Then it's up to the family to show how much they enjoy carrying that burden, and how much value simply having the person around is. Why should any of us be in the position of feeling like a burden to those we love, and that love us? Especially if, in the case of a parent, they shouldered the burden of having children.

Are children made to feel like burdens to parents? Certainly in truth they ARE a burden that change the parents life irrevocably. Do the children en-masse feel so guilty of this the all commit suicide becuse they are such a burden? No.

So make the elderly parent/grandparent as loved and needed as a child.

As I stated quite early on PALLATIVE CARE should be increased, so that the last years of a persons life are enjoyable, fruitful and social. They are tomes of wisdom. Caches of love. We should perpetually vocalise what the elderly and sick are to us. If they are feeling like a burden, that is OUR RESPONSIBILITY as part of society to rectify such a perception.

It's part of the problem with our dislocated society. It takes a village to raise a child? Not in the west. Shove the kids in childcare, the oldies in nursing homes, the mentally ill in instituations. Get them out of our hair! Give validation of existence to those that are on T.V. or have superior skills or intellect. The parents should shoulder all the childrearing responsibility, well, the single mother actually - in between her career - not the grandparents as in generations before us.

While we're at it, let's put everyone in cars that remove us from close connection with people. Put them in neighbourhoods where no-one walks around. No strangers to say hello to, no faces... except on TV of course.

Word of mouth for establishing a business? Forget it. The TV is the village, so advertising is the way... except the small business can't compete with the huge franchise for timeslots. So we have generica! Franchise everywhere, that people drive through in there dislocated cars to.

Old people can't drive though. Old people are watching TVs where youth and vitality are extolled as the only things worthwhile instead of wisdom, experience, and time. Old people are watching daytime soaps instead of their families dramas from a corner of the house. They are attended to by nurses and "carers" rather than daughters, nieces and great nephews. No investment, no return.

Society is by definition, those that have, providing for those that have not. A parent that has strength and the ability to gather food, providing for the child that has not those abilities.

What an old sick person has that we don't, is experience, perspective, reprioritised values. They are of immense value to us, and that is what need to be communicated, while we provide what they don't have - legs, strong arms, food, vigor. An exchange, not a burden.

Sorry, it doesn't matter how you cut it, cleaning up excrement and bathing someone is a burden. Period. Now, it may be offset by value, respect, love, etc., but it IS a burden. And, the sick person knows it. And, even if you don't mind doing it that much, that won't necessarily end their guilt.

But, here is what your desire to command-and-control the right to die has led to -- now you are also command-and-controlling those around the person wishing to die. You have not only mandated they must live on, whether they wish it or not, you have also mandated their relatives LIKE it.

I'm not saying what you describe doesn't make sense as good advice. But, unless you intend to put a police officer in every household, you can't police it. You may SUGGEST that yours is the perfect attitude for the family to take, but will you LEGISLATE it?

It is one thing for you to argue that yours is the morally correct way, and try to convince people of it. But to MANDATE it -- that's called totalitarianism, and every time you start defining the world according to Yorick, I end up seeing that such a world would have mandatory ethics.

If they are mandated, they are not ethical by definition. An ethical choice that is pre-made for me is not a choice, and I can't claim any moral high ground by following that path, since it was pre-determined.

[ 10-24-2003, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

In the context of this topic, I would respectfully suggest that this is exactly the point. Where there is a vanishingly small chance of any meaningful recovery, to my beliefs, especially where the sufferer has previously expressed a wish to die at that point, those wishes should be respected. We do not judge only on the present suffering which may be transient, but on a balanced view of future potential.

Not in all cases. To sustain hope where none can rationally be sustained is a cruel stratagem. Can you not imagine a situation where loving parents and spouses gain relief and closure from giving final peace relief to a relative in accordance with their express wishes or from the motivation of the belief that their course of action in ending suffering is the best way of expressing that love?

