This is ridiculous - the debate over this issue. How can there be any conflict over this issue? How can people deny someone the right to die peacefully?
My life, and my death are both mine. In the same way that others don’t have the right to end my life when I want to live, they don’t have the right to make me live when I want to die.
On what justification or conscience, in the likes of case mentioned above where living on is a torture, do the 'authorities of our lives' debate over this issue that whether I really want to die or not? How possibly can they conclude that I am really 'happy' in living on, and 'want' that in the 'reality'? On the other hand, if they think I'm not at all happy in the conditions I'm living, and that it is a real torture for me to live on, on what justifications do they forcefully keep me alive?
I have never been in such a situation, but I'm sure to choose death much more gleefully, over choosing to continue living on in a continuity of my more painful and draining moments.
Ok, it may be argued that in many cases, an attempt to kill oneself in the fit of a single particular depressing moment, is absolutely foolish in the sense that the future might have in store a particularly filling and happy life for the person. But at least, in the cases where such future improvements are deemed absolutely impossible, one should let the person choose his own destiny.
The right to die is as much mine as the right to live. Its a shame that in this era of propagation of personal liberty and freedom, many of us have not yet got ourselves rid of this notion against the denial of this basic human right.
P.S.: NOT PARTICULARY HAPPY WITH THE ORIGINAL POST, I RE-WROTE THIS POST ON 24TH MARCH
Rajarshi,
ReplyDeleteWould you believe it? Gmail had moved you message to Spam? :o
I did read your blog *before* I forwarded that article to you. IMHO
before we can discuss whether it is right or wrong to keep Terry
alive, the question is, who can make that decision on her behalf? I am
not arguing about the "right to die" issue here. My question is "Who
decides it?" How can her estranged husband decide that Terry should
die? He moved out with his girlfriend in 1995, announced engagement in
1998 (the year when he started the legal battle with Terry's parents),
has two kids with her, and used up 800,000 USD out of the $1m
malpractice settlement he got after Terry's death for fighting Terry's
parents. Why didn't he divorce Terry? Well, according to him, Terry
wouldn't have wanted that. I suppose she would have wanted him to move
out with his girlfriend?
From http://marriage.about.com/od/celebritymarriages/p/schiavo.htm
Michael, on why he won't divorce Terri: "This is Terri's wish, this is
Terri's choice. And I'm going to follow that wish if it's the last
thing I can do for Terri."
Source:ABC News
After emerging from coma, Terry underwent physical therapy and speech
therapy and doctors noted her resposniveness and ability to eat. But
then she was transferred to a different nursing home and all therapy
was stopped and a feeding tube was inserted.
Michael Schiavo says that Terri wanted to die ... this would be her
choice. There is no proof that she really said that ... that this is
what she would have wanted.
And there is no conclusive proof that she was beyond any hope of
rehabilitation. Terry wasn't allowed to undergo several swallowing
tests which would have tested whether she was capable of benefiting
from therapy. Check out Abstract Appeal, a web site that has a time
line of the events. Matt Conigliaro, whose website it is, is
supportive of Michael Schiavo and this web site has been linked by
about.com so it is reliable, truthful and impartial source of
information (certainly not partial to the "fundamentalist" pro-lifers
:)) http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html#timeline
And you have written:
"My life, and my death are both mine. In the same way that others
don't have the right to end my life when I want to live, they don't
have the right to make me live when I want to die."
I would have felt a lot less worse if it was Terry who took that
decision. Michael didn't act in Terry's best interests.
"Ok, it may be argued that in many cases, an attempt to kill
oneself in the fit of a single particular depressing moment, is
absolutely foolish in the sense that the future might have in store a
particularly filling and happy life for the person. But at least, in
the cases where such future improvements are deemed absolutely
impossible, one should let the person choose his own destiny."
Well, I have been chronically depressed for years. It's been only one
year I have started to overcome it. I have wanted to die so many
times, but I am really glad that I am alive. Single particular
depressing moment or not, choosing to die when we are feeling low is a
wrong choice to make. Choosing to die when we are in a vegetative
state is an altogether different thing.
Take care...
Swatilekha
Date: Apr 3, 2005 5:25 PM
ReplyDeleteWell, putting my mail into Spam is what I'll count as
Google's first big mistake which I came to know of.
