1. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    16 Nov '05 15:15
    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
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    16 Nov '05 16:01
    Originally posted by aspviper666
    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
    There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. One has huge moral implications, the other is allowing nature to take its course.
  3. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    16 Nov '05 16:06
    Originally posted by Halitose
    There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. One has huge moral implications, the other 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.
  4. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    16 Nov '05 16:091 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    There is a big difference between active and passive euthanasia. One has huge moral implications, the other is allowing nature to take its course.
    i realise the patients are brain dead and vegitative
    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?
  5. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    16 Nov '05 16:46
    Originally posted by rwingett
    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.
    Removing the feeding tube is allowing nature to take its 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.
  6. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    16 Nov '05 17:00
    Originally posted by rwingett
    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.
    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.
  7. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    16 Nov '05 17:07
    Originally posted by Halitose
    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.
    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
  8. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    16 Nov '05 17:13
    Originally posted by Halitose
    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.
    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.
  9. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    16 Nov '05 18:21
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    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.
    This is not quite accurate.

    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
  10. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    16 Nov '05 18:241 edit
    Originally posted by aspviper666
    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
    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 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.
  11. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    16 Nov '05 19:27
    k
  12. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    17 Nov '05 03:44
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    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.
    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
    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
  13. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    17 Nov '05 05:35
    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
  14. Forgotten
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    4459
    17 Nov '05 19:391 edit
    Originally posted by Nemesio
    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]
    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
    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?
  15. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    18 Nov '05 01:28
    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
Back to Top