This is disturbing

Which particular part is disturbing?

The suicide?
Making it part of "the act"?
A law passed stopping it?
Needing a law to stop it?
All of the above?
All the above & stuff I may not have considered?
Just stuff I didn't consider?
None of it, it's on MSN?
 
actually gonz this story might be true. i heard it somewhere else. but the strange thing is that this isnt the first band to do so to get publicity. i dont know that its disturbing.
 
I think publicly displaying a suicide is kinda ... creepy. But their cause seems right - to promote awareness for physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
 
Squiggy said:
What have we become? :mope:
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a matter of what we have become, but more about who we have always been. In this particular case, the act itself is cloaked in good intentions: drawing attention to physician assisted suicide.

However, what compels many individuals to observe something like this is a fascination with death. Look at sports, cinema, literature, etc. Death is nearly ubiquitous in most of our entertainment. I think most of us can agree that humanity has a long history of ritualized violence. This is something that is deeply imbedded in our psyches, and may be an outgrowth of some other learned behaviour that proved beneficial.

still has a vivid memory of that poor skier tumbling during the opening sequence of Wide World of Sports...week after week after week
 
Sadly true, Ms Ann Thrope....Just seems that lately the envelope of containment no longer exists....:crying3:

By the way...the skier survived with only minor injuries. They wouldn't have used the clip had he not.
 
I have seen this pop up on more than one site, so I don't think it's a scam. I'm not sure what I think of it - like Ann said - it's cloaked in good intentions. However, I think I wanted to pop my head off in public, I'd more likely do it at some sort of suicide awareness rally than a concert... cheapens the act/point a bit, methinks, if it's part of a concert. Would just come off as a publicity stunt.
 
Squiggy said:
Sadly true, Ms Ann Thrope....Just seems that lately the envelope of containment no longer exists....:crying3:

By the way...the skier survived with only minor injuries. They wouldn't have used the clip had he not.
Click to expand...

whew! glad to hear that poor alpinist is ok.... that seqence has been traumatizing me for years... :D

Envelope of containment? it's simply changed shape over time....I'm not sure audiences now are any more bloodthirsty than they were in 1st century BCE Rome....or any more prone to violence than the Aztecs...The moral constraints societies impose have changed over the centuries, at times loosening, at others, tightening. Shall we blame the feminists or the civil rights movement for the fact that our current standards have relaxed? I know you don't believe that, Squiggy, and obviously neither do I.

Still, once someone is free, can you blame them for seeing how far they can go? Not everyone has an inner sense of balance, of what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. If we are going to live in a free society we need to be able to accept that fact that there will be individuals who test the limits, who offend us and who continue to push the line of what's appropriate.

And for myself, I will vehemently defend their right to do so, no matter how badly they piss me off.

I know, badly paraphrazed Voltaire, I know, I know :rolleyes:
 
Im sort of ambigious on the topic of assisted suicide.

One thing I am not ambigious about however is using technology and medicine to artificially keep someone alive (substitue "torture") beyond their obvious natural lifespan.

WE JUST SHOULD NOT DO IT.

Now should we use that same technology to artifically end the life of a person for whos natrual lifespan is nearly here in order to ease their pain and suffering.

Well thats a much more controversial subject?

If you look at the oath physicians have to take and focus on:

and above all...do no harm
Click to expand...

Which is really more harmful?

1) Refusing to use our technology and medicine to stop the pain and suffering he is going through...thereby making his life (at least in his perception) much much worse? Remember...in this case...it really is HIS PERCEPTION that matters....Its not necessarily up to you or me and our "high and mighty personal moral system" to judge.

On the other hand.

2) Using our Technology and medicine to end a life, which on the surface seems to indicate "harm to the patient"

Profound and convincing arguments exist for both the pro and con.

When I look at the two options....frankly I cant figure out which one is worse. If the pain was bad enough, it looks to me like #1 would harm the patient more than #2.

If they are tolerating things well enough..then I would choose option #1.

Once again. I DONT THINK ANYONE HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE GROSS GENERALIZATIONS ABOUT WHICH IS RIGHT AND WHICH IS WRONG.

I think you would have to evaluate each case upon its own merritts.

Edit:
I had to edit..I had #1 and #2 reversed a minute ago!
 
I agree with you, here, AE. Not everyone has the same threshold for pain, or the same desire for life at any cost.

