Conference back40::soapbox

                    THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND EUTHANASIA

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this 70th General Convention
[1991] set forth the following principles and guidelines with regard to the
forgoing of life-sustaining treatment in the light of our understanding of
the sacredness of human life:

1. Although human life is sacred, death is a part of the earthly cycle of
life.  There is a ``time to be born and a time to die'' (Eccl. 3:2).  The
resurrection of Jesus Christ transforms death into a transition to eternal
life: ``For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection
of the dead'' (I Cor. 15:21).

2. Despite this hope, it is morally wrong and unacceptable to take a human
life in order to relieve suffering caused by incurable illness.  This would
include the intentional shortening of another person's life by the use of a
lethal dose of medication or poison, the use of lethal weapons, homicidal
acts, and other forms of active euthanasia.

3. However, there is no moral obligation to prolong the act of dying by
extraordinary means and at all costs if such dying person is ill and has
no reasonable expectation of recovery.

4. In those cases involving persons who are in a comatose state from which
there is no reasonable expectation of recovery, subject to legal restraints,
this Church's members are urged to seek the advice and counsel of members of
the church community, and where appropriate, its sacramental life, in
contemplating the withholding or removing of life-sustaining systems,
including hydration and nutrition.

5. We acknowledge that the withholding or removing of life-sustaining
systems has a tragic dimension.  The decision to withhold or withdraw
life-sustaining treatment should ultimately rest with the patient, or
with the patient's surrogate decision-makers in the case of a mentally
incapacitated patient.  We therefore express our deep conviction that any
proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding
the so-called ``right to die'' issues, (a) must take special care to see
that the individual's rights are respected and that the responsibility of
individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and
honored, and (b) must also provide expressly for the withholding or
withdrawing of life-sustaining systems, where the decision to withhold or
withdraw life-sustaining systems has been arrived at with proper safeguards
against abuse.

6. We acknowledge that there are circumstances in which health care
providers, in good conscience, may decline to act on request to terminate
life-sustaining systems if they object on moral or religious grounds.
In such cases we endorse the idea of respecting the patient's right to
self-determination by permitting such patient to be transferred to another
facility or physicial willing to honor the patient's request, provided that
the patient can readily, comfortably and safely be transferred.  We
encourage health care providers who make it a policy to decline involvement
in the termination of life-sustaining systems to communicate their policy to
patients or their surrogates at the earliest opportunity, preferably before
the patients or their surrogates have engaged the services of such a health
care provider.

7. Advance written directives (so-called ``living wills,'' ``declarations
concerning medical treatment'' and ``durable powers of attorney setting
forth medical declarations'') that make a person's wishes concerning the
continuation or withholding or removing of life-sustaining systems should be
encouraged, and this Church's members are encouraged to execute such advance
written directives during good health and competence and that the execution
of such advance written directives constitute loving and moral acts.

8. We urge the Council of Seminary Deans, the Christian Education
departments of each diocese, and those in charge of programs of continuing
education for clergy and all others responsibie for education programs in
this Church, to consider seriously the inclusion of basic training in issues
of prolongation of life and death with dignity in their curricula and
programs.

    
    the bishops are entitled to their opinions. 
    
    however:
    
    not being in the position to have to consider
    taking one's own life, I can only wonder how
    they can be so damned sanctimonious.
    
    

    Foidermore \John, I sincerely hope **your** last days are not filled
    with agony as you waste away, with plenty of time to reconsider your
    stand on euthanasia...
    

    hi Dan!

    >	I can only wonder how
    >   they can be so damned sanctimonious.
    
    	They are merely reiterating and reaffirming the theology of
    	the Catholic Church.

Euthanasia is not suicide.

The church is (once again) trying to cloud issues.

No one is taking the lives of anyone in Oregon except the owner of that life
who should be allowed to do as he d**n well pleases with it.

Amos

    	A concern for me is when the "right to die" evolves into a "duty to
    	die".

>               <<< Note 28.7 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

>    	A concern for me is when the "right to die" evolves into a "duty to
>    	die".

When there is even a suggestion of that happening let me know. I'll be there
to fight with whatever tools the gov't hasn't confiscated (or found), until
those ideas emerge why not let people make their own decisions?

In another topic you talk about removing laws to make gov't less intrussive,
the law in Oregon really is a removal of the law against suicide which means 
the gov't of Oregon intrudes less in lives. A good thing, no?

Amos

    
    i hate to admit this, but when i first saw this note, i thought it said
    "just say no to ethiopia"...
    
    just thought i'd share that with y'all...
    
    %^>
    
    

>In another topic you talk about removing laws to make gov't less intrussive,
>the law in Oregon really is a removal of the law against suicide which means 
>the gov't of Oregon intrudes less in lives. A good thing, no?
    
    	First of all, I don't recall talking about government intrusion
    	in any topic.  You are just painting me with the media-fed image
    	you think a conservative should have.

    	Secondly, this is a terribly lame argument that has been 
    	cropping up lately when a liberal confronts a conservative 
    	who is supporting something they disagree with.
    
    	Sure, Amos, let's just willy-nilly drop *any* law, because
    	it means less government and that's good, right?
    
    	Trying to rely on such a weak argument tells me you don't
    	really know how to address the opposing point.
    
    	------------
    
    	Back to the question you raised, all I was presenting was a
    	concern.  In the previous box I stated that I had too many
    	questions and concerns to either support or oppose this now.

    
    RE: .9
    
    
    Hi Emily!!!
    
