Governor Bush orders feeding tube reinserted into coma victim's body

[Timber Loftis]

Or Socrates, who when he was allowed to choose his punishment chose death?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Here's the thing. A newborn babie can't move, speak, doesn't notice people, can feed themselves. Do we call them dead?

No, because we know from empirical experience that the baby has every chance to develop beyond that stage and enjoy an acceptable quality of existance in later life.

In the present case, our experience is that someone in a such a severely damaged condition has little or no potential to return to a state that would give them such a quality of life.[/QUOTE]What they will be is not the point. What they ARE is what I am talking about. IS the baby that dies a few days after being born deemed to have never been alive? Since when has the QUALITY of a persons life been an indicator of life itself?

She is alive. To call her dead is ludicrous. If she was dead there would be no issue!!! Her tissue would be rotting, her breath stopped, responses nill, no blood flow, no chance of recouperation (however small). She may not return to a "high quality of life" but she is still alive.

Hope is such an interesting thing. So necessary to survival. Her parents could actually die, still hoping she get's well. Better that than the child dying before the parent.

As to the argument that a parent loses responsibility when the child reaches 18, the parent never stops being a parent, no matter when their responsibility ends. Without a spouse, the parents remain next of kin as well.

quote: The refusal to allow suicide is based on helping a person through a SEASON of mental disfunctionality caused by extreme pain and discomfort. The desire to terminate being itself indicative of that disfunctionality.

This is the point upon which we fundamentally disagree. I believe that the choice to end one's life can be made rationally after consideration of the circumstances. Whether this is codified via a living will or educed from the statements and actions of a person whilst they were in a position to make their views known is a matter of establishing evidence of their wishes. What I simply cannot accept is your blanket assertion that the make a positive decision to die is evidence of "mental disfunctionality" in all cases. Apart from the present topic, where would this leave the war hero who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrades, or even Christian martyrs who chose to die rather than recant? [/qb][/QUOTE]A will is made "in the case of" not after or during a situation. It is the situation of a healthy person rightly deciding they would not want to lose all the faculties they have. Who would? When the bar lowers things change however. When someone comes close to ceasing to exist, and are left with a fraction of what they could do, the appreciation of what they CAN do is significantly increased.

Joni, without use of arms or legs could still sing, paint, speak, get married, travel, speak and sing in front of huge crowds, write a book, impact others lives.

Most of us, most of those of us who are healthy could quite possibly say "I would prefer death to quadraplegia". We are not really saying that however. We are simply stating as strongly as possible, that we never want quadraplegia under any circumstances.

I am pointing out, that people like Joni, have perspective shifts once their situation changes.

Life is precious. Awareness alone is precious. Add in all the things we TAKE FOR GRANTED or assume are our right, such as movement, speech, sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, rationality and the host of other experiences we are allowed to have, and the world becomes a miraculously intensly positive experience, even when things seem to be "bad".

The decision to end ones own life is a decision made in intense pain. It is not made with the objectivity painlessness would allow. The fact is, if we could remove the ingredient(s) causing the distress, 99% of suiciders would choose to live.

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. The hero recognises some lives will be destroyed in the next intant, and is choosing to let others live. Positive choice. Remove the possibility of those peoples death, and the war hero wouldn't commit suicide.

In the other example, the persons excecuting the martyr have the choice to NOT kill the martyr. The martyr has simply said "I will not do as you say".

We always have that choice. The person with the gun to the head, has the choice to refuse to do the gunholders bidding. It is a subsequent choice of the gunholder to pull the trigger in retaliation for that refusal. Murder. Martyrdom.

The suicider mistakenly believes there is no solution, no end to their pain and perhaps no positivity left in continued existence. But it passes. Perspectives can shift even if external circumstances don't.

[ 10-24-2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Or Socrates, who when he was allowed to choose his punishment chose death?

I believe he chose his method of execution - which was drinking poison - not death itself.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Or Socrates, who when he was allowed to choose his punishment chose death?

I believe he chose his method of execution - which was drinking poison - not death itself. [/QUOTE]Actually, I believe he was given the choice of death or exile - and he chose death by poisoning.