Joni sounds like a remarkable person who has made the best of her situation. She has made an informed and conscious decision that she will accept her life as it is now. I respect that, just as much as I respect those who might decide, after due consideration, that such an existence is below their personal threshold of tolerance and decide to terminate their lives.

I disagree. Life per se is not precious. My belief is that “life” is a barely understood bio- and electrochemical system that maintains conciousness. Quality of life is what is precious to me. The ability to feel, experience, emote, appreciate the world around me and make informed choices about my quality of life is what I treasure. Remove that from me and I become a mere machine.

The war hero or person killed for their beliefs are not commiting suicide. Their lives are terminated by another person. They are making a decision about their life and what they will or will not do.

I find the above hard to distinguish from the person who asks for an assisted suicide ;)

Also, you make the sweeping statement that The suicider mistakenly believes there is no solution, no end to their pain and perhaps no positivity left in continued existence. But it passes.

I can see no logical support for those in the terminal stages of incurable diseases being in the above category. Of course it will pass – they will die, probably after a great deal of pain and suffering suffered contrary to their directly expressed wish :(

Finally, I would like to apologise that in this particular case I have not kept my own council and am using the quote/rebuttal style of posting. However, to my shame, it’s the only way I can see to accurately put my points in context. However, I also promise that this will be my final contribution to this thread.

Carry on chaps ;)

[ 10-24-2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

Is there some stigma associated with "quote/rebuttal"?? I always thought I was being more understood, and perhaps more considerate, by arguing this way. I did not know it was a bad thing.

Welcome, my friend, to the dark side. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Just a couple of the arguments against that style are that it is used to argue every single line of a person's quote thereby taking their thoughts out of context, and in addition, that it can be hard to follow.

The stigma is that the quoter supposedly can't formulate a reasonable response to a multi-layered post without breaking it down into it's base parts.

Personally, I find it useful, so I use it and have never understood the hub-bub. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img]

I completely agree. This is also why I deleted my last post and have been trying to refrain from contributing to the current state of the discussion. It is just a continuation from the other thread pertaining to suicide. Granted, this thread provides me with useful ammo for rebuttal in the other thread, however I have decided it is pointless to endure a one sided discussion that results in circular logic.

WELCOME TO THE <s>Circular Reasoning</s>Current Events Forum! [img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img]

Where IWers the world over can come relax, [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] and http://www.pk-hq.com/community/image.../2dedhorse.gif about the issues near and dear to their hearts. :D [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh and we occasionally talk about the weather too ......... hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados .... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 10-24-2003, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

<font color=deepskyblue>I've been following the discussion of this topic here, but I admit that I don't know many of the pertinent facts regarding the case itself because I've not seen anything more than a few snippets on the news. So if I get some facts wrong, or overlook them, it is not done intentionally.

1) I agree completely with the parents about the husband's true intentions, although I don't think he wants his wife dead for any potential monetary gain. It was mentioned earlier that the husband is in a lose-lose situation. If he were to divorce his wife, people will think he is an uncaring ogre. It doesn't help that he has already started another relationship and had children in this relationship. He is openly committing adultery - which again calls into question just how much concern he has for his current wife. The ONLY way for the husband to "win" in this situation is for his wife to die. Then he would be free to pursue his life with his new significant other and also give his full attention to their children. I can certainly understand WHY the husband has developed this other relationship...I'm not going to be overly critical of his decision there. But I do honostly believe that his true motivation has very little to do with how much he loves his wife.

2) I also agree the parents are motivated by selfish desires...but every parent has this same selfish desire...no matter how old your children are, they are still the parents "little boy or little girl". It does not matter to them if their girl can no longer speak or interact in any meaningful way. The fact that she is still alive and they can visit her, touch her, hold her, care for her is all THEY are interested in. Admittedly, their love for their child may be blinding them to her actual desire. Maybe the husband is right and she DID want to die if she ever got in this state. Even with proper, documented proof, the parents would have a difficult time accepting that fact.

