--- In [email protected], "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "lurkernomore20002000" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Damn, shoot her in the head if you have to, but to > > > > torture her to death by starvation is really sick. > > > > > > I don't see it as any more sick than having kept her "alive" on a > > > feeding tube for 15+ years. > > I've watched 2 people with advanced terminal illness die by choosing > to disconnect from their tubes and in neither case was there any sign > of pain, in fact the psychology seemed to improve as they gradually > passed over, in fact 1 person who had been taking morphine stopped > near the end. I don't know the medical science of this but I don't > think this way of ending it involves extra suffering. > > > >It may have been discussed before, but, if the girl's parents want > > to take charge of her situation, if they want to administer some > > kind of therapy, why should they not be allowed to do this. Why > > can't the husband simply divorce her and move on. Who cares if she > > will ever progress or not. They want to keep her alive. What skin > > does the husband need to have in the game at this point. I suspect > > it's something other than trying to fulfill her unwritten but > > suppossedly expressed wish to not be kept alive in this fashion. > > If my wife told me and her best friends that she did not want to be > kept alive in this way, then I would try to fulfill her wishes out of > respect and love - it's the parents who seem to have some other agenda > of their own.
A good friend's father had a stroke and was clearly not going to improve. He couldn't talk or do anything on his own. The prognosis was not good and the man was old. The doctors asked the family, "would you like us to give morphine?" The implication was that the increase in morphine would not only ease his pain but speed up the death process. The family agreed to this, stayed close and said their good byes. I think there is alot of unrecorded euthanasia. The problems seem to arise when there is objection or disagrement about allowing someone to die. Clearly we wouldn't allow a distraught person to end their life. Who can determine what is right or wrong for another person? That is really the situation. Everyone has an opinion on someobdy else's life choices.Everyone is playing God, especially the government. From this side of the spectrum, death seems like such a big deal. Maybe from a broader perspective, it is no big deal. My own grandfather had prostrate cancer. The cancer was advanced. The family could handle that he was going to die. We thought, "just let him have his dignity" BUT NOOO, the doctors then wanted to cut him up as much as possible, prolong a life that was now into suffering. He didn't need to live another few weeks like that all disorientated and miserable, walking around some hospital. There was that book "something ...down under" about the aboriginies in Australia, and these people chose their own death time, had a party, said good bye, sat in lotus and left the body. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