[Yorick]

Check this out:

http://www.thevillageidiot.org/onelast.htm

One Last Drink -- Socrates, Suicide & Jesus by Stephen P. Lewis It's nearly closing time at the pub of the universe and the bartender is ready to take your last order. What will you have for your last drink? Before you and your doctor rush out to the AM-PM MiniMarket to buy 1 40 oz. Hemlock Slurpy, it might be a good idea to ask a few questions. What would Socrates do? Socrates chose a Hemlock micro-brew. Jesus prayed, "Let this cup pass me by," but he ended up drinking God's cup of wrath down to the dregs. If the founder of the Hemlock Society, Derek Humphry, is correct, then both Socrates and Jesus committed suicide, because they both had the opportunity to leave the bar before closing time. Instead, they stayed to the end and drank one last drink. The similarities between Jesus and Socrates are scary. Socrates is thought to have been the son of a stone-carver. Jesus was thought to have been the son of a carpenter. Both were known for their haunting questions: What is the highest good? What good is it for you if you gain the whole world, but lose your very soul? Both were teachers, but they wrote no books. Neither of them wrote so much as a letter to the editor. What we know about their life and death, we receive from their disciples who became best-selling authors. But the similarities crescendo when you take a look at their last days on earth. Motivated by politics, the Athenian rulers hauled the philosopher into court and accused him of two things: corrupting the youth with dangerous teaching, and committing blasphemy by introducing new gods. Motivated by politics, Herod Pilate, the Sadducees and the Pharisees accused Jesus of two things: teaching dangerous things about the temple, and committing blasphemy by claiming to be the Son of God. What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Both sacrificed their best citizens. Socrates was tried by an Athenian jury of 501 men. Jesus was tried by the Sanhedrin council of 71 men which said, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God." Both Socrates and Jesus were condemned to death, and both willingly drank that last drink. Press a bit further, though, and the similarities appear artificial. These were two vastly different men, choosing two vastly different beverages. Our source for what happened during Socrate's last days is his dialogue with Crito as told to us by Plato. Crito meets with Socrates in his prison cell and describes his easy plan of escape. Crito and his friends will bankroll Socrates into a new life in a more tolerant city. What would Socrates do? He's worried about being a burden to his friends and family, and argues that his escape will make life difficult for them. He prefers death. So Crito accuses him of taking the easy way out, and argues: "Consider, Socrates, whether this is not only evil, but shameful, both for you and for us." But Socrates is able to redefine evil and shame. He counters by saying that there comes a time when life is not worth living. He declares the pagan belief that the mind and the spirit are higher and more valuable than the lowly body. And he concludes -- "the most important thing is not life, but the good life." In the end, Socrates decides that he cannot break his covenant with the city of Athens; he gave his word he would play by their rules. He will submit to their laws. Law is King. Socrates' motive is clear: he must value goodness and law more than life and family, because he needs to persuade the rulers of Hades that he is a law-abiding man. Otherwise, he advises Crito, "the laws of the underworld will not receive you kindly." Socrates taught that the source of all truth was your own soul; look within. Jesus taught something entirely different, claiming, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The new gods Socrates was accused of promoting were the daemonion the mystical inner voices, different for each person. The blasphemy Jesus was accused of was his exclusive claims about himself, calling every person to come to him for rest and satisfaction. And so we see Socrates spending his last day on earth with his friends and admirers, philosophizing and debating, calmly choosing his own poison and downing that last drink. If the poison were in fact water hemlock, as some suppose, then his body likely was thrown into a grand mal seizure, until he finally died. Jesus, on the other hand, spent the day of his death abandoned by all his friends, praying in agony on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Death on a Roman cross was designed to be a slow, cruel and naked death; no quick exit procedure. According to the Athenian jury, Socrates was executed. This was no suicide. But 2,500 years later, the jury is still out. Can't you call it suicide, since he chose not to go with Crito? And what about Christ? In his own words, he makes it clear: I am the good shepherd, and I lay down my life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life -- only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." The typical argument against suicide is that a mere human being should not play God. Here's where it's helpful to know more about who Jesus is. He wasn't plotting an end-game strategy. He's not playing God. He is God. Though Jesus passionately prays for an alternative to the crucifixion, he is impeccable and cannot break his covenant with God the Father; he gave his word that he would perfectly obey, even to the point of death on the cross. This radical humility results in his exaltation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. His motive was clear: I am the good shepherd, and I'm doing this for my sheep. In his version of the Christmas story, Matthew puts it this way -- "You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." Jump forward two thousand years. In Deadly Compassion -The Death of Ann Humphry and the Truth about Euthanasia, Rita Marker gives the reader the flavor of what it is like to be in the audience at the biennial conference of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies. She recounts a stirring speech by Dr. Christiaan Barnard, a South African heart surgeon, author of Good Life, Good Death, who addressed the conference in 1984. In his speech, he said, "You don't have to be an atheist to be a humanitarian. My father was a very religious man and he taught me a lot about stories in the Bible. The one I remember extremely well was the story about the crucifixion of Christ. He told me that they took this man called Christ and nailed Him to a cross . . . and then He was left there to die. I wondered why Christ had to suffer. Why could it not have been an easy and quick death? The sufferings of Christ were meaningless. It was His life that had meaning. His life was full. There was purpose in His life. And there was purpose in His death. But not to the suffering that preceded it. If we wish confirmation of this, we need only look at the words of Christ himself when He cried out, `My God, My God, why have Thou forsaken me?' During my career as a doctor, which is now nearly forty years, I have often wondered what really is the purpose of suffering. I have found that there is none. Suffering never ennobles. People who suffer never become better people as a result of it. If it's playing God to stop suffering, I don't think God would mind very much." Dr. Barnard then unveiled his proposal that physicians be the ones to make the final life and death choices for their patients: 'The doctor must be the one to carry out the decision. This is to give the patient an intravenous injection of barbituate and a relaxant so death will occur quietly without pain in a few minutes. I believe it is our take these steps. Otherwise, I think our patients will call out in voice saying, `My doctor, my doctor, why have thou forsaken me?'" Rather, the question is whether the doctor has forsaken his basic calling: to do no harm. Does doctor know best? To Dr. Christiaan Barnard, the key difference between the death of Socrates and the death of Jesus is the amount of conscious physical suffering experienced by the dying man. In Barnard's view, Socrates chose a good last drink: hemlock. Jesus chose a stronger, more painful drink. Good thing too. Some people don to live in a world of pain and suffering. Can you imagine living in a world where each one of us had to drink to the dregs the cup of wrath? But enough already. Get out of here. It's closing time.

