Andy, this is what true faith means. That we trust that we will be
provided for, that we will somehow have the essentials of life.
AA>In some
AA> instances, it seems to *Me* that to prolong life under some
AA> circumstances would be the same as torture. That is why I think
AA> we need to consider each case on its own merits,
Yes, I am not in favor of torturing people, but there is a reason why people
suffer. It's a very old idea, Andy, and it isn't much in vogue these days. But
there are some who suffer for others, that they might learn compassion and
love for their fellow men.
AA> why a state or federal medical plan should be implimented,Then
AA> the degree or quality of medical attention would be the same
AA> for every patient, because the "affordability or ability to
AA> pay" would be removed from the patient or his/her survivors.
Yes, maybe this is the answer. You see, you are already listening. There is no
need to ask the elderly to go out into the woods to die. We can provide for
them with dignity. How do we know what goes on in the mind of a comatous
patient? Are we so high and mighty that we can make a decision about who lives
or dies? Yes, money is an issue. We need to change our priorities. War should
be last on the list. High salaries for senators, ball players, company
executives, should be lowered. Health care costs should be lowered. People who
insist on taking doctors to court for mal-practice should have the burden of
proof put upon them instead of upon the professional doctor. People should be
trained to work together with their doctors to achieve the best health care
possible. No, I am not advocating Marxism, merely a coming to our senses when
it comes to spending money. <smile>
AA>I
AA> could go on and on about this, but I don't want to start
AA> arguing "but w because for every time we say if somebody else
AA> can come up w this, or if that........and all this time we are
AA> still spen accept the inevitable sometime (I can only pray that
AA> we don't of these decisions).
Well, amen to that. But others are making this decision daily. They need help.
No, Andy, I do not want to argue. I am just expressing my views. Take care,
see you on-line.
Ann P.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!260!207!Ann.Parsons
Internet: Ann.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.orgAndy.Anderson@p11.f116.n138.z1.fidonet.org (Andy Anderson) (04/25/91)
Index Number: 15149
Hello Ann!
Answering a msg of <01 Apr 91>, from Ann Parsons to Andy Anderson:
(a continuation) As cruel or harsh as it may sound at the moment,
*I* believe this problem has to be one based on finances and/or the
lack of same. Should we be required to spend our life savings to
keep a person that is in perpetual pain and in a coma and already
90 yrs old and bed ridden, alive ?, Then have nothing to provide
for ourselves? In some instances, it seems to *Me* that to prolong
life under some circumstances would be the same as torture. That is
why I think we need to consider each case on its own merits,
another reason why a state or federal medical plan should be
implimented,Then the degree or quality of medical attention would
be the same for every patient, because the "affordability or
ability to pay" would be removed from the patient or his/her
survivors. I could go on and on about this, but I don't want to
start arguing "but what if's" because for every time we say if
somebody else can come up with a but what if this, or if
that........and all this time we are still spending $$$,we have to
accept the inevitable sometime (I can only pray that we don't have
to make one of these decisions).
Andy
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!138!116.11!Andy.Anderson
Internet: Andy.Anderson@p11.f116.n138.z1.fidonet.orgAnton.Johnson@f56.n161.z1.fidonet.org (Anton Johnson) (04/26/91)
Index Number: 15225
Greetings Gary, let me state who I am for the record. I am one who
is 100% against euthanasia but I do not care to argue the point, as
this is my position. I am also a born again Christian that
believes everything that the Bible has to say.
I believe that you have the right to make the choice about life
support systems as long as you are of sound mind and have a full
understanding of the decision that is being made by yourself.
Euthanasia and the refusal of life support systems are not always
the same thing. If there is reasonable possibilities that a person
can recover from an injury or illness with a good chance to have a
productive life then by all means life support should be put into
effect. If there is no reasonable possibility for recovery and a
person such as yourself has requested that life support not be used
then it should not be used.
I believe (as a Christian) that each individual should have the
right to make this choice. If God wants that person around for
sometime to come than the person will survive no matter what
without the lifesupport system. If God does not want to keep
someone around they can be gone tomorrow even with a life support
system. There have been what I will refer to as horror stories
where folks have been forced to use life support systems for those
that are brain dead. In one case not all that long ago life
support was finally removed and the individual continued to live
for sometime after that. Life support systems are not always
needed and sometimes can cause many more problems than they can
solve.
I will not reply to anyone that is going to argue euthanasia.
Anton...
