Pro-life community just switched positions; it now supports assisted suicide!

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Crow
A person is in a coma. We are told to care for them and preserve human dignity and talk to them just as we would a fully alert person.

I've often wondered about this. Since people in comas are supposedly aware of their surroundings, is there a TV in this person's room? Does the staff ask the family what his favorite shows are? Is the staff diligent to make sure the TV is turned to those channels when those shows come on? What about his favorite radio shows and favorite music? Do they read him the newspaper?

If it was me, I would hope my family would record all of Bob Enyart's new shows and play them back for me as well as his sermons.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by Jefferson

I've often wondered about this. Since people in comas are supposedly aware of their surroundings, is there a TV in this person's room? Does the staff ask the family what his favorite shows are? Is the staff diligent to make sure the TV is turned to those channels when those shows come on? What about his favorite radio shows and favorite music? Do they read him the newspaper?

If it was me, I would hope my family would record all of Bob Enyart's new shows and play them back for me as well as his sermons.

We generally play the TV or the radio. Usually the family will bring in tapes or CDs.

In one place where I was working, a woman came out of a coma after 2 years. She knew the names of the staff who had cared for her by the sound of their voices.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Crow

We generally play the TV or the radio. Usually the family will bring in tapes or CDs.

In one place where I was working, a woman came out of a coma after 2 years. She knew the names of the staff who had cared for her by the sound of their voices.

Interesting. In that case, since the person in a coma has so much time on their hands, they could learn a new language listening to tapes while in a coma.

 

[Crow]

I dunno. Never tried it.

Not a whole lot is known about what people are capable of understanding in a coma state, and there are different stages of coma. Most who come out of a coma have some recollection of events that took place during their coma, but it might well be that it's all from when they were in the lighter stages. I haven't seen any studies to say one way or the other.

That same woman's son was severely brain damaged in the accident that put his mother in the coma. Terri kinda reminds me of him. He eventually died of unrelated causes. He was also classified as PVS. We used to put my Walkman on him at night and play CDs for him. He had a definite preference for rock and roll. He'd shake his head back and forth and smile. One night, someone put a classical CD in, thinking that it would help him sleep. He squalled so loud that he woke half of the facility.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

servent101 said: "if someone cannot and is not able to feed themselves, and if the only way they can be kept alive is through a tube - this goes beyond what God would allow."

You mean like when the Hebrew mothers breast fed their babies because they were “not able able to feed themselves”? Do you really think God would think it is okay, for the mother to say to the baby, “Go get your own food.” ?

The Bible deals specifically with taking care of people who cannot eat because of a disability, because of age, of because or disease. Those that have the ability to work, should work to eat, it is true. However the Bible is fairly clear that those who cannot work for their food because of age (old or young), disease or whatever, should be taken care of by their families, or the church. It does not say, “You can let that person die”. In Matthew 15 Jesus said that people who say that should be put to death!:thumb:

Now if someone’s heart or lungs were being kept going because their brain wasn't sending out the signals that isn't just giving them food and water but is a significant alteration to their anatomy.

Probably the worst argument coming up now is that much of Terri's brain is gone. I guess, we're back to killing people for not being intelligent enough. Deciding who should live and who should die is a job best not left to liberals. They always seem to get it backwards.

Crow said: "Terri never indicated to anyone (unless you believe her husband, who has a very real conflict of interest in that he has started another family) that she would not want lifesaving measures."

I believe that it is irrelevant whether or not Terri told her husband that, even if true and in the very context of the situation she is currently in. Crow, is it your belief that we should kill people that ask us to? (Please don’t council any jumpers if you do. ) We should try to provide life and hope, not death. That is what God would want.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
Crow, is it your belief that we should kill people that ask us to? (Please don’t council any jumpers if you do. ) We should try to provide life and hope, not death. That is what God would want.

I was commenting that Terri's husband is not a credible witness to her wishes.