Now to get back to the subject.
First of all, Michael did not make the decision. The
court made it. And I'm sure they did not have anything
personally against Terry. So if they have made the
decision after reviewing all available facts, I'm
inclined to think that this is what Terry would have
wanted. That's what the court decided upon after
reviewing all the aspects. If you argue that the
court's judgements are wrong or that it can be
manipulated or that the system has a lot of pitfalls,
I'll say that at least until one can suggest a better
judicial system, one must have faith and accept the
present.
About Michael's marriage ties, I cant make any
comments on that. What he does with his own life is
his will. What he does with Terry's life can only be
our concern. And as per I found out from the links you
referred, there is nothing exact in that which could
make anyone conclude that he could have possibly
wanted Terry to die for his sake.
And its seems immaterial here whether he moved out
with other women, or whether he divorced Terry or not.
Because of two things - firstly, it can't possibly
have anything to do with Terry living or dying. Her
life or death didn't affect those matters. Secondly, I
would like to question that whether Terry was 'living'
enough to have made any of those observations. She was
brain-dead. Also, these two wishes of Terry's were
concerning the actions of her husband, and so, these
could not be taken as enforceable in any way - if he
honours any of it, its just his will. But those wishes
which Terry would have governed herself if she could,
and which are such that any free person would surely
get to act upon, the state should take care to
enforce.
Tell me - would you have reacted the same way if it
was not Michael, but her parents who had taken the
stand Michael took? If no, then you must not bias your
view of Michael's opinions on this case with his
character as that is portrayed in other aspects. The
question is whether the decision made by third persons
to let her die was justified or not, and it should not
really matter who (among the third persons) made that
decision.
You say that there were no conclusive proof that she
was beyond any hope of rehabilitation. This possibly
in reference to the decision making based on
possibility of positive future developments. Here, I
add that there was no proof either that there she
could have been rehabilitated. So if you must have to
judge now, you would tend to weigh the relative
weights of these two arguments. And in this case, the
latter far out-weighs the former with all the medical
evidences. And also, you must make a decision which
should be impartial without any pre-conceived notions
of ours like "life should be preserved as far as
possible". There was no doubt medically that she was
brain-dead - the point of slight confusion was whether
she could come back or not. So I should think that
this also supports letting her die. This additionally
had to it the support of the evidences based on which
the court decided that she herself would have wanted
to die (i.e., her wish). And well, I don't know the
medical details, but if a person is brain-dead and
later the brain again starts to function, isn't that a
new person? If the past knowledge and intelligence is
not there, I'm inclined to call it a different being.
I must mention that I was really amazed by going
through the chronology. I really felt like - "what the
hell is this - a ball game??" How can possibly someone
play with someone's life in this degrading manner? A
good death is much better than such a life, being
toyed in the hands of others. They should have let the
woman die peacefully long ago. She had ceased to be
the issue for quiet a long time - she was just a tool
of the trade. Well, I'm not asking to stop questioning
standards - you should always do that, but not in this
way. I'm sure, if it had been one of my loved ones,
I'd have given her a proper death, rather than keeping
her in a neither-life-nor-death position, and allowing
her to be tools of others' trade. You can fight a
cause without involving up a human being in this
manner.
Besides, you will be acting in a selfish way if you
wont let go of a loved one in such a situation just
because you love that person dearly and want the
person to be with you, with thoughts about how this
will count for the victim taking backseat. I'm not
saying that this has been the case here, but cases
like this do happen in the real world.
Everything said and done, I will accept that its one
thing to talk about such issues from a far-away
third-person perspective, and an entirely different
thing being into the situation. I am fully aware that
if I was the victim, or a direct acquaintance of her,
I might have said and acted in entirely different
terms. But then again, at any moment, we must always
endeavour to make the best judgements from the maximum
we have in our hands.
That's it for now. You could have posted your opinion
in the comments section to that post.
Let me know your thoughts.
--Rajarshi
3 April 2005 01:39
ReplyDeleteFaith in courts hmm... well I don't have much faith in the American judiciary. It put more than 100 innocent people on death row, who have recently been exonerated through DNA testing.
