I have a great uncle dying in the hospital right now. Black lung. The last time he woke up on the respirator, he looked at his granddaughters and said, "Don't you ever let them put me on that machine again." Well, he fell ill recently, and the hospital put him on the machine again. He likely won't come out of it this time, but if he does it's going to be sad anyway -- because he did not want to keep living if a machine had to breathe for him.

How does this make suicide any different? The personal freedom to kill yourself directly impacts another person as I've shown. It can rob a child of a father, a person of their sister, a parent of their child etc etc etc. Suicide victims are those left behind. The effect on others is precisely my point!


Every single person close to the suicider feels to blame. Blame doesn't occur with most other untimely deaths. Everyone feels to blame. This horrible guilt causes some people undoing. It destroys marriages, especially if one spouse blames the other for their childs death.

It also, as I mentioned in my ex-wifes friends case, can lead to other family members doing the same thing. The son killed himself after his mother did. In a person losing a fight against terminal illness, or an accident, the relatives don't have to fight the attack on their own will to live in such a measure. My ex-wife came close to ending her own life. We ended up marrying after that, but that's all another story.


The Florida case is an excellent example. The woman is of value to her parents and those that are fighting to keep her alive. It is highly probable that the woman hasn't the mental faculties to understand what is going on. However, she is of value to them. The husband is another matter. There are questions about how she suffocated the night in question, why he did nothing with the million dollars to rehabilitate her, and that she was speaking of a divorce before her brain damage.

If he doesn't want her in his life, he can divorce her, hand her over to her parents. It's been twelve years. Of course he needs closure, but that's no reason to deprive her parents of hope and her presence.

What of other disabled people who can't feed themselves? Other brain damaged people who have to be fed by humans? She's not on life support, she's on a feeding tube.

People go on about how people "wouldn't want to live in that situation" but an extreme situation can change perspective radically. When I was in hospital with massive blood loss through internal bleeding (lost 50% or more), my life was reduced to challenges such as walking down a hall on my own, or pleasures such as tasting ice. Ones perspective about acceptable levels of survival can radically change given the right circumstances.

In any case if someone fighting for their life really loses the will to live, they often do die. Naturally. The cases of a person dying quite close to their longtime spouse dying are numerous and well documented. Johnny Cash being a recent case in point.

[ 10-17-2003, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I have written a very personal response to this thread. It contains information I'm uncomfortable posting for all and sundry. PM me if you would like a link.

Hugh

How does this make suicide any different? The personal freedom to kill yourself directly impacts another person as I've shown. It can rob a child of a father, a person of their sister, a parent of their child etc etc etc. Suicide victims are those left behind. The effect on others is precisely my point!</font>[/QUOTE]I understand what you mean, but where do you draw the line? Other things can cause this too. Divorce, choosing of sexual preference, converting to a religion, all of this, and other things, can break families apart. They can all make children lose parents, or parents lose children, etc. But I reserve my right to all of that. I have the right to convert to whatever religion I want, or to be gay if I wish. And I think I have the right to my own body, and do with it what I want, as long as it doesn't do harm to others (harm is difficult to define here [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). If I was in physical pain, and knew that I would never get relief from it, and that I would die because of it, I'd rather end my life than suffer. I'm sure that my family loves me and that they would understand...

But I don't really support of other people deciding who should die and who should live. This should be a completely personal decision. Though assissted suicide should really just be for people who are capable of making the decision (aren't in a coma, under the influence of others, etc.), are terminally ill, and in pain which cannot be relieved (since sometimes medicine against pain doesn't work).

Edit - grammar.

[ 10-18-2003, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

Estrangement is a far cry from death. Reconcilliation is always possible while life exists. Death removes that possibility. How can you compare the two?

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.

On the topic of planned suicide to end the suffering from terminal phyiscal disease. Family and friends would have time to consider and reconcile before-hand.

[ 10-18-2003, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Estrangement is a far cry from death. Reconcilliation is always possible while life exists. Death removes that possibility. How can you compare the two? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, estrangement is different than death, but can be just as traumatic. Or take the case where death occurs natually or accidentally after estrangement. Just as with a suicide, there are unresolved issues.

Reconcilliation is still possible though. It is not the same as two people coming to peace with eachother, but inner peace with yourself. It is the same peace that everyone should strive for when a person is permanatly or semi-permanatly removed from our lives on bad terms. It is the same peace we must acheive in estrangement before true reconilliation.


PS: Let me add that I think this band's gimick was in very poor taste. Suicide is a very personal and traumatic thing, not a public show.

[ 10-18-2003, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument. The truth of it is not relevent to a persons beliefs at all. You cannot have a child for example. You cannot cook each others meals, spend nights holding each other in the same bed. After estrangement there is always the possibility such activities could resume with reconcilliation. Death leaves no hope of that.

You are being ridiculous. For what end I know not.

[ 10-18-2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

It's not about the relatives and what they want - it's about what the patient/suicide person desires/would want (in the case of a coma). That is all that matters.

When a person dies, then the funeral is entirely for the relatives - and not the deceased.

To look at the issue in any other way is to treat someone as a piece of property - well I have news for everyone: slavery (at least in the west) ended a long time ago...thankfully.

The truth of this is relevant to an individual's beliefs.

Some, like I do, believe loved ones can choose to stay spiritually 'close-by' after death and are always 'reachable' in both thought and prayer.

Not that I am trying to bash anyone over the head with my beliefs.
</font>[/QUOTE]Now that's just being pedantic and presenting a belief-dependent argument. The truth of it is not relevent to a persons beliefs at all. You cannot have a child for example. You cannot cook each others meals, spend nights holding each other in the same bed. After estrangement there is always the possibility such activities could resume with reconcilliation. Death leaves no hope of that.

You are being ridiculous. For what end I know not. </font>[/QUOTE]I dont know how I am being "pedantic" or "ridiculous", but I do know that any discussion of what is and is not possible after death can only come from a beleif perspective. My 'end' here is sharing my belief about after-death, or what I call the "life-after" and that is it, sharing. Not debating and not bashing anyone over the head with it, Just sharing. You share your beleifs all the time Yorick, so I find it hard to understand why you are taking me to task for sharing mine. Oh well.

I am talking about my beliefs concerning death and reconcilliation and I qualified my post as such. I expect to be treated with respect. I expect not to be called ridiculous or pedantic (interesting choice of words there BTW) I expect everyone discuss the topics, and not take jabs at other each other or call each other names. Thats the rules of the forum and if it keeps up I will call for a moderater to lock the thread or administer justice as they see fit. Play nice and play fair. Be respectful or go away.

Now back to the discussion...

Of course an individual in the life-after cannot engage in any of the temporal activities listed, unless of course one has a belief in purposful reincarnation. Then estranged lovers, parents and children could indeed possibly "meet" again and share in the fruits of the physical.

But I was not talking about having physical activities together as a possibility, I was talking about the possibility of making reconcilliation: an emotional or spiritual "act".

I think, I believe, reconciliation after estrangement is possible after death.

[ 10-18-2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]