|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 21, 2005 13:43:21 GMT
We pride ourselves as Freemasons in having a high moral standard and ethical outlook. After some consideration I thought I would put this very topical question to the posters here for their contemplation and views.
As we are all very aware the tragic case of Mrs Terri Schiavo is in the news. She has been in a vegetative state for 15 years and is severely brain damaged, and after a long legal process permission was given to remove artificial means of feeding which would result ultimately in her death from thirst and starvation. The US Government, President Bush, The Senate and Congress actually held an emergency session on Sunday, something usually reserved for a war or national crisis of that level, and Bush came back off holiday to sign a bill to put this matter in the hands of a Federal Judge in a bid to reverse the decision and keep this poor woman "alive" if you can call her situation "Life"
Now I will be straight to the point here and lay my cards on the table. I have been since my teens a staunch supporter of Euthanasia and have made a Living Will myself laying down my wishes that I would not wish to live if brain damaged or in a terminal situation or suffering some diseases such as Alzheimers or Motor Neurone. I would also state that I support active Euthanasia, that is the administration of some medication to quickly and painlessly end the life of someone in such a situation, subject of course to Legal safeguards, rather than the passive Euthanasia permitted in some cases in the UK and some other countries where all artificial means of support such as feeding tubes are removed and the person allowed to die from starvation, or consequential infection, a very nasty and unsatisfactory resolution in my opinion.
I totally oppose the interference of the US President and Federal Government in this case and am glad that when a similar situation occurred a few years ago in the UK the politicians kept out of it and allowed the High Court to decide in that case to withdraw treatment resulting in the death of the patient, to my mind a mericiful release, albeit he too had the unsatisfactory relatively slow death by starvation as that is all that our present Law will permit.
My feelings are that if one is so severely Brain Damaged then one is as good as dead anyway and I would neither wish to exist in that situation nor would I happily see a loved one continue in such a state. I am also aware of the bitter irony that many convicted murderers in the USA are executed by Lethal Injection, a process which is at least reasonably quick, but if permitted this innocent person will be left to die a slow death perhaps taking as long as two weeks suffering thrist and starvation but unable to even indicate their pain and discomfort. If we did this to a sick cat or dog we would rightly be prosecuted for cruelty. There surely must be a more merciful and compassionate way to end such a tragic situation.
Well that's my opinion, I would be interested in your views on this Brethren and fellow posters.
To the Mods. I know that this is strictly speaking NOT Esoteric although one could consider Morals to be such. It didn't seem to fit into the General Thread and certainly is too grave a subject to be considered "Chaff", but move it if you wish.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Mar 21, 2005 15:00:19 GMT
I agree with you. The actual life of Ms. Schiavo is not "human". Furthermore, it causes sufference to herself and to her family. Why continuing to do so?
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Mar 22, 2005 10:31:27 GMT
Steve and Giovanni I also agree. This life is not human any more. It is cruelty. It is cruel because it became a question of political interest. Mr. Bush and his right-wing-new-born-christian-mouvement need a theme for the coming up congress elections. They support the womens parents of political reasons! Not of ethical or humanistic ones!
I can understand the parents situation for some instants. But in the long run, they do nothing good to their beloved child. I hope to be never in their situation with my daughter. I could not stand to see my child lay their as a living dead! Maybe I would pray for a miracle too. But miracles do not happen. Even when cases like these turn into politics.
If I would have to decide this case I would only ask me one question: It this women is "living" happily, as her parents say, would I change my actual life with hers?
I would not!
|
|
|
Post by Trinityman on Mar 22, 2005 13:28:33 GMT
Cases such as this highlight the need for 'living wills' to be promulgated, allowing all parties to know the intentions of the suffering party at a point in their lives when they are unable to communicate their own view.
The US, like the UK before it, has been caught with it's pants down on this issue, and there is an unseemly scramble to legislate before it's too late. In reality all the US have done is come into line with the UK in asking a senior judge to preside and rule on the case.
It's very easy (and in some cases quite enjoyable) to jump down the throat of a politician without knowing the full facts. But it's rather strange to describe Bush's actions as 'politically motivated' - every decision of every politician in every democracy is always politically motivated. It's called Politics. ;D
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Mar 22, 2005 13:56:19 GMT
The ethos of euthanasia developed in a warrior society. You fought beside someone, trusted them with your life in battlefield conditions, and if they were cut down by the enemy, bleeding slowly to death or poisoned from some deadly barb, well, you certainly wouldn't want to let them die like that. They deserved to eu thanein, to die well: a quick death, a hero's death, with dignity.