Yes, the courts took the decision... but it was Michael who appealed the courts. He was a appointed Terry's guardian as he was her spouse and he misused that position. And as for being biased or prejudiced ... whatever Michael does is his personal life ... but and that's a huge BUT. Michael Schavio's interests conflicted with Terry's. That is the problem I have with his actions.
You have written in your email "And as per I found out from the links you referred, there is nothing exact in that which could make anyone conclude that he could have possibly wanted Terry to die for his sake."
It's common sense, I believe. This man had forsaken his wedding vows ... to be there for terry in sickness and sorrow. Let's overlook the wedding vows thing too... The guy "moved on" ... has a new family ... and he can't marry until Terry dies ... and can't divorce because then he won't be able to use the money he got as Terry's malpractice suit's settlement. There is a huge conflict of interests. Read Nurse Carla Iyer's affidavit, who cared for Terri between 1995-1996, here at http://s88251339.onlinehome.us/smartercop/archives/003036.html and also at The Free Republic web site. Mediamatters, however says here that Judge Greer found the affidavit incredible. But then, this is the same judge who denied terry various tests.
I would have felt a lot less worse if Terry, or Terry's parents took the decision whether Terry should be kept alive or not. The issue is not of right to die ... that is indeed debatable (but I am keeping that for sometime else). The issue is about conflict of interests. Pope John Paul II died yesterday. He chose to remain in his quarters and didn't go back to the hospital where he was being treated. That was his choice. And had I been in his place, I would have chosen the same thing. Terry's case is different. She couldn't choose.
There is an excellent article at this blog Sideline Squawkbox - WEIGHING IN ON TERRI SCHIAVO...FINALLY
There is this paraphrased snippet about whether or not Terri is in a PVS or in a state of minimal consciousness from a public document that was issued by Jay Wolfson (Guardian Ad Litem to Terri Shiavo) to Gov. Jeb Bush in December of 2003.
"In late Autumn of 1990, following months of therapy and testing, formal diagnoses of persistent vegetative state with no evidence of improvement, Michael took Theresa to California, where she received an experimental thalamic stimulator implant in her brain. Michael remained in California caring for Theresa during a period of several months and returned to Florida with her in January of 1991. Theresa was transferred to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon, where she received 24 hour skilled care, physical, occupational, speech and recreational therapies.
Despite aggressive therapies, physician and other clinical assessments consistently revealed no functional abilities, only reflexive, rather than cognitive movements, random eye opening, no communication system and little change cognitively or functionally.
On 19 July 1991 Theresa was transferred to the Sable Palms skilled care facility. Periodic neurological exams, regular and aggressive physical, occupational and speech therapy continued through 1994.".
"Terri is a living, breathing human being. When awake, she sometimes groans, makes noises that emulate laughter or crying, and may appear to track movement. But the scientific medical literature and the reports this GAL obtained from highly respected neuro-science researchers indicate that these activities are common and characteristic of persons in a persistent vegetative state."
Go to http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm for the full report. I agree with the blogger ... Michael Schiavo had no business meddling with Terry's affairs.
You have written "There was no doubt medically that she was brain-dead - the point of slight confusion was whether she could come back or not. So I should think that this also supports letting her die. This additionally had to it the support of the evidences based on which the court decided that she herself would have wanted to die (i.e., her wish). And well, I don't know the medical details, but if a person is brain-dead and later the brain again starts to function, isn't that a new person? If the past knowledge and intelligence is not there, I'm inclined to call it a different being."
Terry Schiavo was indeed brain-damaged. But different human being or not, that person would be alive and conscious. Alive and conscious ... alive and conscious... alive ... conscious...
The court decided she would have wanted to die because Michael said that Terry herself indicated that. It was Michael's testimony and there wasn't any other evidence.
And after reading the time line ... I felt sick.... It was sick, inhumane and horrible. The saddest thing is, we supported all that.
Sometimes I think we are in the darkest hour of humanity. .. We are barbaric, heartless, cold... greedy and we couldn't care less.
You have written "Besides, you will be acting in a selfish way if you wont let go of a loved one in such a situation just because you love that person dearly and want the person to be with you, with thoughts about how this will count for the victim taking backseat."