I do feel very strongly that everyone should have the choice to end their life if that is what they wish.
 
Equally disturbing is the other end of the spectrum...forcing death on those that aren't ready.

Does this woman look comatose?
Tile%20copy.jpg


They are about to starve her to death because her "next of kin", her husband, doesn't want the responsibility. Her parents have asked for guardianship & the courts refuse. Her husband is refusing any kind of therapy (including bathing her).

If you want to learn more Watch teh videos
 
Well Im not even going to go in to the whole "quality of life versus quantity of life" issue except to say that with holding treatment and letting nature take its course is not nearly as reprehensible as deliberatly taking a persons life in the eyes of the medical community.

Also, I dont know ANYTHING about this case, but I dont think that you can arrive at anything approaching a conclusion just looking at the picture.

How long ago was it taken?

What is her diagnosis and prognosis?

What kind of feed back have they been able to gather from her?

Does she have an advance directive? Living will? Health care power of attorney?

What is required in her daily routine? What sorts of medical intervention is she requiring? etc etc.

You get the point.

And even IF you know the answers....its just more ambiguity.
 
In addition, that site only shows one side of the story. It may give a true and accurate picture, but without hearing the other side I really don't know that.

Having scrolled through and read some of it, it seems like a well constructed argument showing only those facts that support the foundation's position.
 
Terri was 26 years old when she suffered brain damage from a sudden collapse. Terri receives her food and water by means of a feeding tube. Terri’s other bodily functions are physically stable. Terri smiles, laughs and cries. Terri recognizes voices and responds. At times, she vocalizes sounds, trying in her best way to speak. Terri is not a brain dead vegetable as characterized by her husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo nor a houseplant as implied by his attorney. Terri is not on a respirator or any artificial life support. She is a living human being and needs to be granted an opportunity to recover. Terri has not had any progressive rehabilitation or arousal therapy in more than ten years.

In a trial initiated by Michael Schiavo, Circuit Court Judge, George W. Greer, issued a verdict delivered on February 11, 2000. Judge Greer granted authorization to discontinue Terri’s feeding tube. Judge Greer’s verdict will cause Terri to die in 10 to 14 days. Terri’s death will be by painful starvation.

Background

In a malpractice lawsuit, Terri’s husband personally received over $300,000 for his loss of consortium. Terri was awarded $750,000 from this suit and an additional $250,000 from a separate malpractice lawsuit. The money was awarded to Terri for her care and rehabilitation and to be placed in a Medical Trust Fund. Terri’s husband received his personal award money and Terri’s medical fund money in early 1993. From the date he received the award money in 1993, Michael Schiavo has denied Terri any rehabilitation treatment. Michael Schiavo has confined Terri to a nursing home (currently, Terri is in a Hospice facility) where she is 'maintained.'

Her husband has directed that Terri only be sustained in a nursing home which is contrary to the intent of the award money. Michael Schiavo has on two occasions unsuccessfully attempted to end Terri’s life by instructing her caretakers not to medicate Terri for potentially fatal infections. The first occasion occurred less than nine months after her husband received the malpractice award money.

Some Facts

Terri has no will. Should she die, her husband will inherit what is left of Terri’s $750,000 medical fund.
Terri’s husband lives in a house with Jodi Centonze. He openly admits that he has been engaged to this women for over seven years, have recently given birth to a baby girl, and has announced plans to marry her when Terri is no longer alive.
Since receiving the award money in 1993, her husband has ceased and prohibited any new or aggressive treatment for Terri. He has only maintained Terri at a nursing home (currently, Terri is in a Hospice facility). He has totally ignored or denied rehabilitation therapy that could possibly assist Terri’s recovery.
Since 1993, Terri’s husband has consistently and deliberately withheld all medical information and data from Terri’s family. Over the past eight years he has ordered Terri’s caretakers not to reveal any medical or neurological information
Michael Schiavo will not permit any doctor to examine Terri other than the doctors he selects.
As Terri’s legal guardian, her husband has used her medical fund money to offset the legal costs when his guardianship of Terri was initially challenged and to pay the current legal costs to have Terri’s life ended.
Terri responds regularly to the presence of her parents and friends. Her husband's doctors testified Terri's cognizant responses to Terri’s parents and friends are simply a reflex action.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top