16 Nov 05
Originally posted by aspviper666There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. One has huge moral implications, the other is allowing nature to take its course.
isnt removing ones feeding tube to facilitate death a prolonged tortureous ordeal???i mean convicts get lethal injection
i think it is sad that we treat murderers better than
hopeless "brain dead" medical cases
to me anyway it seems inhumane
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHow is the insertion of a feeding tube allowing nature to take its course? Every medical practice is thwarting nature's course. The only ones who truly believe in allowing nature to take its course are Christian Scientists. For everyone else it's just a matter of where we try to alter that course.
There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. One has huge moral implications, the other is allowing nature to take its course.
16 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Halitosei realise the patients are brain dead and vegitative
There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. One has huge moral implications, the other is allowing nature to take its course.
but if you "suffecate "them then nature took its course only faster
maybe you dont see my point(pointing to the point on top of my head) it just doesnt seem right....but if i were in such a possition myself i would want to die anyway i could but starvation isnt the best way or easiest way to go do you agree with this?
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by rwingettRemoving the feeding tube is allowing nature to take its course.
How is the insertion of a feeding tube allowing nature to take its course? Every medical practice is thwarting nature's course. The only ones who truly believe in allowing nature to take its course are Christian Scientists. For everyone else it's just a matter of where we try to alter that course.
I think you are being quite prejudiced against Christianity, please show where your blanket statement is true, because I just need to show you one Christian scientist who for example developed a plant hybrid and your whole assertion collapses.
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by rwingettPassive euthanasia is a regular occurance in the medical profession. It's for example when a patient is brain dead and s/he is being synthetically kept alive by heart and lung machines. When the doctor turns these off, in a recognition of defeat, and allows the patient to die: nature is allowed to take its course.
How is the insertion of a feeding tube allowing nature to take its course? Every medical practice is thwarting nature's course. The only ones who truly believe in allowing nature to take its course are Christian Scientists. For everyone else it's just a matter of where we try to alter that course.
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitosewell i still think it is a cruel way to go
Passive euthanasia is a regular occurance in the medical profession. It's for example when a patient is brain dead and s/he is being synthetically kept alive by heart and lung machines. When the doctor turns these off, in a recognition of defeat, and allows the patient to die: nature is allowed to take its course.
if i allow my pet cat to starve i would have cruelty to annimals charges brought against me
maybe my posts arent worth thinking about
hell i hardly think about what i am posting
i just text it it is spontaneous
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThere's a difference between "Christian scientists" and "Christian Scientists". "Christian Scientists" belong to the movement called "Christian Science". They believe that all diseases are mental and should be treated accordingly.
I think you are being quite prejudiced against Christianity, please show where your blanket statement is true, because I just need to show you one Christian scientist who for example developed a plant hybrid and your whole assertion collapses.
16 Nov 05
Originally posted by NordlysThis is not quite accurate.
There's a difference between "Christian scientists" and "Christian Scientists". "Christian Scientists" belong to the movement called "Christian Science". They believe that all diseases are mental and should be treated accordingly.
Christian Scientists believe that sin, disease and death are the
product of error -- that is, believing in the ephemeral rather
than glorifying the eternal. Mary Baker Eddy saw the science of her
day as a fraudulant (which, in many ways it was) and felt that the
Pauline attitude of elevating the spirit over the body was the 'correct'
way (rather than erroneous).
It's not that diseases were 'mental,' but that they were wholly corporeal.
And, it was by trusting in the body that humankind erred rather
than trusting in the spiritual.
Nemesio
16 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by aspviper666If a human is braindead, then there is no suffering. Suffering
well i still think it is a cruel way to go
if i allow my pet cat to starve i would have cruelty to annimals charges brought against me
maybe my posts arent worth thinking about
hell i hardly think about what i am posting
i just text it it is spontaneous
is the product of the brain -- it is the recognition that pain is
occuring. If a person doesn't have a functioning brain, there
is no recognition and, thus no suffering.
If you are under anesthesia and someone opens up your
chest, are you suffering? No, of course not, because the pain
is not making it to your brain. Now, if you had no brain to go
to, you wouldn't even need anesthesia.
Allowing your cat to starve would be to cause suffering.
Nemesio
P.S., I am only addressing the issue of suffering because that
seems to be your objection. Obviously, whether something does
or does not suffer is not sufficient for considering whether or not
an action is cruel.
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by Nemesioafter thinking about it
If a human is braindead, then there is no suffering. Suffering
is the product of the brain -- it is the recognition that pain is
occuring. If a person doesn't have a functioning brain, there
is no recognition and, thus no suffering.
If you are under anesthesia and someone opens up your
chest, are you suffering? No, of course not, because the pai ...[text shortened]... g does
or does not suffer is not sufficient for considering whether or not
an action is cruel.
even if the sensory nerves arent working and the person doesnt feel the hunger or suffer through death
it still isnt right to stave to death a human being
the medical profession is little better than drug
prescibers and part removers.i have little respect for them and their greedy practices of flesh peddling money making
17 Nov 05
Originally posted by aspviper666
after thinking about it
even if the sensory nerves arent working and the person doesnt feel the hunger or suffer through death
it still isnt right to stave to death a human being
Is this a 'feeling' or do you have a reason? The being's incapacity to
have sensation or think (and the certainty of never gaining these capacity back) means
that the person that that being is dead. The shell of their person is all that remains.
You bury that shell, or cremate it, or toss it overboard, and have no problem with that.
Why would you insist on killing the heart in one way over another?
If this is just a 'feeling' without a rationale behind it, it is you who have no right
to impose your sentimentality upon the medical community.
Nemesio
17 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesioi have EVERY right to impose ANYTHING i want onto ANYONE i want at ANYTIME i want to ...it is called balls and sticking up for my beliefs
Originally posted by aspviper666
[b]after thinking about it
even if the sensory nerves arent working and the person doesnt feel the hunger or suffer through death
it still isnt right to stave to death a human being
Is this a 'feeling' or do you have a reason? The being's incapacity to
have sensation or think (and the certa ...[text shortened]... you[/i] who have no right
to impose your sentimentality upon the medical community.
Nemesio[/b]
my possition on this matter is concrete and you my good man are no jack hammer
i also noticed you edited my quote the part where i slam the medical community whats wrong??the truth hurt?
18 Nov 05
Originally posted by aspviper666
i have EVERY right to impose ANYTHING i want onto ANYONE i want at ANYTIME i want to ...it is called balls and sticking up for my beliefs
This is called oppression. This is what Hitler did.
my possition on this matter is concrete and you my good man are no jack hammer
In other words, no matter what I or anyone says, you are going to
believe it. Well, I'm sorry you are a mindless automaton.
i also noticed you edited my quote the part where i slam the medical community whats wrong??the truth hurt?
I didn't and don't think your comment merited a response since it
is based on nonsense.
Nemesio