Well that's selfish ... sometimes we have to let go rather than prolong the pain ... but there are better ways than starving to death... hospices, for example. And I feel that most pro-lifers are pro-life because we respect the sanctity and realise the preciousness of life .. what an incredible gift it is ... and that's why they are pro-life not just about their loved ones, but for the rest of the world. Because I believe that we can not choose whether to let another person live or die.
As for the death by starvation ... though Terry presumably felt no pain, it was unethical. Many people talk about euthanasia being a better way. I don't think that legalising euthanasia is a solution. It is like playing with fire. Not just the patients, if euthanasia is legalised, doctors and the patient's families can make that decision. In a country like India, doctors of overcrowded hospitals would want most of their patients euthanised, stating they are beyond hope of recovery and a strain to the government coffers. In a situation where our doctors hardly dicuss or explain anything, how can the patient's family make an informed decision? What about patients who had strained ties with their families? It is best to live some kind of a living will, which would clearly state that extraordinary measures should not be taken to keep that person alive.
Try The two sides of the Schiavo case
And of course, this Harvard Crimson article.
You asked me to post here.
I couldn't post earlier because well... I am far too lazy to look up my blogger password and user id (oh yes, I have a blogger account :) and log in. But well, I did it this time! Not quite actually .... couldn't find the password and the recovery email didn't arrive.
Google may have spammed your email, but that was probably because the original email, which sent you the Beliefnet article, had too many links. But hey, Gmail is offerring 2GB now, plus rich text formatting.
In the previous comment, I said "It is best to live some kind of a living will, which would clearly state that extraordinary measures should not be taken to keep that person alive. "
ReplyDeleteI of course, meant "It is best to leave some kind of a living will".
And there has been many instances where capitalisations have not been done ... sorry about that. I was typing in a hurry and I couldn't revise.
First, I'll just repeat the issue so to deviate the least from it - its whether the decision to let Terri die, given the condition she was in and the facts that could be gathered about her situation, was justified or not. I felt it was justified, and the points I gave earlier, and will give here, are to support this opinion. As was cleared in previous comments by you, I’m not debating the "right to die", which though was the original post, have fired this issue with more vigour it seems.
ReplyDeleteFirstly about Michael - did his actions really conflict Terri's? To decide that it must be cleared first what was in the best interest of Terri. Now, that brings us back to the original question - should she have died, or kept on in the condition that she was in?
A sidenote about wedding and its vows - its a whole different issue, and its best that we dont get into that, because, I'll question from the very beginning - the 'why' and 'How' and 'What if not' of marriage, the religious background, the propagation of species aspect, the association (or not) with love, its association (or not) with sex, individual vs. society, marriage 'then' and marriage 'now', the fitness of its form in current society, etc. etc.. Besides, how many people do ever really fulfill their marriage vows to the words? Why is divorce at all into existence?
Getting back to Michael's issue, even if I accept that Michael is a complete crook, and ALL the steps he took were a careful planned series of actions directed for his sole personal gains, still I do support the resultant action effected for Terri by these. But dont think I would not condemn Michael, I would condemn his intentions and desire his punishment, but I dont for one moment question the 'justness' of the effect his actions had on Terri. She received something she should have received long ago. This is just a positive side-effect of Michael’s bad intentions, and one should never try to nullify this in attempt nullify whatever crooked intentions might be there.
Nevertheless, I should mention that the Jay Wolfson report states that it was initially Terri's parents who urged Michael to go on with his life. Also, he had earlier formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate. Well, I'm not arguing to save Michael’s ass - I'm just highlighting facts so as to view all sides of the case.
And as I said before in my previous post, all that I read so far, including the full Jay Wolfson report, points to the fact that Terri was in persistent vegetative state, with no hopes of recovery, and also that death is what she would have wanted in this situation. About her wish, there are other evidences also apart from Michael's. In this regard, I quote from that report:
"The testimony of these parties referenced specific conversations in which Theresa commented about her desire never to be placed on artificial life support. The testimony reflected conversations at or proximate to funerals of close family members who had been on artificial life support. The context and content of the testimony, while hearsay, was deemed credible and consistent and was used by the court as a supporting bases for its decision to discontinue artificial life support."
Besides, even if somehow her intentions could not be traced from the past, this decision is not unjust. And the intentions of her mother and family might also not be that justified:
"Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given ................despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state................... Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."
