In response to:

Drinking the Pro-Death Kool-Aid

Jan@Oasis Wrote: Apr 02, 2012 6:34 PM
Cont. When people are terminal it often becomes a burden for their bodies to be forced to take food or even fluids--systems shut down and cannot process nutrients anymore. It is not about money, although if you turn it around, it is certainly easy to charge big bucks to take care of people with no hope of improvement or recovery....they are pretty compliant and they don't complain. Again: it does NOT mean any life is not valuable! It means people do die and forcing them to stay "alive" to further the denial of their families is awful.
ProlifeMama Wrote: Apr 10, 2012 11:09 PM
Jan@Oasis: Lovingly caring for people with no 'seeming' hope of recovery, or even of improvement, is what we are asked to do. Our care doesn't have to provide a cure, but it must convey our love. Someday, my mother may require sips of water to ease her mouth's dryness as she journeys on to her Home. I will provide those sips as long as they comfort her. Yes, 10 out of 10 people die. And no one is 'useful' every moment of their life. Just being human is sufficient to deserve loving care.
Farmer5 Wrote: Apr 02, 2012 11:59 PM
Jan you said, “But it is disingenuous to assert that she was starved or dehydrated to death.” Interesting you make the disingenuous charge…The autopsy report does paint a grim picture. However, it is hardly disingenuous to say she died of dehydration. Chief Medical Examiner Jon Thogmartin said in his post autopsy press conference that “She could have lived easily for another decade.” The post mortem findings indicated “marked dehydration.” You are disingenuous when you claim the cause of death was not dehydration. There was constant discussion at the time of how long it would take for her to dehydrate to death. Why was it “awful” for the Shindlers to have the opportunity to care for her even if “her brain was gel?”
Farmer5 Wrote: Apr 03, 2012 12:16 AM
Jan you said,"Keeping people "alive" under those circumstances is cruel and pointless." Cruel to who? The person that, "cannot talk, understand, eat, drink, take care of one's basic needs, walk, turn over, or otherwise function in ANY meaningful way?" The definition of cruel is; "deliberately and remorselessly causing pain or anguish." If their 'brain was gel" they are aware of neither pain nor anguish. Your argument about "cruelty" is self-referentially incoherent and it was not pointless to the Shindlers.

Lately, Americans have been quick to disparage other countries for their approach to life and death issues. In particular, many Americans have been outraged at the Netherlands’ policies regarding euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide and the killing of those with mental illnesses.

As Americans, we haven’t been entirely intellectually honest in addressing why these things have become so prevalent in Europe. After all, we would never allow that kind of immorality or degradation of human life. Not in this great nation. Right?

Wrong.

Americans had better look again and take the time to rethink their value systems. Because if you honestly believe...