    :) :)
    

    Joe if you have never been in the position I was in three and a half
    years ago with my father, don't judge those of us who want voluntary
    suicide available.  My only regret was that we got home before he had
    succeeded and prolonged his life for another 6 days of hell.  sometimes
    I think I should have just gotten him another glass of water and left,
    instead of calling the ambulance.
    
    meg

>    Joe if you have never been in the position I was in three and a half
>    years ago with my father, don't judge those of us who want voluntary
>    suicide available.  
    
    	If you've ever bothered to read what I write instead of just
    	projecting your anger, you would have seen that I'm undecided
    	on this subject, therefore you are way out of line to suggest 
    	that I am judging you.
    
    	This is the second time today that you've misstated a position
    	that I've previously made clear.

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone refer to Amos as a Liberal.

    The question I have always had about this subject is that, if
    euthenasia was to become a legal option, what - and indeed who - would
    determine the Age of Consent?  Then, of course, who would be entitled
    to act on behalf of a terminally ill child?  I.O.W., who would "play
    God"?
    For the record, I'm in favour of euthenasia and I have my own ideas as
    to what I would like to see in the way of the very strict safeguards
    which would obviously need to be applied to any approved procedure. 
    What I do not understand is, in a country where capital punishment is
    still practiced in order to permanently remove a danger, and therefore
    a resource drain, from society, how can there possibly be any objection
    to the voluntary relinquishment of life in order to escape extreme pain
    and remove oneself as a burden to one's carers?
    
    Daz.
    
    PS: Who do I send my tuppence to?

>    What I do not understand is, in a country where capital punishment is
>    still practiced in order to permanently remove a danger, and therefore
>    a resource drain, from society, how can there possibly be any objection
>    to the voluntary relinquishment of life in order to escape extreme pain
>    and remove oneself as a burden to one's carers?

Because some people are very confused.

    Euthanasia is actually not that hot a subject with the electorate.
    
    Eveyone agrees that that the medical profession has the ability to keep
    'alive' the kind of damaged human body that would have expired in short
    order in any previous generation.  The enormous expense of such
    treatment, and the lack of any hope of recovery, make such treatment
    morally indefensible, unless you're a money-grubbing apologist for the
    health profession.  Clearly, anybody of sound mind has the right to
    decline such treatment.  The problem arises when the wishes of a person
    concerning such treatment are not known before it becomes necessary for
    them (if you don't know what a 'living will' is, find out the laws of
    your state and establish one if you don't want your family placed in
    such a position should the unthinkable happen to you.)  If the doctors
    manage to get the hookup in place, then it becomes nearly impossible to
    get it disconnected, without such a legal instrument stating your
    wishes clearly.  Karen Anne Quindlan was comatose on life support for
    over 11 years after a tragic accident, before her family finally won
    the right to disconnect her body from the equipment.  Very few would
    disagree that her family should never have been forced into that
    position; but it could still happen to anyone.
    
    Euthanasia-legislation is thus not all that controversial considered on
    its own grounds.  What tends to get controversy is when people oppose
    it due to the convoluted politics of abortion.  Some so-called
    prolifers think it would be inconsistent of themselves to admit that
    sometimes people do have to decide when or under what circumstances the
    termination of life is an appropriate decision for individuals to make.
    They should imagine themselves in the position of Karen Anne Quindlan's
    parents, and shut up.
    
    DougO

>    What tends to get controversy is when people oppose
>    it due to the convoluted politics of abortion.  
    
    	You were doing pretty good until you got to this part.  And
    	I only say "pretty good" because you fail to see the difference
    	between "living will" issues and proposition 16 issues from
    	Oregon.  Living wills allow us only to stop extraordinary
    	measures and treatments.  Proposition 16 allows the patient
    	to take additional (as opposed to fewer) steps to hasten
    	death.

    Speaking of Kevorkian...he attended another suicide recently.  The
    woman who was his cause celebre took her life by CO poisoning.  Both
    legs amputated, missing an eye and a host of other debilitating
    ailments.  The law preventing him from assisting suicides aparently
    ran out (trial period?).  
    
    Brian

    Back in .15 I said that I know what I would like to see as safeguards
    before euthenasia became a legal option.  I deliberately didn't mention
    any of them because, as one who is far the motion, they could be
    accused of being too soft.  The people who should draw up such a list
    would be those *against*, if they could be persuaded to assume that E
    was about to become legally available.  The list would produce the
    tightest set of rules any system could wish for.
    
    Daz
    

>              <<< Note 28.10 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

    
>    	First of all, I don't recall talking about government intrusion
>    	in any topic.  You are just painting me with the media-fed image
>    	you think a conservative should have.

Maybe I got you confused with others.


>    	Secondly, this is a terribly lame argument that has been 
>    	cropping up lately when a liberal confronts a conservative 
>    	who is supporting something they disagree with.
    
>    	Sure, Amos, let's just willy-nilly drop *any* law, because
>    	it means less government and that's good, right?
 
There is a difference between *ANY* law and intrusive laws.
just so you know I am in favor of dropping about 90% of the federal
and state laws that now exist. Start with;
ALL GUN LAWS
ALL DRUG USE/POSSESION LAWS
ALL RICO-TYPE LAWS
ALL MOMMY-KNOWS-BEST LAWS(seatbelts helmets )
MOST ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
ALL TAXES
SHALL I GO ON? :-}


>    	Trying to rely on such a weak argument tells me you don't
>    	really know how to address the opposing point.
 