My belief is that a person should have the option of refusing to accept extrordinary measures if they are dying. A person who is dying of advanced cancer, for example, who cannot possibly be saved, should not be forced to be stuck on a ventilator. They should not be forced to prolong a death which is inevitible.

If I am 90 years old and dying of old age, I don't want to be kept alive by increasingly invasive means. I accept that I am going to die, and that there is a limit to a natural lifespan. I don't want to be kept alive on life support as a chunk of meat.

My father died of a fatal heart condition. It was inevitable that he would die within a short time of an increasingly life-threatening arrhythmia that did not respond to any treatment in the medical arsenal. He decided that when he did arrest that he did not want to be brought back by CPR and placed on advanced life support when it would prolong his life by a few days. He chose to die at home, and did so quietly. That was his choice, and I believe that it was a wise choice.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I asked: Crow, is it your belief that we should kill people that ask us to?
Crow said I was commenting that Terri's husband is not a credible witness to her wishes. My belief is that a person should have the option of refusing to accept extrordinary measures if they are dying.

I don’t want to break into a different issue (defining what "extraordinary measure" are and determining if they completely heal or not), but my understanding of what you are saying is that you feel it is NOT okay to grant someone’s wishes to be starved to death, thrown off a building, shot in the head, or some other means to escape life (and yes, even pain). If so then we are in basic agreement.

See the problem here is that let’s say Terri did say that, and even in the exact context of the state she is in. Basically Terri looks upon the situation and says, that isn’t a worthy life. So should we respect her wishes to die, or should we try to keep her alive?

If you look at it through an easier issue to grasp, think of a teenager who has been deformed in an accident. She was beautiful before and now she is scarred and the object of ridicule among classmates at the public school she attends. She, like Terri, sees no value in this sort of life. It isn’t a worthy life to her. So should we respect her wishes to die, or should we try to keep her alive?

Hopefully we answer "no" to both questions.

I agree with you (from my understanding) that there is a difference
1) in a procedure which never fixes anything, but keeps the body going (like a respirator), and
2) a "procedure" that is nothing more than the natural course of all healthy humans (mainly - to eat).

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi

I don’t want to break into a different issue (defining what "extraordinary measure" are and determining if they completely heal or not), but my understanding of what you are saying is that you feel it is NOT okay to grant someone’s wishes to be starved to death, thrown off a building, shot in the head, or some other means to escape life (and yes, even pain). If so then we are in basic agreement.

See the problem here is that let’s say Terri did say that, and even in the exact context of the state she is in. Basically Terri looks upon the situation and says, that isn’t a worthy life. So should we respect her wishes to die, or should we try to keep her alive?

If you look at it through an easier issue to grasp, think of a teenager who has been deformed in an accident. She was beautiful before and now she is scarred and the object of ridicule among classmates at the public school she attends. She, like Terri, sees no value in this sort of life. It isn’t a worthy life to her. So should we respect her wishes to die, or should we try to keep her alive?

Hopefully we answer "no" to both questions.

I agree with you (from my understanding) that there is a difference
1) in a procedure which never fixes anything, but keeps the body going (like a respirator), and
2) a "procedure" that is nothing more than the natural course of all healthy humans (mainly - to eat).

I think that one should preserve life if there is an opportunity to do so, even if in a diminished capacity.

I never want to be put on advanced life support or given CPR. That is my wish--not to be brought back from the dead. And that is what CPR does. If I am dead, let me stay dead.

If death is inevitible within a few days, I would think it is reasonable not to put a person through getting a feeding tube, which is not a painless procedure, if it was not their desire to have one. Life ends, and at some point nothing we can do will prolong life beyond a few days. I've seen feeding tubes put into people who died within hours of the procedure because the family could not accept that end stage heart disease or end stage cancer is end stage, and often completely overriding the wishes of the patient, simply because the patient did not have advance directives and could no longer speak for themselves. That is ridiculous.

As far as allowing the teenage girl you mention to die because she was disfigured, that's nuts. She can have a long life and a very good quality of life, even if she is disfigured. It is not as if she is dying and there is no hope for her to live beyond a few days.