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!161!56!Anton.Johnson
Internet: Anton.Johnson@f56.n161.z1.fidonet.orgNadine.Thomas@p1.f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Nadine Thomas) (04/26/91)
Index Number: 15252
You're assuming that everyone believes in god (thus god's law) - not everyone
believes in that so they are not bound by other people's beliefs.
I appreciate the fact that you would not interfere with another person's choice
(living will) - I do not consider a living will morally wrong. I consider it
being realistic. I would say the biggest problem is that we have gone so far
with medical miracles but not enough to `heal' the ones that are being `saved'
but only barely (ie: vegetative state after being revived). I do not see the
sense in that and until the medical model can not only revive but `cure' a person,
at least to a productive state (able to make decisions or be consciously aware
of what is going on or that could also include the state of retardation but
NOT when there is NO brainwave activities), then they might do well to either
leave well enough alone or honor living wills and encourage the courts to butt
out when STRANGERS are trying to step in where they don't belong. IMHO, that
living will is a very serious, private decision that should be questioned by
NO ONE.
I used to be an EMT (emergency medical technician) in New York - upstate New
York as well as New York City. I had to make decisions that were very difficult
sometimes - if I went on a call where someone was dead I had to acertain approximately
when they had died, their age, health, where they were found, how they were
found and then decide whether to attempt resusitation or not. I am very thankful
those type decisions were not as often as I had to do CPR and bring them to
the hospital - usually, knowing they weren't gonna make it but doing it anyway
because one never knows if a miracle would happen - it never did. The only
time that CPR was successful in the time I worked (several years) was when a
guy had a heart attack in a large office building in NYC and there happened
to be a doctor one flight up who started CPR within 3 minutes - we arrived and
took over, worked on him for a while and then he responded after what seemed
like an eternity - we got him to the hospital alive (just don't know if he made
it past that).
Perhaps the fact that I worked in the medical field gives me a more realistic
view of what goes on. Watching family day after day sitting vigil - the days
turn into weeks, then months, some of the family decides to resume living their
own lives at the risk of alienation of those family members who decide to stay
at the hospital bed day after day - then before they know it the time stretches
to one year then several - the family member has been moved to a nursing home
and the vigil continues and continues and continues.... I have seen families
break up when one member refuses to come home and begin living life again, refusing
to acknowledge their loved one was not gonna just get up one day and be normal.
The reality of the medical model extending itself beyond its capabilities.
The worse was the children - It took everything in my power to get through dealing
with a child - seeing a child who had been healthy, normal, and alive and in
the bat of an eye becoming a body on a respirator and then going back to the
same children's hospital to transport another child and finding out the first
one mercifully had succumbed - but the one I was transporting would probably
live like this for 40 or 50 years if they were VERY UNLUCKY. It tore me up.
One thing it brought home to me was my vulnerability and my powerlessness over
what could happen to me if someone, who doesn't even know me, would interfere
with my wishes and I would not even have a say in the matter.
Nadine
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7.1!Nadine.Thomas
Internet: Nadine.Thomas@p1.f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org34AEJ7D@CMUVM.BITNET (Bill Gorman) (05/01/91)
Index Number: 15264 > >Ahem, please check Matthew 5, 6, and 7. "Consider the lilies of the field, >they toil not neither do they spin, but Solomon in all his glory was not >awrayed line one of these." "Think not what ye shall eat or what ye shall >drink......." > >You see, Andy, this is what true faith means. That we trust that we will be >provided for, that we will somehow have the essentials of life. Um, I don't understand. Are you saying we should just "have faith" and walk away from a comatose person, trusting that they will be provided for one way or another? >Well, amen to that. But others are making this decision daily. They need help. > >No, Andy, I do not want to argue. I am just expressing my views. Take care, >see you on-line. I'm still confused. Are you saying that they do *NOT* need any help? What *ARE* your views? W. K. (Bill) Gorman
cmfaltz@phoenix.princeton.edu (Christine Marie Faltz) (05/01/91)
Index Number: 15271 I agree that without stringent precautions, euthanasia is a scary thing for the elderly and the disabled. However, I also believe that should I ever, for whatever reason, feel that my life is no longer worth living, I should have the right to die. I believe that the patient must either: a. sign a statement early in life dictating that if he or she is ever declared a 'vegetable', 'brain-dead' or 'terminally ill' that "I give permission to end my life if the chance of recovery is implausible" or "I wish to be kept alive until my body quits completely on me." In the case of any person who hasnot signed such a paper, (witnessed by an attorney and one other person) he or she should be asked, if he/she is conscious in the hospital to sign such a form or should sign a paper giving permission to a trusted family member or friend to decide, in case of the above incidents, what to do. If permission is not given via written, legal and binding contract, then euthanasia should not be considered under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. A human being should, however, make a decision as to when he or she wishes to give up; I once had a ninety-year-old woman cry on my shoulder because "They keep me on this machine and they keep me doped up; I don't want to live like this anymore. Why can't they just shut it all off?" Her family had given up on her and I, a volunteer, could do nothing for her except listen to her fervent desire to die. I have the health now to teach people that there is no conceivable reason that euthanasis be considered where the disabled are concerned. Let's let those who truly wish to die make that decision for themselves, while we utilize our energy to contribute and prove that we are just as alive and fully human as everyone else. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Poor is the person | Christine Faltz | | whose permission | 33 Prospect Ave. | | depends upon the | Princeton, NJ 08540 | | perceptions of others. | "Who is John Galt?" | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary.Warren@f5.n382.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Warren) (05/14/91)
Index Number: 15624
You ask whether voluntary euthanasia is selfish. I ask why don't you
see that prolonging someone's life needlessly is at least EQUALLY
selfish?? As Nadine and I have said repeatedly, if the health system
isn't up to snuff in the first place and if the living standards of
that person are substandard (i.e. most nursing homes, no matter what
their lobbyists say), then euthanasia would be more humane than
sentencing him/her to live the rest of his/her life in that squalor.