If you would make a point other than religious opposition I would be happy to 
address it. Since in my opinion the only test for laws and government should 
be how much freedom they curtail I belkieve it to be a valid argument.


AND FOLKS, GET IT RIGHT, THE OREGON LAW IS NOT EUTHANASIA!

Euthanasia is murder, the wrongfull application of force by one person on 
another person. Suicide is free will.

btw if I am a liberal in your view then you are to the right of 
vlad the impaler :-} :-}   

Amos

Seventyish couple just gassed themselves after mailing letters to
friends saying that they had decided to commit suicide in order to
be able to donate their money to their church (a liberal church
which does not take a strong sanctity-of-life position) rather than
have it spent on medical expenses and elderly care.

/john

As Ray says, it was suicide, not euthanasia.

Does anyone have a problem with this?

    nope...

    Sooo...  as long as Organized Religion gets mucho dinero from the
    decedents, it's OK for them to snuff theirsefs?  
    
    "Well, Madam, we have ALREADY established what you are.  Now we are
    merely haggling as to the price."
    
    In udder woids, this sounds to me like they bought themselves a couple
    of indulgences.
    
    YMMV, of course...
    
    :-)
    
    |-{:-)
    

    > In udder woids, this sounds to me like they bought themselves a couple
    > of indulgences.
    
    from the curmudgeon's dictionary:
    
        philanthropist, n.  A wealthy individual who gives money either to
        the arts and sciences, to buy favor in this world; or to charity,
        for the purpose of making his purchases in the next.

    if you are a moral person, your body parts are worth exactly ZERO
    dollars to your estate.  it is illegal to sell an organ for transplant. 
    the term "organlegging," referring to the sale of organs, was coined in
    the book called "the long ARM of gil hamilton" by larry niven.
    
    also, when you off yourself, be sure to have someone there to pick up
    the pieces REALLY FAST, because organs aren't any use at all if they're
    not harvested within minutes of the donor's death.

    
    
    "Harvested".... I like that term....
    
     Yo Rufus!!!! Go harvest me a few EAR of corn!!!
    

    Dr Dan... I don't know anyone in my faith who'd consider this a *good*
    thing... it's tragic and misplaced value system...
    
    

    Glad that's true for your faith if you feel that's a good thing, Nancy. 
    .22 and .23 implied imho that there are some of faith that think they
    done right.
    
    
    

If you think that I was implying that _I_ think this was a good thing, you
better think again.

/john

Well, you didn't respond affirmatively to having a problem with it, now,
did you? What are we to conclude?

    	The first step from "right to die" to "duty to die".
    
    	"C'mon, Ma.  If you choose to go through with the operation and
    	therapy, you're going to wipe out my inheritance..."

    
    That kind of child should be disinherited.  I'd a million times rather
    have my dad alive today and no money.

Why is it that strict moralists always prefer to base their judgements on
"what might result from this down the road a few years" rather than on the
simple facts of the matter and the human beings that need to deal with
the reality of the issue today, here and now?

It reminds me of a children's story about the young woman who worried
herself to death on the eve of her wedding because she went to the
cellar to fetch something and saw a scythe hanging from the beams, which
might someday  fall down and behead her as yet unconceived and unborn
child.

    .37
    
    it's because their position in light of real human needs today is
    totally untenable, so they must divert attention away from the real
    issue to one of their own fabrication.

and today, how many heirs try to have the plug pulled or whatever?

human greed will always be around. to convince a legislature to _someday_
sign a law allowing euthanasia I believe would be close to impossible
despite the xian rumblings and rantings that all legislators are tools of the 
horned-one it isn't so.

There is a big difference between recognising individual rights to life/death
and legislating either one as a _forced_ option.
If your church says _no_ to suicide go for it(er that's don't go for it)

others feel differently. Stop peddling your religion in my face.

    personally
    
    If I were at a stage in my life where I was so sick that I was
    incurable and loosing my mind.I would want an injection that put me
    to death.I rather have that than be a burden to my family and no
    diginity at my true death.All to many times I've seen old people who
    have alzheimers/bed-ridden and dopped up to the eyes to eleviate pain.
    I couldn't deal with that.It would leave a sad memory of me to
    everyone!
    
    
    				

	I used to think, "while there is life, there is hope" fit everyone. But
in cases like -.1 mentioned, I'd have to say no, that is not always true.


Glen

.37>Why is it that strict moralists always prefer to base their judgements on
>"what might result from this down the road a few years" rather than on the
>simple facts of the matter and the human beings that need to deal with
>the reality of the issue today, here and now?
    
    	Why do constitutionalists concern themselves with legislation
    	that can lead to a POSSIBLE erosion of rights?
    
    	Why do people worry about a new tax because once implemented
    	it might lead to an icrease in that tax?
    
    	How many state amendments have you voted against because of
    	what they MIGHT lead to?
    
    	Do you wait until your house has been robbed before concerning
    	yourself with installing locks?

    	Also understand that your "reality of the issue today" may be
    	very different from mine.

The point of the matter was that it isn't "your" reality of the issue today
or "mine" that should be in play, Joe. It's the call of the individual who's
suffering.

Forced euthanasia or allowable recommendations for it (against the will
of the participant) aren't necessarily the next logical step to a societal
attitude of tolerance for one's ability to participate in deciding their
destiny, any more than a falling scythe decapitating a yet unconceived child
should be the next logical step to a marriage.

    	.43
    
>The point of the matter was that it isn't "your" reality of the issue today
>or "mine" that should be in play, Joe. It's the call of the individual who's
>suffering.
    