In many severely disfigured people, there is a desire to die shortly after the disfigurement. It takes time to adjust to such a devastating change, and they usually do so.

 

[servent101]

I was wondering how far you take this idea:

– what idea? What I posted was in response to

originally posted by Bob Enyart
Morality does not require ventilating and pumping fluids through a virtual corpse that has no brain activity, but starving someone to death is wrong.

the virtual corpse is what I am referring too – now if you want to question Mr. Bob – my main point on my post is that there are lots of other people in the world, including the good old U.S. of A. that are dying of poverty related issues – and it seems the orthodox church only wants to deal with the “ theories of what and how things might be as you say

I am simply taking your idea to the next step.

NO – You are trying to bastardize everything I say and everything about me – you are probably ignoring what needs to be done in your own life – the problems of attitude towards others – like as I suggested

trying to bastardize everything I say and everything about me

when I am making a point that this is what a lot of people turn out like at church – simply an energy feed – take what someone says and slander it and them, till they do the same to someone else – then you accept them as having knowledge of your god.

Anyways there are thinking sane people in the world, and what you say is [/quote] the next step [/quote] is simply a result of what you believe through your process of bastardization of anyone who does not feed on the same sour teat as you.

Watch BCK – watch his posts, this is all he does, takes what someone says, and then takes it out of context – even when I ask him to stop, what does he do? – this is the end product of your dogma and doctrines of demons – but you can’t look at him, cause he is not mentioned in the closed canon of Christian Scripture.

Anyways – how can I expect a sane response from you, I really don’t expect much from you. Prove me wrong if you want – post something about what I said, without taking it out of context.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by servent101

– what idea? What I posted was in response to

the virtual corpse is what I am referring too – now if you want to question Mr. Bob – my main point on my post is that there are lots of other people in the world, including the good old U.S. of A. that are dying of poverty related issues – and it seems the orthodox church only wants to deal with the “ theories of what and how things might be as you say

NO – You are trying to bastardize everything I say and everything about me – you are probably ignoring what needs to be done in your own life – the problems of attitude towards others – like as I suggested when I am making a point that this is what a lot of people turn out like at church – simply an energy feed – take what someone says and slander it and them, till they do the same to someone else – then you accept them as having knowledge of your god.

Anyways there are thinking sane people in the world, and what you say is

the next step

is simply a result of what you believe through your process of bastardization of anyone who does not feed on the same sour teat as you.

Watch BCK – watch his posts, this is all he does, takes what someone says, and then takes it out of context – even when I ask him to stop, what does he do? – this is the end product of your dogma and doctrines of demons – but you can’t look at him, cause he is not mentioned in the closed canon of Christian Scripture.

Anyways – how can I expect a sane response from you, I really don’t expect much from you. Prove me wrong if you want – post something about what I said, without taking it out of context.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

Servent, this thread is about euthanasia/mercy killing/right to die/right to life, etc. If you wish to discuss your issues with the church and poverty you have every right to start a thread. If you continue to attempt to deflect this thread from it's purpose, I'll channel your posts into a new thread.

 

[BChristianK]

Servent101 said:

Watch BCK – watch his posts, this is all he does, takes what someone says, and then takes it out of context – even when I ask him to stop, what does he do? – this is the end product of your dogma and doctrines of demons – but you can’t look at him, cause he is not mentioned in the closed canon of Christian Scripture.

I think TOL should have a contest to see who can guess the number of times Servent says “closed canon” in a month

Servent, I really don’t know why you bother to say the same thing thousands of different ways. Just save a response and post it over and over and over, save yourself some time….

Grace and Peace

 

[Turbo]

I hope you are enjoying your adrenaline rush, BChristianK!

 

[Imrahil]

the virtual corpse is what I am referring too – now if you want to question Mr. Bob – my main point on my post is that there are lots of other people in the world, including the good old U.S. of A. that are dying of poverty related issues – and it seems the orthodox church only wants to deal with the “ theories of what and how things might be as you say

So why not bring them up in an appropriate thread instead of hijacking this one? And why do you mind people dying of poverty related issues if you don't mind a woman dying of dehydration at the hands of a doctor?