BTW, my Living Will has now been signed, notarized, copied and (will
be) distributed. It merely sez if I am comatose or brain dead without
hope of recovery for my parents to authorize no life support systems.
And, in the event my parents will not carry out my wishes then the
hospital and physicians are to fulfill them. BUT if I am conscious and
alert, it is MY choice whether to have my life prolonged and in
whatever manner I see fit.
Again, if the right-to-lifers have a better way and the financial and
moral gumption to oversee that, I'll listen to whatever they have to
say. But if not, they better butt out.
glw
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!382!5!Gary.Warren
Internet: Gary.Warren@f5.n382.z1.fidonet.orgPhilip.Kirschner@f3.n157.z1.fidonet.org (Philip Kirschner) (05/14/91)
Index Number: 15633
Gary:
You make a very prudent point in regards to living wills.The main
problem is nursing homes,and hospitals and the medical system make huge
ammounnts of money off of medicare and medicade.Thats what keeps things
turning.Keep um alive and make a million as they say!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!157!3!Philip.Kirschner
Internet: Philip.Kirschner@f3.n157.z1.fidonet.orgRussell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.org (Russell Hunt) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15636
Im puzzled. In this part of the world euthanasia relates to people
of sound mind making a conscious decision when faced with a
prognosis which they choose not to live. Yet, most of this
conversation focuses on a decision to cease life by someone else for
an individual who can't express a view ie. coma.
Strange. Are the Australian and US usages of English so different.
Inherrant in any such process is the expression of CONSCIOUS will.
After all, if you don't own your own life who does?
Regards .............. Russell
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!620!240!Russell.Hunt
Internet: Russell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.orgAnn.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Parsons) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15637
Hi Russel,
RH> Im puzzled. In this part of the world euthanasia relates to
RH> people of sound mind making a conscious decision when faced
RH> with a prognosis which they choose not to live. Yet, most of
RH> this conversation focuses on a decision to cease life by
RH> someone else for an individual who can't express a view ie.
The reason you find us discussing this subject in this way is that when legal
suicide is permitted, it allows unscrupulous people to take advantage of the
weak. Have you ever heard the expression give an inch and they'll take a mile?
RH> Strange. Are the Australian and US usages of English so
RH> different. Inherrant in any such process is the expression of
RH> CONSCIOUS will. After all, if you don't own your own life who
RH> does?
The Author of Life own's your life. You know, Russel, it wasn't so long ago
that people who committed suicide weren't permitted burial in consacrated
ground. The commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." It doesn't have
amendments.
Take care.
Ann P.
RH> Regards .............. Russell
RH> ---
RH> * Origin: Ghost of Opus - +61-6-286-4399 - Canberra, OZ.
RH> (3:620/240) RH> 13/13 260/228 222
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!260!207!Ann.Parsons
Internet: Ann.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.orgJoe.Chamberlain@f140.n150.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Chamberlain) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15639
RH> Im puzzled. In this part of the world euthanasia relates to people
RH> of sound mind making a conscious decision when faced with a
RH> prognosis which they choose not to live. Yet, most of this
RH> conversation focuses on a decision to cease life by someone else for
RH> an individual who can't express a view ie. coma.