    	If only that's where it stops.  Why am I not allowed to concern
    	myself with "the next step" when those worried about other subjects, 
    	some examples of which can be found in .42, are allowed to project
    	potential problems?
    
>Forced euthanasia or allowable recommendations for it (against the will
>of the participant) aren't necessarily the next logical step to a societal
>attitude of tolerance for one's ability to participate in deciding their
>destiny, 
    
    	"Aren't necessarily".  So?  None of the other things listed in
    	.42 are necessarily going to happen either.  Do you view all of
    	those concerns with the same contempt?
    
>any more than a falling scythe decapitating a yet unconceived child
>should be the next logical step to a marriage.
    
    	You forgot  the IMHO there.  I disagree with you.  In my opinion...

    imho
    
    it is impossible to frame legislation that will cater for every
    possible case - such is the richness of the human condition.
    
    the case for allowing someone to die with dignity should he/she so
    desire is to my mind quite irrefutable.
    
    but the potential for abuse by scheming third-parties is also quite
    clear.
    
    i think a prior consent form / power of attorney granted to a trusted
    relative is one possible solution but again that is also open to abuse.
    
    every individual case will vary and i just hope if i end up in a bad
    way that i have humane sensible people dealing with me.
    
    ric

	As he pops out of his bunker...

	I have a serious problem with euthenasia.  I have a problem with people
deciding if you or I should live based on our condition.  That is a decision only
you should make.  Doctors, unless given specific instructions BY THE PATIENT
BEFOREHAND, should do everything possible to prolong the patients life.  As the 
Hippocratic Oath states: "Do no harm...". (Oh no!  Not that Oath thing again)

	Now, if the patient wants to commit suicide, that is a different story.
First off, a doctor is not involved.  The doctor should not directly assist in 
committing suicide.  However, the doctor may "conviently" tell the patient that
X amount of medicine is fatal.  I consider this indirect assistance and is better
that actually pulling the plug (so to speak).

	Fianlly, perhaps a living will could be in order for people who don't 
want to be a burden on the family.  This could state that the person does not want
to be placed on life support or try other methods that might prolong life.

	All this is my opinion, of course.

ME

>you should make.  Doctors, unless given specific instructions BY THE PATIENT
>BEFOREHAND, should do everything possible to prolong the patients life.  As the 
>Hippocratic Oath states: "Do no harm...". (Oh no!  Not that Oath thing again)

Artificially sustaining life for a patient without a prayer of recovery and
who is in extreme anguish/pain might be considered 'doing harm' by some.

Doug.

    re .47
    
    No kidding!!!!
    
    We had to fight tooth and nail to help dad die with some shreds of
    dignity left.  Everytime you turned around someone was trying to
    circumvent his stated wishes and those that we had agreed on with the
    hemo-oncologist when it was obvious that this time there was no
    recovery hope.  
    
    "Your father is in kidney failure due to the tumors in his kidneys.  we
    have everything set up to put the shunts in to start him on dialisis
    today."  (the hemo-onc had already explained that kidney failure was
    the least painful death from the varying cancers that were killing him
    slowly we could hope for.)  
    
    "We need to do an IVP of his kidneys to see if we can recath in another
    spot.  Yeah, I know he "codes" if he is given IVP, but don't worry we
    are all trained in CPR down here."  Watched radiologists face as we
    explained that the DNR on the chart was dead-serious, and that if he
    stopped his heart with IVP that he effectively would kill him.  "Oops."
    
    "We can't give him this much morphine, he will become addicted to it. 
    Tylenol 3's are all I will prescribe."  This from an ER doc who refused
    to hear the word terminal and had NO knowlege of the pain from bone
    tumors that dad was in, despite the fact that the arm which broke and
    forced me to call for help was riddled with cancer VISIBLE on the
    x-ray.
    
    "Well let's see if we can get him walking again."  From a Physical
    Therapist who also didn't believe in death.
    
    If this is the Do know harm philosophy from the hippocratic oath, give
    me a good veterinarian with a bottle of seconol and one with potassium
    chloride to stop my heart if I get this sick.
    
    meg

    .48
    
    my heart goes out to you, your Dad and your family
    
    a truly terrifying story and unfortunately not an isolated case
    
    ric

	Amen, Meg.  We went thru in March with my sister.
	The woman's chest was riddled with lymph node
	tumors, all applicable cancer treatments had
	been tried without success, the oncologist had
	agreed to a treatment of keeping her as comfortable
	as possible until the end.

	Finally her heart and lungs begin to fail. In comes
	a parade of pulmonary surgeons, therapists, et al, who have
	a laundry list of the treatments they now wish to employ.
	They more or less got an "it's the cancer, stupid" in
	return.

	In my book, "do no harm" also means knowing when
	enough's enough.

         <<< Note 28.48 by CSC32::M_EVANS "My other car is a kirby" >>>

>    "We can't give him this much morphine, he will become addicted to it. 
>    Tylenol 3's are all I will prescribe."  This from an ER doc who refused

Heard that particular line from the doctors for one of my terminal 
patients. His cancer was so bad you could see it from the OUTSIDE; his pain 
was unimaginable. I could not believe it! For some doctors, I swear, it is 
a game to see how long they can keep them alive.


Geez, Meg, I'm sorry.

    Even though it is difficult to see a loved one in pain, I watched my
    mother die after a series of strokes at age 51, I appreciate the
    doctor's refusal to give in to death. Losing a patient is difficult for
    the medical people. My mother's doctor was a good friend of the family
    and he lost it, when she finally succumbed. He worked day and night to
    keep her alive, even after the family had given up. I appreciated his
    dedication and friendship. 
    