And I did read The Nurse's affidavit. From all that I have read so far, I'm afraid that it does appear like a story. There might have been incidents during which it could have appeared as if Terri had responded, but these were not real responses. I quote from the Jay Wolfson report again:
"A particularly disarming aspect of persons diagnosed with persistent vegetative state is that they have waking and sleeping cycles. When awake, their eyes are often open, they make noises, they appear to track movement, they respond to deep pain, and appear startled by loud noises......
...................
....Theresa has a distinct presence about her. Being with Theresa, holding her hand, looking into her eyes and watching how she is lovingly treated by Michael, her parents and family and the clinical staff at hospice is an emotional experience. It would be easy to detach from her if she were comatose, asleep with her eyes closed and made no noises. This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states."
The Harvard Crimson article you referred was interesting. The author says that we have a disrespect for cognitively disabled persons. And she says that ".. I believe that the American public, to one degree or another, holds that disabled people are better off dead." Now, make no mistake - I am holding that there is a vast difference between cognitively disabled persons, and the ones like Terri - she is not disabled, but lacks cognition entirely. And if any person has the slightest cognition left, I maintain that the person is fully there, and should live on as any other free man.
What I will proceed to say now will sound 'chilly' and cold. But I will say nonetheless. You say that Terri was 'alive' and 'conscious'. I contest these words. They have been used in a very ambiguous sense. I am also alive and conscious. But isnt there a difference - a VAST difference? If you mean by 'alive' the partial working of her body organs, and by 'conscious' the partial stimulus responses of her nervous system (which were not governed properly by the brain), then you can use these words. But I'll say that when the cognitive brain of a person ceases to function, the 'individual' ceases to exist. Where is an individual without a mind? All that remained was a body - which is analogous to any machine. Isnt the mind, the intelligence, the fine line separating humans from machines? Cognitive science is the area in AI which scientists are trying their best to decipher - the area which is barring robots to become equal or even near to humans. So, even if there was slightest trace of a cognitive brain, or even the possibility of its development, I'd say that she was alive and conscious in a sense as any other human is. But it was established with credibility that there was neither.
You said that we can not choose whether to let another person live or die. But dont you see, that in reality we have taken that thing long since into our own hands? We are always choosing about the lives of human beings. Mostly, we are choosing to make people live on. (And very rarely, we kill them.) When was the last time human let this decision in the hands of nature? Never, I think. And they will not - its human nature - to expand beyond your limits, to conquer new heights. The thing you can say is that it should be I who chooses whether I die or live (not others on behalf of me).
In Terri's case, all aspects of her situation taken into account, its a good thing that we let her pass away.
Well, I'll leave it at there for now. Its too long a comment already.
Agreed, she was in a vegetative state. According to you, no matter how Michael is, the outcome of his actions, that is, the death of Terry, is a positive thing. Well, I don't think it was a positive thing.
ReplyDeleteI am not convinced that Terry had told Michael that this is what she wanted. Like I said before, I am not arguing here about the "Right to Die". I am arguing about who gets to decide. You have written that we have always taken this decision for centuries .. yes we have. We have chosen to keep people alive, and we have chosen to kill people ... maybe medically, or through murder, torture or war. it is ridiculous to equate the ethics of keeping a person alive to killing a person.
The Wolfson report states "Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it."
That I believe, is wrong ... respecting Terry's wishes would be the right thing to do.
Agreed, the nurse's story might just be made up by her...
You have written : "I should mention that the Jay Wolfson report states that it was initially Terri's parents who urged Michael to go on with his life. Also, he had earlier formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."
Yes I know all that. Terry's parents did urge Michael to move on with his life. That obviously means, divorcing and starting a life anew with a different person. I see no wrong in that. But I guess you might say it doesn't imply "divorce and move on". As for the marriage vows, I have nothing to say about that. Rather than discuss the merits and demerits of marriage, and why people marry ... reproduction of species ... for creating a successor...free and acceptable sex ...it's fun... it's the thing to do...., I take it this way - Michael Schiavo didn't honour his promise to Terry at the time of their marriage. And that is why it's wrong and despicable.