Euthanasia is the same in the U.S. It is the fear
mongers who keep bringing up the idea of others doing it to you.
Of course they fail to realize that killing me without my consent
is called MURDER.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!150!140!Joe.Chamberlain
Internet: Joe.Chamberlain@f140.n150.z1.fidonet.orgGary.Warren@f5.n382.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Warren) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15641
You said, "The laws of this country shouldn't have to make people make
these decisions!" Truly, but lobby AGAINST those laws rather than some
big bad Nazi-ish euthanasia "executioner". The main thing I have
against the right-to-life people is that they put all their efforts
against some straw figure, not on the reasons necessitated by those
actions or people. It's easy to rally against an abortionist or a
killer doctor. It's much harder to protest its causes.
glw
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!382!5!Gary.Warren
Internet: Gary.Warren@f5.n382.z1.fidonet.orgAnn.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.org (Ann Parsons) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15646
Hi Adrienne,
AP>>Well, I think that you are right that we have the right to
AP>>disagree. When you
AP>>ask me if I would consider your wishes and pull the plug if you
AP>>had asked me
AP>>to do so, I can only say that I hope that I would do as Our Lord
AP>>wills. Adding
AB> So how you gonna know what your Lord wills?
Pray, read the Scriptures, know as much as I can about medical technology.
Then, add a little love and common sense.
AP>>here that I am only human and perhaps not strong enough to carry
AP>>our Lord's
AP>>wishes to fruition. I pray that He may not test me so. <grin>
Amen, and amen.
As a Theist, that's 'bout all I can say. One never knows what he/she is going
to do when push comes to shove. One would hope to do the thing which is right,
truly right in God's eyes, not the world's. You see, Adrienne, we have lost
the ability to look for heroes. If you read Science Fiction, there is a great
article by Stanley Schmidt, its editor about this subject. Oh, no, I don't
mean Euthanasia, but the shoe fits, I think.
He talks about the fact that we have slowed down the space project because we
think that it is unsafe. He goes on to ask who ever thought it was supposed to
be safe when you tried something new.
I guess what I am saying is that some people who are in favor of Euthanasia
are those who can not or will not stay the course. They prefer the easy way
out, the short cuts in life, the "me" syndrone. "I don't want to suffer so I
am going to leave." It would be nice to say that about many kinds of things.
Isn't it interesting that we deludge our kids with violence on tv and then
talk, talk, talk peace? What are we really saying?
I do not have answers. I do not know why some must suffer. I only know that I
do not know and I wouldn't presume to limit, confine, misinterpret, or profane
God and His gift of life.
Ann P.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!260!207!Ann.Parsons
Internet: Ann.Parsons@f207.n260.z1.fidonet.orgEarl.Appleby@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.org (Earl Appleby) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15647
In your May 6 message to the *pro-euthanasia* Russell Hunt from Down Under
(not our *anti-euthanasia* American Russell Hunt who, God bless
him, likes his sick people above the ground) you respond:
RH>> Im puzzled. In this part of the world euthanasia relates to people
RH>> of sound mind making a conscious decision when faced with a
RH>> prognosis which they choose not to live. Yet, most of this
RH>> conversation focuses on a decision to cease life by someone else for
RH>> an individual who can't express a view ie. coma.
JC> Euthanasia is the same in the U.S. It is the fear
JC> mongers who keep bringing up the idea of others doing it to you.
JC> Of course they fail to realize that killing me without my consent
JC> is called MURDER.
Try telling that to Clarence Herbert who was starved to death in
California *WITHOUT* his consent. The Los Angeles D.A. thought it was
murder too, (I know I spoke with him on several occasions) but the
judge ruled it was a medical (non)treatment decision (sic and sick)!
And just what do you think they're trying to do to Helga Wanglie
*WITHOUT* her consent and *AGAINST* the vigorous opposition of her
husband, Oliver, and her adult children, David and Ruth, (not to
mention another David against Goliath...CURE)? And do you really think
little Baby Doe consented to be starved to death on Good Friday because
he was born retarded? I only hope your neswletter places a higher
standard on objective reality (a.k.a. truth) than your response.
As for "fear mongering," when men in black coats give men in white coats
a license to kill the sick and disabled, perhaps, a little old-fashioned
fear is in order. It just might save your life. That is, of course, if
you value it. And even if you don't, you have *no* right to make it easier
for the euthanasians to murder those who do.
Earl, a "fear monger", but no fool.
... Justice is truth in action! (CURE: 304-258-LIFE)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!275!429!Earl.Appleby
Internet: Earl.Appleby@f429.n275.z1.fidonet.orgRussell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.org (Russell Hunt) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15649
I understand your particular perspective, however I just see thing
differently.