    ...Tom 

    Refusing to give in to death when it is going to occur strikes me as
    playing goddess.  She has death around for a purpose, and if your
    religion includes an afterlife what is to fear when you shed your
    mortal body?
    
    meg

    But meg, what if you have no religion and this life is all there is?
    People give up, when they see no hope. Some doctors always see hope.

    re .54
    
    It would be as ridiculous as trying to stop the frost and leaves from
    falling each year.
    
    meg

    Well, I never compared my mother to leaves, but I suppose you may.

    re .56
    
    To deny that death exists is to deny the very nature of the world. 
    Without deaths the world would become hopelessly overcrowded.  without
    things dying none of us could survive.  We kill to live, be it plants,
    or animals or both.  Mom also takes her cut of humans and animals as
    well, to nourish the planet and future generations.  
    
    Some of us believe we will meet our dead loved ones in another place,
    and some believe that they stick around to give spiritual guidance. 
    some belive that the dead are reborn on the earth, some believe they go
    into oblivion.  However you look at it.  No one (with the exception fo
    three mortals according to parts of one mythology) stays off this
    planet alive.
    
    meg

             <<< Note 28.54 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

>    But meg, what if you have no religion and this life is all there is?
>    People give up, when they see no hope. Some doctors always see hope.

This is a stretch, Tom. Your experience with your mother is a very 
different affair, too. Strokes are the LEAST painful way to go. The 
suffering being done then is by the loved ones. If she had suffered like 
Meg's father, God (or not) forbid, I think you might think differently. And 
if your Doctor friend was as compassionate as you believe, so, probably,
would he.

A friend of mine died of lung cancer which had matastized to his brain. He 
was taken to a famous cancer research hospital. The doctors there were 
FANTASTIC - especially the head of the lung cancer section who was his 
doctor. When the HMO chose frugality of principle and told him, 
basically, "you're going to die so lets not waste time with treatment," 
this doctor said "everyone has a chance" and went after it with everything he 
had. But when it became obvious that my friend would not be that special
exception to the rule, they made him comfortable - very comfortable. Gave
him a morphine drip that hastened his end by several days. *That*, IMHO, is
how medicine ought to work. 

Thomas William II

    Meg and TWII
    
    I'm not trying to make an argument here. I understand the pain  and at
    present death. All I am saying is that an individual's life is the most
    important thing that there is. To just let that life go, without some
    sort of fight would fly against reason IMHO.

It's not a question of whether to fight, but when to surrender.

    Re .59
    
    Dad fought for 16 years.  at 62, when he was first diagnosed with stage
    4 melanoma, he did experimental immunity-therapy which saved his life
    at the cost of severe asthma that almost carried him away several times
    over the next 16 years.  We had used every slash, burn, and poison
    technique known to medical science that could possibly treat
    
    1.  maligment melanoma
    
    2.  Basal cell carcinoma
    
    3.  lymphoma
    
    4.  prostate cancer
    
    5.  If his health would have permitted it, radioactive implants in the
    bones that were dying.  
    
    The autopsy showed 13 different types of invasive metatastic cells in
    his heart lining, lungs, kineys, liver, stomach, intestines, protate,
    urithra, bones, and lymphnodes.  As .60 said, sometimes you have to
    know when life, if it continues, will have no quality, and existance in
    a trapped body is no existance at all.  
    
    Question, do you really thing karen Ann Quinlan was "alive" or was it
    only her body that sat there for years?
    
    meg

    Hi meg, I'mmmmmmm Baaaaaack!
    
    There is no doubt a time to give up. That decision is probably a very
    personal one. Some people get sick but are still able to make the
    choice for their own lives. Others, aren't that lucky and the choice
    needs to be made for them. The decision made in your case is a result
    of a little of both and I'm sure that the resultant decisions were made
    with much thought and often much sadness. Each life is worth so much
    that it is difficult to see it end. However, imho, death is the enemy.
    Doctors seem to agree. I will hang onto life with all the strength that
    I have. That will be my decision for my life and it has nothing to do
    with what anyone else thinks. I also will choose life
    over death for anyone that I'm given that responsibility over. The
    people that I know and love who give me the responsibility will know
    that this is my stance, so would probably agree. All other cases are
    none of my business and I would never be presumptuous and assume that I
    know what is best. You asked about the Quinlin case. I'm not sure where
    she was. The people who wanted to pull the plug thought the case was
    hopeless and those who chose to keep her alive never gave up hope for
    some kind of future cure. All of these were personal choices which 
    may not be right or wrong. Question for you. Do you think that your
    father regreted the last 16 years of his life? 
    
    ...Tom

    Tom,
    
    Not the last 16 years, but certainly the last 6 months of his life were
    living hell.  Slowly losing bodily funtions, even the simple ones, like
    being able to roll over without either puking the mouthfuls of ice
    chips you were able to swallow or breaking a rib, or going from an active 
    skier, civitan, and IRS fighter to completely bedridden with NO hope of 
    recovery.  Not being able to enjoy food as you can't smell it, not
    being able to enjoy a beer because one sip  makes you throw up for
    hours.  Not being able to hold a grandchild on your lap, breathe
    comfortably, or get anywhere out of the house without a wheel chair, to
    my dad was not living, it was existing.  Having to live with diapers
    because you can no longer predict when you have to pee, and having to
    have someone "depack" your lower intestines because the amount of
    demerol and morphine you are on prevents them from funtioning properly
    even with the small amount of food you can eat weekly is not dignified,
    and my father always tried to retain his dignity and sense of humor, no
    matter what.  
    