NO – You are trying to bastardize everything I say and everything about me – you are probably ignoring what needs to be done in your own life – the problems of attitude towards others – like as I suggested

Yeah ok. Where exactly are you getting this or are you just totally making it up?

Anyways there are thinking sane people in the world, and what you say is "the next step" is simply a result of what you believe through your process of bastardization of anyone who does not feed on the same sour teat as you.

So you tell me what the difference is between starving an adult who is unable to feed herself and starving a child who is unable to feed herself?

Anyways – how can I expect a sane response from you, I really don’t expect much from you. Prove me wrong if you want – post something about what I said, without taking it out of context.

Do you even know the meaning of the word "relax"?

With Christ’s Love

I sort of doubt that.

 

[Bob Enyart]

There's no such thing as assisted suicide...

There's no such thing as assisted suicide...

I want to thank the following people for the specific posts they've made in this thread so far:

Drbrumley; Imrahil; BChristianK; Sozo; jeremiah; Frank Ernest; Crow; Nineveh; Lawless; Jefferson.

Also, I want to quote Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough who said to me, “There’s no such thing as assisted suicide, it’s murder.” And also, “God tells us that we have a cross to bear, He doesn’t add, ‘Kill yourself when it gets tough.’”

And my thanks to Crow are heartfelt, but I do want to qualify that depending upon his meaning when he wrote:

I never want to be put on advanced life support or given CPR. That is my wish--not to be brought back from the dead. And that is what CPR does. If I am dead, let me stay dead.
If death is inevitible within a few days, I would think it is reasonable not to put a person through getting a feeding tube…

Of course we can’t always determine immediately the extent of damage, and if we don’t revive someone who can perhaps fully recover over time, then the default position is that they should die because of an unhealthy bias against revival. From what you’ve written, I think that you and I agree that it is wrong to kill someone, but not wrong to let a dying man die. However, I’d like to try to pull you further to the side of erring on the side of life even in those precious moments when life-saving actions must be taken.

 

[Turbo]

Re: There's no such thing as assisted suicide...

Re: There's no such thing as assisted suicide...

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

Also, I want to quote Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough who said to me, “There’s no such thing as assisted suicide, it’s murder.” And also, “God tells us that we have a cross to bear, He doesn’t add, ‘Kill yourself when it gets tough.’”

That's good stuff! :up:

 

[Crow]

Re: There's no such thing as assisted suicide...

Re: There's no such thing as assisted suicide...

Originally posted by Bob Enyart

I want to thank the following people for the specific posts they've made in this thread so far:

Drbrumley; Imrahil; BChristianK; Sozo; jeremiah; Frank Ernest; Crow; Nineveh; Lawless; Jefferson.

Also, I want to quote Columbine dad Brian Rohrbough who said to me, “There’s no such thing as assisted suicide, it’s murder.” And also, “God tells us that we have a cross to bear, He doesn’t add, ‘Kill yourself when it gets tough.’”

And my thanks to Crow are heartfelt, but I do want to qualify that depending upon his meaning when he wrote:

Crow: I never want to be put on advanced life support or given CPR. That is my wish--not to be brought back from the dead. And that is what CPR does. If I am dead, let me stay dead.
If death is inevitible within a few days, I would think it is reasonable not to put a person through getting a feeding tube…

Of course we can’t always determine immediately the extent of damage, and if we don’t revive someone who can perhaps fully recover over time, then the default position is that they should die because of an unhealthy bias against revival. From what you’ve written, I think that you and I agree that it is wrong to kill someone, but not wrong to let a dying man die. However, I’d like to try to pull you further to the side of erring on the side of life even in those precious moments when life-saving actions must be taken.

I understand where you're coming from. The current laws force medical personel to make all attempts to revive someone even if they have the majority of their brains blown out, brain stem infarcts (which leave one brain dead), people dying with advanced cancer, etc, unless there are directives to another effect.