To me human dignity is vital and there are many circumstances, of a
medical nature, that can totally take it away from you. I'm not
talking about people opting out or degrading the value of human
life, its just that I can understand someone choosing not to endure
or force their loved ones to witness an inevitable disaster
resulting from a one way illness.
Thanks for your reply
Regards........Russell
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!620!240!Russell.Hunt
Internet: Russell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.orgRussell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.org (Russell Hunt) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15650
Isn't it funny that we live in societies that take responsibility
for maximising the quantity of peoples lives but not the quality of
life. I feel that if someone is of sound mind and they asses that
they are on a one way downhill run in relation to that quality, then
they ought to be able to make an adult choice.
P.S. Nice to hear from you.
Regards............ Russell
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!620!240!Russell.Hunt
Internet: Russell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.orgJoe.Chamberlain@f140.n150.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Chamberlain) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15654
EA> As for "fear mongering," when men in black coats give men in white coats
EA> a license to kill the sick and disabled, perhaps, a little old-fashioned
EA> fear is in order. It just might save your life. That is, of course, if
EA> you value it. And even if you don't, you have *no* right to make it
EA> easier for the euthanasians to murder those who do.
I believe euthanasia is a viable option for every citizen
to consider. We put an injured dog out of the pain. Humans
deserve the same right.
When my brain is dead or has no hope of regaining conscious
function then I hope and pray that the attending doctor will
honor my wishes and terminate my bodies life.
The biggest problem is that everyone thinks their choice
is the best for everyone. If you want to have all the life
supporting efforts used to keep your body alive I support your
choice. However, I object to you trying to prevent me from
having my choice carried out.
That is the purpose of a living will. I choose to have
one which spells out what I DON'T want done. I think you should
have one to spell out what you DO want done.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!150!140!Joe.Chamberlain
Internet: Joe.Chamberlain@f140.n150.z1.fidonet.orgEarl.Appleby@hnews.fidonet.org (Earl Appleby) (05/15/91)
Index Number: 15657
Excuse me for interrupting, Adrienne, but I'm a bit confused.
In your May 10th reply to Ann, you say at one point:
AB> The only life I want to control is mine.
Yet at another:
AB> ...And people who choose
AB> euthanasia to spare their loved ones suffering
Leaving aside the question of just whose "suffering" is being
alleviated, this sounds like a third-party controlling, or, rather,
taking another's life!
AB> and/or expenses that will ruin their lives?
Or diminish the family estate or add to the deficit????
If you're poor you must die to balance the budget...
If you're rich to enrich your heirs.
The discussion to date not withstanding, you don't have to believe in
the God of Love to value your life but beware, my friend, those who
worship the false god whose sacrificial altar bears the $-sign.
(Speaking purely for myself, I'll take the old rugged Cross any day.)
Take care, Adrienne.
Earl [YR]
... There is no Wealth but Life. --Ruskin (CURE: 304-258-LIFE)
--- Via Silver Xpress V2.28
* Origin: The Handicap News BBS 1-203-337-1607 (1:141/420)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Earl.Appleby
Internet: Earl.Appleby@hnews.fidonet.orgcovici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) (05/16/91)
Index Number: 15700 Russell.Hunt@f240.n620.z3.fidonet.org (Russell Hunt) writes: > Im puzzled. In this part of the world euthanasia relates to people > of sound mind making a conscious decision when faced with a > prognosis which they choose not to live. Yet, most of this > conversation focuses on a decision to cease life by someone else for > an individual who can't express a view ie. coma. > > Strange. Are the Australian and US usages of English so different. > Inherrant in any such process is the expression of CONSCIOUS will. > After all, if you don't own your own life who does? Well, that's interesting. We cannot create life, and I can't imagine that we own our lives; for if we did so, we could sell our lives and I need not go into the moral consequences of that. Euthanasia always involves the killing of another person. You can call it what you will, but through inaction or action the person is killed. This is an abomination according to natural law and in our country we have our declaration of independence which says "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that amoung these are LIFE ...". If that proposition is accepted, then it would seem that only the Creator should be allowed to take that life away which he endowed in the first place and that we should do nothing to change that decision (indeed I am certain that we could not prolong a life if the Creator wants to terminate it). Anyway, when you get right down to it euthanasia is just a fraud to kill people whom the proponents of euthanasia would call "useless eaters" or they would say "lives not worthy to be lived, etc ...". These are the same folks who would ration medical care, kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, put out reports that say that the world's population should be REDUCED by billions, etc. That's where this comes from and no where else. These folks ration medical care and then when the people who are on that inadequate care say that if they have to live like this, they would rather die, these Malthusians will then say that that was a rational decision of the person involved!! What a lot of balloney!!