    Why should death be the enemy?  It is only another door to another
    existance, what it will be no one "knows" for sure, although some of us
    have our faiths that tell us a little of what lays beyond.  
    
    meg

RE: Note 28.63, Meg
    
    It is sad to watch a loved one slowly die in front of your eyes and
    worse for the person living through this painful tragedy. Was your
    father in a position to make any of the decisions for himself? I really
    think that the time to give up on life is a very personal decision.
    
    >Why should death be the enemy?  It is only another door to another
    >existance, what it will be no one "knows" for sure, although some of us
    >have our faiths that tell us a little of what lays beyond.  
    
    As you probably already know, I disagree with any kind of life after
    death theory. My decision of approaching death as the enemy is based on
    my belief and philosophy. I think that the standard law of physics
    apply in relation to conservation of matter. However, my life, my
    thoughts, my past actions, my I-ness, if you will, are lost forever.
    This does not negate the philosophy that you follow or all philosophies
    that other have faith in. This is what makes all decisions for our
    individual lives so personal. No one should be allowed to interfere in
    those decision made by a person that affect their own lives. We can
    never possibly know what the other is going through.
    
    Just for your information the philosophy that I live by, and do not
    force on anyone else, is that the myth that death is not final and that
    life after death exists is false. For 2000 years various people and
    groups have used various life-after-death myths, ranging from heaven,
    reincarnation, cryonics, etc, to dissipate everyone's natural desire to
    live fully. These myths repress the finality of death, leaving these people
    in control of those who accept the myths. Living a full productive life
    requires rejecting these life diminishing, destructive controls and
    myths. Evading the finality of death let's one rationalize laziness in
    avoiding the concerted effort and dicipline required to live fully
    during the one and only opportunity anyone has for for life and
    happiness. Moreover, that evasion of the finality of death lowers a
    person's value of life, self-esteem, and independence. That diminished
    independence leaves a person available for control by those who preach
    and teach these myths.
    
    ...Tom

    Tom,
    
    Four weeks before he died, dad looked at my mom, and said "This isn't
    living."  We had talked before this on when to withhold "heroics" and
    he was at that point.  He had been munching demerol tablets as quickly
    as he could get them down when mom found him on the floor.  We all
    wonder if she should have offered him the compazine supposatories to
    keep him from barfing, given him a glass of water and left for a couple
    of hours, it might have saved him another week of agony.  Instead, being
    loving family, I did call the ambulance and get him to the hospital to
    see if they could patch the arm back together.  I think he knew at the
    time, he would never see his home on this planet again.
    
    If the worst that will happen in death is that you cease to exist, as
    you had before you developed a consious brain, it would still have to
    be better than the pain involved in end-stage cancer.  
    
    meg

             <<< Note 28.64 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

>    Just for your information the philosophy that I live by, and do not
>    force on anyone else, is that the myth that death is not final and that
>    life after death exists is false. For 2000 years various people and
>    groups have used various life-after-death myths, ranging from heaven,
>    reincarnation, cryonics, etc, to dissipate everyone's natural desire to
>    live fully. These myths repress the finality of death, leaving these people
>    in control of those who accept the myths...

I know you weren't addressing me, but...

I still don't know how you make this death-myth/subjugation connection, 
Tom. Name some instances of destructive, limiting religious control which 
uses its after-death beliefs as a primary lever. Except for extreme 
examples such as Koresh, Jim Jones, kamakazies and other fanatics, who 
really uses after-death prospects to devalue life? There's certainly 
nothing intrinsic in those beliefs that would take importance away from 
this life. One could argue that the purely material view of existence might 
do that, however. If what you see is all there is, then what's the point? 
Why not do anything and everything you can to further your own happiness, 
whether or not it compromises the happiness of others? If you can get away 
with it, who cares?

You need look no further than recent communist-style totalitarian regimes 
to see that you don't need religion to exercise control over people. Stop 
blaming it for all the problems of the world. 

    Meg,
    
    Your notes ring all too true for me; I watched it happen to both
    Dad and Mom.
    
    I'll never forget my Dad on his last Thanksgiving with us; bundling
    up against the cold Pennsylvania fall, sitting on the front porch
    because the smell of dinner cooking nauseated him.  He couldn't watch
    TV much either, because so many commercials were about food and just
    the sight of some of them sent him wretching.
    
    Folks if you haven't gone through this, don't be so quick to think
    that you would grasp at life at all costs.  Dad's pain medication was
    limited because he had suffered a heart attack a few years earlier and
    the doctors were "concerned this would shorten his life"!!  The man
    had colon cancer that had spread to his liver; it was inoperable and
    they weren't even bothering with chemo!!
    
    Mom thought she was in control when she was diagnosed with leukemia;
    not so said the professionals at the hospital.  When Mom asked to go
    back to the hospital for that last time she made my sister and I
    promise we wouldn't allow any more chemo; she voiced this as strongly
    as she could to the doctor in admitting and my sister advised that the
    3 of us had discussed this at length and we hoped he would honor Mom's
    wishes.  By the time we went to join Mom in her room, they had her
    hooked up to the chemo and she was weeping helplessly.
    
    Mom fought hard after the initial diagnosis; she endured 5 months of
    grueling chemotherapy and did enjoy some partial remission.  At the
    end all she asked was something for pain, not more chemotherapy.
    Unfortunately, nothing was committed in writing so the hospital (it
    did specialize in oncology) ignored our wishes.
    