But starving to death, horribly parched, or slowly wasting away from an infection, is no good death. In America, even murderers are treated better than that: a lethal injection, the modern hemlock.
Why leave it to the slow processes of medical bureaucracy? A general anaesthetic, and the application of surgical steel to the main arteries would produce death in its noblest and most merciful avatar.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 22, 2005 16:42:42 GMT
I certainly agree with you Ruff on the principles but would not wish to see her life ended by the method you suggest but I am totally horrifed by the passive method of simply letting her die by dehydration, starvation or infection. Instead why not give her an injection of Barbiturate Thiopentone which I am told is very rapid in producing a painless death. We do this for a dying cat or dog.
Bill, I found the hypocrisy of Bush etc breathtaking. He will happily sanction the death penalty which when performed by Lethal Injection is quite a quick process. Some of the murderers thus executed have committed horrific crimes of great sadism and violence yet have a far more humane end than is being given to this poor and totally innocent women.
For pity's sake someone out her put of her misery.
|
|
|
Post by atarnaris on Mar 23, 2005 8:57:51 GMT
, and the application of surgical steel to the main arteries would produce Bloodbath !!!
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Mar 23, 2005 9:20:09 GMT
Good point, Ruff!
|
|
ruffashlar
Member
Lodge Milncroft No. 1515 (GLoS), Govanhill Royal Arch Chapter 523 (S.G.R.A.C.S.)
Posts: 2,184
|
Post by ruffashlar on Mar 23, 2005 15:30:37 GMT
There has been such talk in recent years about the problem of contract killings, a little penny has dropped in my mind. Contract euthanasia, performed discreetly by professionals. It's a very workable possibility.
Obviously, one would hope for a medical solution, but in the absence of that, and thinking about it logically, who else are better qualified at isolating the subject, moving in quickly and efficiently, administering the injection (an ounce of plumbum militaris), and making their exit without fear of aftercare?
Mob hitmen.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 24, 2005 8:58:13 GMT
This tragic situation is now becoming a sick freak show with Appeal after Appeal, egged on no doubt by rapacious Lawyers who will make megabucks whatever the outcome. If the US Supreme Court throws out the latest Appeal by her parents what next?
I hope nature intervenes and frees this poor woman from a Living Death. It is for this reason that I would never try to revive someone who has had an apparent heart attack as I would not want to have on my conscience that I had condemned then to such a hideous fate as revived and living body but damaged and useless brain. If medical technology has not intervened in the first place when her heart stopped she would have been dead and buried.
I blame her parents who come across as uttterly selfish and who wallow in sympathy whilst it is a struggle based on possession and control.
Let us hope that she dies and soon and this sordid horror story is ended. If there was ever a good reason to make a Living Will then this is it. I certainly have!
|
|
|
Post by ingo on Mar 24, 2005 10:13:41 GMT
Well poor Mrs. Terry S. has 6 or 7 days now without food and water, so mother nature will bring it to an end...
It really became a freak show with Gov. Bush looking for reasons to arrest her and to restart the live-saving processus... Maybe you see here the diffenrence between Masonry and Skull & Bones
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 24, 2005 12:24:54 GMT
Ingo, I would not blame Skull and Bone for the actions of G W Bush or his even more frightful brother Jeb, Governor of Florida.
I consider GW to be a moron under the influence of powerful forces such as the so-called "Christian" Right and pushing their agenda. They helped him win in the Nov 2004 election in the key swing states and now it's payback time. After this sad drama is played out we will see an attack on Abortion Rights in the USA and his appointing those of a similar mindset to himself onto the Supreme Court where some of the Justices are approaching Retirement.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Mar 25, 2005 10:20:29 GMT
I personally feel that's what's happening in America right now is absolutely outrageous. If they had carried out some form of euthanasia in the early stages (after she had been diagnosed as being in this advanced vegetative state) then it would all have been over with.
This poor, unfortunate human being is suffering needlessly and is essentially now be used as some sort of political pawn. These despicable shenanigans (in the guise of inept political decisions) show the rest of the world that the American system doesn't always get it right.
|
|
|
Post by foxcole on Mar 25, 2005 12:13:45 GMT
Regrettably but necessarily (to preserve the real sanctity of life) death is popularly regarded as an aberration, an atrocity, somehow a crime where someone is always to blame. For the majority of average people, that mindset has to exist, only for the purpose of preserving life's preciousness.
We therefore forget that, as someone said, life has a 100% mortality rate, and that death is a natural and acceptable consequence of life. I believe death should be allowed to come with all due regard (due guard, dieu guarde) and dignity. To artificially prolong a life for the unconsciously selfish motives of the family is disrespectful of both TGAOTU and the individual in question.