J..P..Beland@f234.n163.z1.fidonet.org (J. P. Beland) (05/17/91)
Index Number: 15724
In a message to Earl Appleby <05-11-91 18:43> Joe Chamberlain wrote:
JC-> I believe euthanasia is a viable option for every
JC->citizen
JC->to consider. We put an injured dog out of the pain.
JC->Humans
JC->deserve the same right.
Hi! Joe,
I was looking into my Webster's dictionary for the definition of euthanasia,
and I found the following:
Euthanasia: [L., from Gr. euthanasia, a painless, happy death; eu-, well,
and thanatos, death]
1- an easy and painless death; a peaceful manner of dying.
2-act or method of causing death painlessly, so as to end suffering;
advocated by some as a way to deal with victims of incurable diseases
They put horses to death because once the horse was injured it was useless
and people in pioneer time did not want to feed a non-working horse. I
don't know if they killed other animals except in movies. But I am aware
of dogs that were not killed to relieve their suffering too early but left
to live out their lives.
I cannot be for euthanasia as when will it be practiced? I am already
suffering from an incurable disease and suffering at times in different
degrees. If they use the definition as quoted above, somebody could put me
to sleep tonight and be right about it. But I am not ready to leave.
But if we are speaking of not doing any extra-ordinary procedure to keep me
alive, then I am for that when the time comes and I am old enough.
But it is difficult to tell when that might be. I assume that I will know
when it is time. I have discussed it only with my wife at this time as I
believe I can trust her at when it is the appropriate time.
I have been close and attending three persons that have died, and I never
wished to end it for them at any time. I do not regret the time used to be
with them in their final hour and believe that I have gained from the
experience even though there was some suffering on my part at that time of
not being able to do more.
I don't think that anyone should have the right to kill anyone.
cheers, J.P.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!163!234!J..P..Beland
Internet: J..P..Beland@f234.n163.z1.fidonet.orgNadine.Thomas@p1.f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Nadine Thomas) (05/24/91)
Index Number: 15789
Hi!
I read your post to Joe and I wanted to bring this back to the point that I
think is being missed.
Euthanasia is something to be decided by THE PERSON WHO HAS THE TERMINAL ILLNESS
or whatever - not the people outside to decide for that person.
If *I* have a living will I EXPECT it to be carried out because it is *MY* wish
- no one else is deciding yes or no because I have already made the decision
when I signed the living will.
Now, if I did not make a verbal and/or written statement then my fate is in
the hands of others. I would find it very difficult, at best, to make a decision
like that for someone else.
I do not believe anyone here is saying "fry everyone who even looks ill".
When I see outsiders trying to stop a family from `pulling the plug' on a family
member who EXPRESSLY REQUESTED to NOT live on life support I get angry. Those
OUTSIDERS have NO right to interfere with a VERY PERSONAL decision that was
made when the person was of sound mind and body.
The elderly man who was on trial for helping his wife kill herself because she
was terminally ill and wanted it this way - I think it is a disgrace to put
that man through what they did - he suffered enough without the circus that
was created.
Dignity! Where is dignity allowed? Why can't a person decide they want to
die with dignity instead of rotting away and having all those UNdignified things
done to them?
Having to have a home health aide come in to help me shower twice a week has
really allowed me to appreciate the elderly and their terrible embarassment
when their `dignity' has been taken from them - I have to block out all thoughts
in my mind while the aide is here. When the worker initially came out to do
an intake she asked if I would mind a male aide and I thought I was going to
die just thinking about that! Heck NO! NO male aide!
Thanks for listening.
Nadine
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7.1!Nadine.Thomas
Internet: Nadine.Thomas@p1.f7.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJeff.Dubois@p0.f207.n163.z1.fidonet.org (Jeff Dubois) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15972
I've made my point very clear on this matter before. You people, in an
attempt to give an opinion on the subject, are attempting to define
euthanasia. Let me know when you get an accurate definition. And while
you're at it. I want to know what psi, pornography, abortion, liberal
democracy, religion, and self-gratification are.
Euthanasia? My opinion only. If I managed to live this long through
this much hell and technology can keep me going with no dignity then I
want to keep on going. Why? Because of tax dollars of course. I vote.
My choice of government wasn't elected but I vote. If I have to pay
taxes for programmes I don't believe in then I want some of it back.