    I've stated my wishes and have put it in writing.  I don't know whether
    this would stand up here in Georgia, but you can bet your britches I
    will have some sort of contingency plan.  I'm not trying to be morbid
    here but the cancer rate in my family is enormous; to ignore the
    possibility would be delusional on my part.
    
    Someone told Mom that the will to live was very strong, it was and she
    tried.  When she was at peace with her God and was ready to surrender,
    she should have been allowed to do so.
    

RE: Note 28.67
    
>Name some instances of destructive, limiting religious control which 
>uses its after-death beliefs as a primary lever. 
    
    First, after-death belief is the primary lever of religion, whatever
    that belief might be. Second, history is full of destructive behavior
    used to control individuals, ie: crusades and witch trials. Today this
    farse is used by religious and government leaders and to usurp a 
    livelihood without effort. Examine the religious preachers who are both 
    associated with a specific denomination or go out on their own. The prime 
    concern is their own livelihood. How do they live? By donations given to 
    them by people who accept the myth.
     
    
>If what you see is all there is, then what's the point? 
    
    You're here my friend, that's the point. Live!
     
>Why not do anything and everything you can to further your own happiness, 
whether or not it compromises the happiness of others? If you can get away 
with it, who cares?
    
    Happiness never comes from compromising the happiness of others. Force
    is destructive in both directions, the forcer and forcee always suffer
    a net loss of happiness.

>You need look no further than recent communist-style totalitarian regimes 
>to see that you don't need religion to exercise control over people. Stop 
>blaming it for all the problems of the world. 
    
    If you thought that I was blaming religion only, I was not clear or you
    didn't understand. The problem comes from a philosophy of giving over
    self responsibility to others and proclaiming or believing that others
    are authorities over us. The test, in my mind is, is a person or group
    of persons a net producer of competitive values for themselves and
    society or are they a non-producer, living by usurping the values
    produced by others.
    
    ...Tom

>    Examine the religious preachers who are both 
>    associated with a specific denomination or go out on their own. The prime 
>    concern is their own livelihood. How do they live? By donations given to 
>    them by people who accept the myth.
    
    	You mean like Mother Theresa?

>    farse is used by religious and government leaders and to usurp a 
>    livelihood without effort. Examine the religious preachers who are both 
>    associated with a specific denomination or go out on their own. The prime 
>    concern is their own livelihood. How do they live? By donations given to 
>    them by people who accept the myth.


  Spend the days in the shoes of my pastor, or any pastor of a thriving local
  church and see how much effort is involved.  My pastor, and the associate
  Pastor have turned down raises for the last 4 years, even after the congrega-
  tion voted unaminously to give them rather healthy increases.  They put in 
  more hours in a week than many of us put in in a month.

  While certainly there are those who are concerned with "their own livelihood"
  those are in the minority and are quickly rooted out.





     
    
Jim

    Leaving religious arguements aside, when do you say when?  
    
    For my cats and dog, it wasn't easy but when they clearly could no
    longer enjoy life and were in constant pain with no hope of recovery I
    had them put down.  should I get to the point my father did, I hope I
    will have the means and will to take things into my own hands.  If not,
    why shouldn't I be able to request help from my long-term family
    practitioner?  
    
    the fall-out of having someone in a family die the way dad did is
    enormous.  Mom won't see a Doctor unless she is at deaths door.  she
    refuses any and all diagnostic tests for early cancer detection, as she
    would prefer to go quickly and whole, not hacked to pieces, burned,
    posoned, etc, with the end result the same.  since they tried radiation
    treatment on a friend of hers with inoperable cancer in the hopes of
    buying him a few months, and it destroyed his quality of his last few
    weeks, she wants NOTHING done except pain medication should  something
    like this happen to her.  Yes it is in writing.  
    
    I strongly recommend making sure that a family member and all doctors
    have a notarized copy of your medical directive for terminal care if
    you have made a decision.  while it isn't euthanasia, it can at least
    avoid some of the crap done in the name of medical science and
    pro-longing death, instead of extending a quality life.
    
    meg

    	
    	In some Scandanavian (? I missed the details) country, they
    	have expanded the right-to-euthanasia laws from allowing it
    	only on those who request it, to also include infant children
    	whose parents give permission for it.

    I monitor many news sources which cover Europe substantially and have
    heard nothing of this.  I'll post any confirmation I find.  Until then,
    I would advise that the report, without even the name of a news source, 
    be considered a vague and unsubstantiated rumor.
    
    DougO

    	Well, that's the best that I can recall for now, and it was
    	in the paper days (weeks?) ago, so I doubt I have it around 
    	anymore.
    	
    	You seem to be well connected into the news sources (you've amply
    	demonstrated that since the inception of the new box) so I'm
    	sure you'll find it sooner or later.
    
    	until then I'll accept any doubt about this because I know it
    	is totally unsupported as I've presented it.
    
    	Maybe someone else can provide a better pointer or more info...

    re: .70
    
    >You mean like Mother Theresa?
    
    I apologize for this particular misunderstanding. Mother Theresa is one
    of those who is used by those whom I speak of. I always ment to say
    church leaders as opposed to everyone who works for a church. The same
    goes for government agencies. There are many fine hardworking people
    that do a good job at their respective vocations. However, the leaders
    of these value destroying agencies (like the IRS) take advantage of those 
    who produce.
    
