Dying with dignity? There's also nothing wrong with dying in miserable agony, but why bother? I'm going to try and prolong my life because I quite enjoy living, the idea of quitting just because some bacteria or illness (or whatever) happens to inflict itself on me sounds unnecessarily defeatist. And to do it because you think it's a "natural course" seems depressingly fatalistic. We have medicine to try and change the lottery of nature with its hideous methods of disposing of us.
I know people that have *died* because some beardy guy brainwashed them with stupid, untested ideas that his organisation makes millions from. Sure they didn't have to drink the Kool-aid but a great many do and the TMO has done nothing to dissuade them by actually conducting clinical trials into their herbal muck. So whose fault is it? Plenty of religious groups don't allow believers to have operations or even blood transfusions. You are free to chose to refuse medical help even if you are doing so on mistaken information from people who have dominated your inner life to the extent that you might believe god won't want you in heaven if your mix blood with someone else. Some groups teach that you can fly even! But children aren't free to make decisions like that and have to rely on us to do the hard thinking for them, perhaps they might prefer going to school or maybe even not having their lives ruled by superstitious weirdo's? This is where the state should intervene, to protect them from our more bizarre ideas. Adults can do what they like. It is, as I said, natural selection. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote: Salyavin, There's nothing wrong in dying with dignity. The human body does not have to be prolonged by artificial means. It can be justified, in most cases, to leave the body alone by itself to follow the natural course. If the body recovers, it would be the best. If it does not, then life would end naturally. ---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: The land of the free. Free to die because of religious beliefs? Fair enough. Plenty of belief systems refuse blood transfusions. I've known TMers who say they would refuse any sort of transplant because they don't want someone else's karma. In fact, I've known people who died because they chose "alternative" healthcare. Alternative to things that work it would seem. This is why I say natural selection works on the religious too. Not cruel at all, or at least no crueller than it is for you and me. Maybe if I'd read article.... That's a very cruel comment. I'm on the side of the parents. Since when does the state have the right to inflict chemotherapy on people who don't want it? The family has every right to choose an alternative method of treatment. This is supposed to be the land of the free. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: That's a very cruel comment. I'm on the side of the parents. Since when does the state have the right to inflict chemotherapy on people who don't want it? The family has every right to choose an alternative method of treatment. This is supposed to be the land of the free. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Yup, natural selection works on the religious too. Maybe they'll see the irony in that and stop being so silly. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote: But the State of Ohio wants her to continue the treatment. It appears to me that the girl and her family have the right to forego the treatment if that is their religious preference to do so. http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-amish-girl-cuts-off-contact-amid-chemo-161240343.html http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-amish-girl-cuts-off-contact-amid-chemo-161240343.html