You might find that peculiar. 74% of Canadian population vote in
federal elections contrasted with 56% in the U.S. Explain this and you
will understand democracy and your right to bear arms. Bear arms? I'm
wearing a T shirt right now and I have bare arms.
Now let's all just agree to disagree on euthanasia.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!163!207.0!Jeff.Dubois
Internet: Jeff.Dubois@p0.f207.n163.z1.fidonet.orgJoe.Chamberlain@f140.n150.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Chamberlain) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15974
FW> I refuse to actively get involved in this matter but I agree with you
FW> 100 percent. I also believe that you are correct in your views on
FW> demonstrating. I believe that it is much more dignified to meet
FW> people in a respectable manner. As my father used to say you can
FW> catch more bees with honey then you can with vinegar. We didn't agree
FW> very often but in this case I believe that he was right on target.
I really think that most of the issues discussed in
Washington these days are a smoke screen and as phoney as a three
dollar bill.
The people want. The government is broke. The
politicians are a bunch of gutless wonders only interested in
getting re-elected.
At best demonstrations will get us a few platitudes from
some Senator looking to make the 6 o'clock news. But that's all
they deserve because their sole intention was to make the 6
o'clock news too.
Euthanasia is a topic that has been discussed in this
echo before and it really accomplishes nothing. Each individual
has to make that decision for themselves. What would be more
appropriate is to discuss the fears involved. Fear and distrust
of our care providors is the real issue.
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!150!140!Joe.Chamberlain
Internet: Joe.Chamberlain@f140.n150.z1.fidonet.orgGary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.org (Gary Warren) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15982
You're entitled to use your tax dollar$ as you see fit. If you wish to
"keep on going," this is fine. What Nadine, me and everyone on our side
of the issue keeps trying (and failing, apparently, with some people) to
emphasize is that we have the right to choose NOT to keep living if we
end up in a vegetative or similarly low state of life.
glw
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Gary.Warren
Internet: Gary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.orgGary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.org (Gary Warren) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15983
Now, Joe, not ALL politicians are "gutless wonders". Congress critters
as diverse as Bob Dole, Tom Harkin, Lloyd Bentsen and others DID help
pass ADA, and George Bush--most of the time ever the big business
caretaker--DID sign the bill.
glw
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Gary.Warren
Internet: Gary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.orgFrank.Whitney@p0.f1000.n261.z1.fidonet.org (Frank Whitney) (06/05/91)
Index Number: 15996 >What criteria do you use. I would be as concerned about the system being >turned off when I did not wish as I would be about being forced to stay on >it. I believe that those are justifiable concerns. At the present moment I do not have a living will but I am going to be attending some seminars on the subject. I would say that when I were to draw up a living will I would be very explicit as to the conditions at which I would not want to have heroic measures used to save or prolong my life. I know that my mother has written a living will that just stipulates that in any event she is not to have any life support systems used at all. I believe that is too vague and when I have one drawn up it will be very specific. Frank. -- Via Opus Msg Kit v1.12 -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!261!1000.0!Frank.Whitney Internet: Frank.Whitney@p0.f1000.n261.z1.fidonet.org
covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) (06/06/91)
Index Number: 16003 Gary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.org (Gary Warren) writes: > Index Number: 15982 > You're entitled to use your tax dollar$ as you see fit. If you wish to > "keep on going," this is fine. What Nadine, me and everyone on our side > of the issue keeps trying (and failing, apparently, with some people) to > emphasize is that we have the right to choose NOT to keep living if we > end up in a vegetative or similarly low state of life. The point is that what the euthanasia advocates are working towards and what all of them want is government mandated euthanasia!! This matter of choosing is just a sham, you may believe it, but the groups and Nazis pushing this stuff sure don't. If people don't wake up and fight this kind of activity then it will be mandated. Look at the Wanglee case, her relatives WANT TO KEEP HER ALIVE and they are getting sued!! I don't think that there is any real choice, once you state that there's a life not worthy to be lived, then you argue over what the dividing line is and you get into big trouble. But remember these Nazis don't want to give you a choice, its just a ruse to suck you in, then they'll tell you "We don't have the money ... " et John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com
Anton.Johnson@f56.n161.z1.fidonet.org (Anton Johnson) (06/21/91)
Index Number: 16321
Greetings Adrienne, I am not disabled so you can do with my message
as you please.
I am of the opinion that if a person has any possibility of having
a productive life even as a disabled person that the plug should
not be pulled. Productive life can take many different forms and
must be left up to personal definitions so I will not try to
discuss that topic unless someone wants to discuss it.