Terri Schiavo might be horrified to find herself in her present condition, but equally or more greatly horrified to find that her well-earned death, one that should have been in its moment peaceful, quick and true, is now under the control of a cacophonous gaggle of physicians, family members, politicians and activists, fighting over something that I feel they have no right nor power to influence.
The lady has been in all ways so far denied a dignified death, her right and rite of passage. I am personally appalled and ashamed.
On the other hand, I also see the need for this to happen. We need an agent to help us think about, amend and correct our general unenlightened horror of the idea of death---to which we want to attribute guilt and blame, without understanding its very nature. Death is, in fact, the ultimate sacred event, one that can only happen in the purest privacy, no matter where we are, who we are, or how we have lived. Or, in the end, how many physicians and politicians have tried to intervene.
On the third hand, I can understand how after 15 years, Terri's family loves her even in her condition. For most people, it is difficult to let go of a loved one. But it is a lesson we all must learn to deal with, if we love or know anyone at all.
I wish I could help these people---the family, the politicians, the activists---understand that death is not an end, not a finality, nor is it a solution to the problems of life. Above all, it is not for us to decide or attempt to control.
There are benefits to our efforts to cheat death, however. The key benefit is the ability to keep a body alive and functioning in health to keep organs healthy and ready for transplant.
Does that infer a contradiction in my belief that death is not for us to decide? No, only for the fact that I haven't wholly explained my thoughts. I define death as brain death, where the individual can no longer function as a person, where the soul is no longer expressed. When a soul cannot be expressed, neither can it be sustained, enriched or improved, and therefore it withers.
|
|
giovanni
Member
odi profanum vulgus, et arceo
Posts: 2,627
|
Post by giovanni on Mar 25, 2005 16:37:23 GMT
If USA right-wing is pro-life, why doen't it fight to abolish death penalty?
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Mar 25, 2005 20:25:15 GMT
If USA right-wing is pro-life, why doen't it fight to abolish death penalty? G; Simply because Right Wing America do not believe in Pro life in what they consider Low Life They are the all powerful Judge, Jury and Hangman! And if they say it should be done it should Let someone else (with a just reason!) and all hell breaks loose.
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Mar 31, 2005 23:13:32 GMT
Now that Terri Schiavo has at last been freed from a living death I hope that her Spirit has gone on to a better and happier existance.
I express my sincere condolences to her husband who had to make this most painful decison and has had to endure the attacks of the ghouls who sought to prolong this poor woman's suffering either for their own satisfaction, for reasons of control and possession, or for blind and unreasoning Dogma . To that sadistic shower I have nothing to express but my utter contempt and derision, especially those who masquerade under the cloak of religion!
Again I would advise those who would NOT wish to be kept in a form of "life" if it can be called that, when severely brain damaged, terminally ill, or hopelessly paralysed to make a Living Will or Advance Directive and appoint as a Power of Attorney someone whom they know will carry out their wishes should the worst happen. I have made these arrangements.
|
|
|
Post by plewis66 on Apr 1, 2005 12:59:03 GMT
Here here.
It puzzles me why people of the church act so desperately to keep someone alive in apparently horrific circumstances, when, by their own beliefs, on death that person will be elevated to heaven.
Surely, a true Christian would rather see someone in gods heaven than suffering in a hospital bed.
It puzzles me to see peple in the Vatican crying for the Pope. Surely we should be pleased that he is about to meet his maker. Surely thatwill be the most joyous moment in his life.
|
|
|
Post by munkholt on Apr 1, 2005 13:21:25 GMT
@ plewis: The belief in an afterlife, Christian or otherwise, does not eliminate human emotion, like love, grief or fear of the unknown. To me, my personal faith is certainly a consolation when confronted with death or sorrow, but my perspective will always (or until I'm at the doorstep of death myself) be that of a living, breathing, feeling human being. People are not "better off dead" and in Heaven - I don't accept that - but death might be a merciful alternative to a painful halflife.
|
|
|
Post by plewis66 on Apr 1, 2005 13:29:10 GMT
I don't recall stating that anyone would be 'better off dead'.
And I apologise if you took it to mean that.
I also apologise if I have caused any offense. It was certainly not intended.
It simply does puzzle me that people would seem to prefer to see suffering than salvation.
Maybe because my own faith is non-sectarian, and I do not afiliate myself with any church, I am missing something in the interpretation. Personally, I would rather see someone released from suffering in this life, but where that is not possible, released from suffering into the next life.
|
|