The article here says "If you go back to the court room documentation and testimony in which money was awarded to Terry, and the related documentation in which the trust for Terry was set up, and the final awarding of guardianship, conditions were set in which the guardian was to provide medical treament for Terry, which never occured. The conditions under which Michael was awarded guardianship occured under his testimony that he would use the guardianship to care for Terry for the rest of her natural life which the courts and medical experts questioned indicated would be fifty years"
Yes, Michael Schiavo did offer to divest himself from the money. Just as he promised to take care of Terry for the rest of her natural life.
Jane Galt here, author of the blog "Asymmetrical Information: An opinion-ridden free-for-all" has a lively and informed discussion board which IMHO is very thought-provoking and informed posts which is a welcome change from the usual discussion boards about Terry that have opinionated but uninformed people. Read the posts if you please. She links to a doctor's site which discussed about Terry's CT scan
And this doctor analyzes Terry's CT scan here CSI MEDBLOGS: CODEBLUEBLOG ANALYZES TERRI SCHIAVO'S CT OF THE BRAIN Btw, it's an award-winning blog and I don't expect that this post about the CT scan is unreliable.
You have written "its human nature - to expand beyond your limits, to conquer new heights. The thing you can say is that it should be I who chooses whether I die or live (not others on behalf of me)."
Finding medicines and treatments to cure people isn't about fuelling humanity's ego ... it's about improving the quality of life ... it's about helping ourselves ...it's about being a humane
I have been saying in my comments that it's acceptable, I suppose, if a person makes that decision to use or refuse extraordinary methods to sustain/prolong life in case of any medical emergency.
And yes, Terry was alive and conscious. To dehumanise a person because s/he doesn't have a working brain, a mind ... and doesn't have cognition is wrong. What you have written is indeed very scary. We differ on what is humane and inhumane. I guess that pretty much ends the debate for me.
Best of luck for your studies... Goodnight and goodbye...
ReplyDelete(If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
I have written in the April 07 12:19 am post that "Finding medicines and treatments to cure people isn't about fuelling humanity's ego ... it's about improving the quality of life ... it's about helping ourselves ...it's about being a humane"
ReplyDeleteI of course, meant "being humane"
You agree that Terri was in persistent vegetative state. And still you want to keep her in that condition for ever. Why?
ReplyDeleteYou yourself once said that if you ever fall in that state, you would want to be released. So, I'd guess this course is obviously more appealing to you than the other. How come you think Terri would wish otherwise, or should be treated otherwise, (in the case her will is somehow completely unknown)?
About Michael, for the sake of this matter, I'll just agree that he has foul intentions. Else I will divert from the cause.
You are not convinced about Terri's wish. Ok, but I hope you agree that with the same weightage you should be equally unconvinced about her wish to live in such a scenario. (Given that whatever things have come up, they point more to her wish against going on in such a situation, than for it.)
In such a case, how can you possibly justify that you or me or anyone else can be more accurate in guessing her wishes by digging up materials on the net, than the courts, judges and jury who have been on this case for years?
You referred to medical reports. I'm sure if I search, I'll be able to find reports and analysis contradicting that. And I'm no medical man. Neither are you. So, again how come not give due value to the opinions of the proved medical experts who have been diagnosing this for years, and who have clearly declared that she was in persistent vegetative state? (All the convincing reports seem to point to same direction. Again, I think that they who have been on this case for years are the best ones to decide which reports carry weightage, and which do not.)
And about my comments on being 'alive' and 'conscious' - yes I agree that they do appear very disagreeable to read. But if you argue by logic, you have to explicitly define every point, and you have to follow logic. Was what I mentioned there about the human mind absolutely and utterly absurd?
Someday, I'll write my thoughts on what fuels human endeavour in different fields, on values, about playing 'God', and stuff like that. What do you think about human cloning? Why do values change? How come many terrorists who kill have as much righteousness (or more) in them about their task as any 'great' person whom you and me deem very spiritual? Well, the human mind is probably the most interesting thing to explore, among all the things out there in our reach.
And before I end, I would like mention 'the' final justification about why I thought Terri has been done justice, which I hope sees you agreeing on this (that I personally was right in this decision), even if nothing else. Plainly in the layman's words and being oblivious of everything else - if I was ever in that kind of situation, I would definitely have wanted this very end, and so I felt it must have been a harassment for Terri not to have got it for so many tiresome years.