[ 10-24-2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Chewbacca]

The morality of the situation is irrelevant to Florida law, which had prexisting checks in place to handle situations where there is no living will. The courts followed these legal checks and procedures to reach their decisions.

The leglislator and governor stepped in and changed the law for one single individual. I have yet to hear of a legal scholar who supports such a move.

It should be noted that both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts refused to hear the parent's appeal.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by : Maelakin (stuff about suicide and motives that disappeared when I hit quote)

The motive is entirely the point. The war hero is making a decision to save others. The inescapable consequence is the end of his own life, but were the person given the choice of whether to do the action and live, they would choose to live. Wanting to stay alive is what makes the Hero heroic. It's not like they want to die, they are putting others lives ahead of their own. Selflessness. Ultimate sacrifice.

If the person did not want to live at all, it negates the sacrificial element.

Socrates for example was upholding his advocacy of law. He was condemned by the courts, and part of his greater love for what he would leave behind, chose to abide by that decision. Even up until when he drank the poison, the courts could have recinded it's verdict.

That is not suicide in my book.

Motive is everything. Motive is the whole point.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: The morality of the situation is irrelevant to Florida law, which had prexisting checks in place to handle situations where there is no living will. The courts followed these legal checks and procedures to reach their decisions. The leglislator and governor stepped in and changed the law for one single individual. I have yet to hear of a legal scholar who supports such a move. It should be noted that both the Florida and U.S. Supreme Courts refused to hear the parent's appeal.

I am sure there are a number of laws that are changed for one individual. Australia for example changed it's dual citizenship laws only for a few days to allow a very rich individual the opportunity to be the citizen of another country.

The Magna Carta was set in place to limit what a certain individual could and couldn't do.

After all, what is a society but a collection of individuals? This is a unique case.

We live in a representative democracy. We the people rule. The court of public opinion holds huge sway. As such, an elected lawmaker, holds more current mandate than an appointed judge. If the law proves inefficient, then we as a democracy through our elected representatives can change the law to suit an individual, ten individuals, or millions of individuals.

The fact that the Governor enacted a law that allowed this woman to live, shows me that this is a vibrant democracy not ruled by beaurocracy and computer interpreted laws disregarding individual circumstances.

[Timber Loftis]

And, what if the motive is to quit being a burden to one's family? Sometimes a sick person feels very guilty about how they burden the family. This guilt can turn to anger and to self-loathing, and I have witnessed more than one elderly ill person get more and more bitter near the end because of it. Had they been allowed an exit, it could have done the family some good, and done them some good. Instead, they went before St. Peter with some very fresh sins to account for.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Yorick: The fact that the Governor enacted a law that allowed this woman to live, shows me that this is a vibrant democracy not ruled by beaurocracy and computer interpreted laws disregarding individual circumstances.

This same fact shows me how quickly the governor is to give into his "religous right" constituency with no regard for the constitution, the rule of law of his state or his nation.

Paint it with as much glowing optimism as you want, but my opinion is this is a shameless abuse of political power and nothing more.