The big difference - to me - between the parents and the husband is that the parent's actions (which may be misguided) are motivated by their love for the woman and the husband's is not. His actions seem to be motivated by his desires for himself. That's just my opinion, but that's how it appears to me.

3) Now for the patient herself. There has been a lot of arguments about abuse of power and imposing one's morality onto another person. Well, the fact is that everybody I've seen arguing (sorry, "debating" [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) this issue so far is JUST as guilty of doing the same thing. Some are imposing THEIR definition of "Quality of Life" onto the woman's circumstances and say she should be allowed to die because her "quality of life" falls below what they would deem acceptable. The other side imposes thier own definition also, stating that ANY "quality of life" is better than none. However, the most important perspective to consider is that of the woman in question herself. Perhaps she did state she would wish to die if she were ever in this condition, but can it honostly and truly be said she would say that know, if she were capable of doing it. <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> DOES have a valid point that people with diminished mental capabilities are often much happier and more content than those with their full mental functions - simply because they no longer realize that anything better than their current condition exists.

4) The final point I want to address is the right of anybody to remove the feeding tube. Many people in this discussion have referred to "pulling the plug" on her, but that is a completely inaccurate statement. To me there is a huge and fundamental difference between needing a ventilator to continue living and needing a feeding tube. What difference is there, you ask? It's very simple. Under normal conditions, the body will breathe on it's own to sustain life. However, there is absoluely NO condition under which the body can produce it's own sustenance and nutrition to maintain life. Even the healthiest person in the world cannot produce and consume their own food or sustenance without some external aid. So the feeding tube simply substitutes for the fork and spoon a normal person uses. It does NOT take over and control functions the body normally does by itself whereas a ventilator does.

The courts have ruled that this woman should be allowed to die because she is in a vegetative state and is incapable of feeding herself. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot agree with that reasoning. My great-grandmother spent the last several years of her life in a Nursing Home. During that time, she had a roommate that was in a permanent state of comatose/dementia. During the two years she shared a room with my grandmother, she was incapable of doing anything more than laying in bed, moaning and groaning when she was awake. She was completely unaware of her surroundngs and showed no capability of interacting with anyone who came to visit or care for her. She was also incapable of feeding herself. She didn't have a tube, but a the nurses had to come in 3 times a day and feed her using a large syringe filled with a porridge-like substance. They would slide the syringe into her mouth and then slowly push the "food" out of the syringe and down her throat. According to the ruling handed down by the courts, the nurses should have simply stopped feeding her too - because she was in a permanent state of lowered existence and awareness and was incapable of feeding herself. Now I realize that the woman in Florida supposedly expressed a desire to have her life terminated, but it is obviously still a matter of intense debate as to whether or not that actually occurred.

My final thoughts on the subject are that - unless some irrefutable proof of the woman's desire can be produced - the courts should simply remove the husband as the woman's guardian, thus "freeing" him to move on with his new life, and allow the parents to resume the guardianship of their daughter. Seems to me that would be the closest thing to a "win-win" scenario in this case.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>Cerek is right. This guy should divorce her, turn custody over to the parents, take the black eye from the media/public opinion, walk away, and move on. Better that than the living hell he is obviously enduring.
If not, then the parents need to get some serious grief counseling, because they are insanely clinging to the hope that the remains of what used to be their daughter will somehow wake up. [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img]

These people need to get some cajones and learn how to make difficult choices, because life isn't always pretty. <font color = red>Belle</font> and I already have the paperwork in place to cover circumstances such as this. I have also told her that because she knows that I know her wishes I won't be considering anyone's opinion about her fate other than my own; she feels similarly about me. I know <font color = red>Belle</font> can make hard choices, because she chose to take her 9-day-old daughter <font color = pink>Taylor</font> off life support, despite the fact that a heart transplant might have saved her life.

Like I said earlier, I wouldn't even treat my dog as poorly as this family has treated this unfortunate woman.</font>

[ 10-25-2003, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]