There is no cut and dry answer on the part of medical personal or
on the part of families or even the legal system on when one should
pull the plug on a patient in a hospital or care facility. This is
a decision that should be made by an individual. In many
situations the patient is unable to make their position known to
the care givers. I believe that an individual should make a living
will. In this way family members, medical personal and the
judicial system can know the desires of an individual when a
decision is to be made on what to do with the plug.
I do not think family members, medical personal or even the judical
system has the right to pull the plug without the living will
unless there is absolutely no possibility for survival. I would
not consider a permanent vegative state (absolutely no response or
possibility of improvement) to be survival. I do believe that one
who is comatose should be provided at a minimum feedings for the
purpose of survival. I have heard of situations where one has
regained conscienceness after years of being comatose.
I do not believe the financial burden on a family should have any
relavence when it comes to meeting the needs of a patient. Again,
I would like to stress the importance of a living will so others
may have a basis on which to make a decision. Anton...
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!161!56!Anton.Johnson
Internet: Anton.Johnson@f56.n161.z1.fidonet.orgJohn.Covici@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (John Covici) (06/26/91)
Index Number: 16452 >John, if you knew me as well as my parents and various friends and >associates do, you then would see that govt.-mandated ANYTHING, much >less euthanasia, is the last thing I'd ever advocate. So, please, >don't presume to tell me what I think, ok? I am not saying what you believe, I am saying that the Nazis that push Euthanasia talk about patients choice, BUT THEY DON'T MEAN it, so if you support this kind of think what you WILL wind up with is government mandated euthanasia and nothing less. Consider this Miniapolis case and take warning. John -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!101!460!John.Covici Internet: John.Covici@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org
Gary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.org (Gary Warren) (06/28/91)
Index Number: 16475
->I am saying that the Nazis that push Euthanasia talk about patients
choice, BUT THEY DON'T MEAN it, so if you support this kind of think
what you WILL wind up with is government mandated euthanasia and nothing
less.
And how do YOU KNOW "THEY" don't mean it? And who are "THEY"??
Could be you're seeing too many reruns of "Holocaust", my friend?
glw
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Gary.Warren
Internet: Gary.Warren@hnews.fidonet.orgMichael.Marsden@newcastle.ac.uk (Michael Marsden) (06/28/91)
Index Number: 16493 John.Covici@f460.n101.z1.fidonet.org (John Covici) writes: > [.......] I am saying that the Nazis that push >Euthanasia talk about patients choice, BUT THEY DON'T MEAN it, so if you >support this kind of think what you WILL wind up with is government mandated >euthanasia and nothing less. Consider this Miniapolis case and take warning. Why do you seem to assume that a) people who want voluntary euthanasia are "Nazis" who want to force euthanasia upon people? This seems to be an amazingly negative view of a group of people who to me seem fairly normal.. not that I am familiar with States politics. Here the pro-euthanasia people tend to be civil liberties types.. I'm thinking here of "Exit" (who's real name is "the society for voluntary euthanasia" or something like that), who have been persecuted by the government, members threatened with legal action, etc. Hardly the image of totalitarian Nazis! b) why should having voluntary euthanasia on the statute books lead to government mandated euthanasia?? This seems somewhat unlikely to me. Perhaps I'm being naive, but politicians do whatever is popular, and killing helpless people against their wills is unpopular. Remember that people who want to live in these situations, or have children / dependants, would vote against such a possibility. To a politician, it would be far too dangerous to try to introduce something like that.. put his/her power under risk? Never! I know very little about the Miniapolis case, so I can't comment on the details. However, I vaguely seem to remember that a girl in an irreversible coma, who had previously indicated she wanted to die in a similar circumstance, was left to do so (no water/food?), although her family disagreed. I may very well have made serious errors in that summary, but on the off-chance that I was correct, I think that the previously expressed will of the patient takes priority over her family (they don't own her after all). My own views: 1) statute. I'm in favour of voluntary euthanasia, as long as a number of conditions are satisfied in each case; if the patient is unable to confirm the act immediately before it is carried out, and MAY be capable of doing so in the future (recover from coma / mental illness / whatever), then it should not be carried out. Furthermore, the patient must have at some previous point asked for euthanasia (eg, a "living will"). If the patient IS capable of asking for euthanasia, and does so, he/she should be interviewed by a psychiatrist to rule out depression etc. 2) personal. In the event of some irreversible damage to my mental processes, subject to the conditions stated above, I would want euthanasia. -Mike Marsden