You dont give up, do you? And the amount of research and detail with which you went into this was simply commendable!!
You have written : "Plainly in the layman's words and being oblivious of everything else - if I was ever in that kind of situation, I would definitely have wanted this very end, and so I felt it must have been a harassment for Terri not to have got it for so many tiresome years.
ReplyDelete" It doesn't matter what you, or I want. If we err, we should err on the side of life. Your logic isn't right. If I feel depressed, I have theright to choose not living (though not in India) but I will definitely not encourage or abet others. That would be wrong. It's like group suicide ...
"Was what I mentioned there about the human mind absolutely and utterly absurd?" Not "utterly" absurd, dear :)
"What do you think about human cloning? Why do values change? How come many terrorists who kill have as much righteousness (or more) in them about their task as any 'great' person whom you and me deem very spiritual?"
Terrorists are either delusional about their lofty ideals, or just plain calculative killers. Righteousness? If it's there ... it's definitely misguided. How can righteousness exist with a desire to hurt others?
Cloning? Please start a new article on that... This page is way too lengthy.
"You dont give up, do you?" Do I need to answer that? :)
You said: "It doesn't matter what you, or I want" - but of course it does - when I must make a descision, it definitely matters what I think is justified, and what I think is not. You should have used the word 'think justified' instead of 'want' - because when I desire a particular end (that end being more appealing to me), I do think its justified to give that to others too.
ReplyDeleteIf you think something is good, should you not want that for other persons too? (Of course, assuming you are acting out of goodwill.)
And well, where is the question of 'err'ing coming in here? Its just that I think a course of action as more aggreable and I offer that same course to other persons too.
Any very important - dont in any way associate this state to that of being suicidal/depressed in mind due to unfavourable events. Here, there is no mind - its "persistent vegetative state", a state where the person (or should I call it a 'the functioning body organs'??) renmains for the rest of the time until 'they' fail.
About cloning and terrorists, I definitely plan to write stuff one day. But not now. Actually, I have quiet a lot of respect to the terrorists who gives their lives doing what we term 'terrorism' and they term 'freedom-fighting'. You say their ideals are wrong, they say so about yours. So, what is the 'real' proper ideal?
"How can righteousness exist with a desire to hurt others?" - find out. Why should it not exist?
Thats it. I just posed the terrorist questions - you dont need to answer here. This is already a too long page by just itself.
Just though that you might want to know that fireman Don Herbert has woke up from a 10 year old coma. This man too, was severely brain damaged. Watch a clip here at Real.com's web site
ReplyDeleteAnnihilating Terry Schiavo by Paul McHugh in the Commentary magazine. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11906029_1
ReplyDeleteAhhhh.... I loved that article.
ReplyDeleteI'll count that as perhaps the strongest article you have given in this case - strongest in the sense that it touched upon areas which are the hardest to refute - directly down to the roots - questioning the ethics.
The article decidedly touched upon and reasoned with the two fundamental aspects which govenrns the descision making rationale of man - logic and faith.
Any logical discussion furthering from this article will require deeper research concerning the evolution of our ethics (or bioethics), and that will require time - something which presently is a VERY precious commodity for me now, with my semester examinations starting from 7th. In this viewpoint questioning the rationale of our ethics (or maybe what we 'illusion' as ethics) Prof. McHugh has brought up some very poignant points - I whole-hearteadly agree there.
The personal experience Prof. McHugh highlighted in the article about the incident where he and his interns hears a clear sentence from the PVS patient, and thereafter didnt care a thing about the medical reports, clearly shows the endorsement of faith. In the last paragraph again, he states : "....and it can be rationalized every which way till Sunday" - probably meaning that the rationale behind our actions satisfies the conciousness until sunday when the church is visited, and logics seem inadequate. (er... i hope I interpreted 'Sunday' correctly... not sure...). The descisions and 'laws' have been questioned by faith.
I once suspected it would come to this. A conflict where logic is challanged also by faith.
And in such cases so far, logic has always bowed down before faith. It has been made to. Faith is stronger than logic - or so it seems at least.
And so, when faith is put forth, discussions and arguments are superflous and redundent - faith does not need discussions to uphold it, and it cant be crossed with logic.
With that note, I'll end now.
Nevertheless, I do have faith in logic.