I'll mix the facts up a little to preserve confidentiality in the odd case that someone might be able to identify this person who I worked with, but this is based on a person I cared for.

He was about 80, had lived with terminal cancer for several years, and it had invaded several body systems. It had affected all aspects of his life, and he was very close to dying. He did not want to be kept alive by any artificial means. He had run his race, so to speak, and he was ready to move on. He was saved, and he saw no reason to avoid the inevitible, in fact he had spoken about looking forward to being with the Lord.

His family was not willing to let go. Some of the staff weren't either--the guy was a real sweetheart, and we all loved him. His family obtained a court order giving them medical power of attorney so that they could override his wishes. Mercifully, he died just before they could start artificial feeding. And mercifully, he was dead when he was found on rounds, so the CPR procedures did not do any good.

There is no rhyme or reason nor hint of wisdom in what goes on in the medical field today, or the legal system' when it comes to end of life issues. A young relatively healthy woman can be starved because she is impaired, despite the fact that she could have another 30 years of life ahead of her. An old dying man can be force fed even though it won't save him from his terminal illness.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[BillyBob]

Crow in her field! :crackup:

:chuckle:


[That was corny] :freak:

 

[Flipper]

Crow: I never want to be put on advanced life support or given CPR. That is my wish--not to be brought back from the dead. And that is what CPR does. If I am dead, let me stay dead...

Actually, death really only occurs when brain activity ceases. Until then, all bets might be off.

What's the difference between someone who will starve because they can't feed themselves due to catastrophic brain damage and someone who can't pump blood around their body because their heart has quit working properly?

I believe you've said that sitting by while someone is murdered implies some complicity - why is it different if you sit by and let someone go into cardiac arrest and die? This smacks of situational ethics.

Furthermore, I'm guessing that as Bob now supports keeping people like Terri Schiavano alive indefinitely, he probably also supports some socialized medicine to pay for this? Or can we pull the plug on people who can no longer afford to pay for this sort of care? Perhaps the court could mandate seizing the assets of people who aren't prepared to sell their houses to sustain their loved ones?

I don't understand the continuum of sanctity here. People who can't feed themselves but are otherwise stable must be kept alive at all costs (even though there is little to no chance of recovery) but people who need ventilators to breath don't have to be kept alive if they don't want to be? I think a bit of clarity is needed here, Bob. Your standards appear to be alarmingly inconsistent.

 

[Bob Enyart]

Confusion?

Confusion?

I don't understand the continuum of sanctity here.

It's okay to die, it's not ok to kill people who are not dying.

And as for a feeding tube, it's about this complicated:

 

[Flipper]

It's okay to die, it's not ok to kill people who are not dying.

And as for a feeding tube, it's about this complicated:

So basically, you're OK with letting someone die because they're in intensive care and on a ventilator, even though with the right care they could make a full recovery? However, you deplore letting someone die even though they've suffered critical brain damage and is not likely to ever made any kind of a recovery?

What about a brain-damaged premature infant on a ventilator? If there's even the slightest chance of a possible recovery in the future (and you can never say never), then in your view it must be criminal to switch that ventilator off, right? And if it isn't, then apparently it is sometimes OK to kill babies, right? After all, they can't function on their own.

As far as the complexity of the feeding tube goes, I'm not sure I see your point here. Complexity shouldn't be the gate that decides who lives or who dies, right?

After all, CPR is just chest compression - heck, it doesn't even need a surgical procedure. There are plenty of people who have had CPR who made a full (unimpaired) recovery. Therefore, your request to be denied CPR is just letting people murder you through inaction. Just as letting Terri Schiavano die is murder through inaction.

Also, by your standards it seems like it would have been fine to leave her to die when she was arresting on the floor, but once she's stabilized and in a vegetative state it suddenly becomes murder to do so? But if someone has a fatal disease and wants to die painlessly, it's not OK to prescribe them a lethal dose of drugs?

See what I mean about consistency? Perhaps you could clarify your views a bit?