    ...Tom

             <<< Note 28.69 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

    
>    First, after-death belief is the primary lever of religion, whatever
>    that belief might be. Second, history is full of destructive behavior
>    used to control individuals, ie: crusades and witch trials. Today this
>    farse is used by religious and government leaders and to usurp a 
>    livelihood without effort. Examine the religious preachers who are both 
>    associated with a specific denomination or go out on their own. The prime 
>    concern is their own livelihood. How do they live? By donations given to 
>    them by people who accept the myth.

There is nothing in the after-death theologies that directs believers to 
relinquish control of ones life to "authorities." It may be used as a 
"stick" to discourage sin, but the sins most people associate with hell (or 
whatever) are the same behaviors you and secular society want to discourage 
as well. What others are you suggesting. Sure, religion has been used to 
justify wrongs in the past, but so what? So has political idealism, 
nationalism, and commerce. If you look back on history with an unjaundiced 
eye, the surprise is how *infrequently* religion plays a leading role in 
man's destructive actions, when you take into account how central religion 
has been in our lives over most of that time. Religion's power over us 
makes it very open to manipulation for destructive purposes, but its 
intrinsic *good* has more often prevented such manipulation. 
    
>>If what you see is all there is, then what's the point? 
    
>    You're here my friend, that's the point. Live!

That may sustain you, Tom, but for the majority of people, that is an empty 
purpose. We are not all Sir Edmund Hillarys, scaling the mountain of life 
and enduring its hardships along the way "because it's there." There is a 
vacuum in our being that all of us feel from time to time, and your 
prescription simply doesn't fill it.
     
>Why not do anything and everything you can to further your own happiness, 
whether or not it compromises the happiness of others? If you can get away 
with it, who cares?
    
    Happiness never comes from compromising the happiness of others. Force
    is destructive in both directions, the forcer and forcee always suffer
    a net loss of happiness.

That, Tom, is naked - and dangerous - idealism. Not in its assessment of the 
price of compromise, but in the assertion that such a price actually 
mitigates the behavior. It doesn't, and history shows it.

>    are authorities over us. The test, in my mind is, is a person or group
>    of persons a net producer of competitive values for themselves and
>    society or are they a non-producer, living by usurping the values
>    produced by others.

You seem to think that moral purpose and spiritual teleology has no value. 
So anyone who fills that demand is not value producing. Gazillions of 
others throughout time would beg to differ.

Tom

RE: Note 28.77
    
>Sure, religion has been used to 
>justify wrongs in the past, but so what? So has political idealism, 
>nationalism, and commerce. 
    
    I'll repeat what I said in the note you are answering. I'm not sure why
    you ignored it. This is not a religious discussion, in my mind. You seem 
    to want to make it one.
    
    >>If you thought that I was blaming religion only, I was not clear or you
    >>didn't understand. The problem comes from a philosophy of giving over
    >>self responsibility to others and proclaiming or believing that others
    >>are authorities over us.
    
    But as you say: 
    
    >"Religion's power over us makes it very open to 
    >manipulation for destructive purposes, 
    
    
    >but its intrinsic *good* has more often prevented such manipulation. 
    
    I believe this intrinsic good to be non-existant. We can agree to
    disagree. 
    
>That may sustain you, Tom, but for the majority of people, that is an empty 
>purpose.
    
    It does sustain me and I agree.
    
>That, Tom, is naked - and dangerous - idealism. 
    
    Dangerous for whom? The danger is in the false assumption that man will
    do bad not good. There is bad, but it is in the minority. Just find the
    percentage of people committing objective crime (crimes of force). I
    think it is a small percentage. Most crime is political policy law
    crime and not real crime at all.  
    

>You seem to think that moral purpose and spiritual teleology has no value. 
>So anyone who fills that demand is not value producing. 
    
    YES
    
...Tom

    	re .74
    
    	Doug.  Why are you disagreeing with .73 anyway?  Simply because
    	*I* entered it?  Or because you find something wrong with infant
    	euthanasia?

    > Doug.  Why are you disagreeing with .73 anyway?  Simply because *I*
    > entered it?  Or because you find something wrong with infant
    > euthanasia?
    
    neither.  I cautioned that the report be treated as an unsubstantiated
    and wild rumor because that's what it *is*.  Urban legend.  hype.  not
    worthy of serious discussion until verified with the teensiest little
    bit of traceable support.  Also, "scandinavian" countries have very
    different social structures than we do; and speculation of that type is
    very close, in my mind, to willful cultural misunderstanding and
    hysteria, rather than informed discussion of the issues with respect 
    to the cultural context within which they arose.
    
    DougO

    	OK, once substantiated, would you have a problem with infant 
    	euthanasia?  Regardless of the country?  What "cultural context"
    	can you envision that would make this acceptable?
    
    	I think you are getting a little over-reactionary with your 
    	terms urban legend, hype, wild rumor, etc.
    
    	I plan to visit the library at lunch to see if I can find the
    	back issue of the paper I saw it in.

    substantiate it "and then we'll talk."
    
    DougO

    	I'm back from the library.  Surprisingly, I did find it!
    
    	(Yes, some of what I originally "remembered" was fuzzy, as I
    	suggested in .75...)
    
    	Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, 12/24, under a World 
    	"briefings" section:
    
    	Dutch heading toward infant-euthanasia policy:  In a sign that
    	the Dutch government is moving to expand its liberal euthanasia
    	policy to children, the Justice Ministry said Friday in The
    	Hague two doctors on trial for killing severely deformed newborns
    	are likely to be acquitted because the physicians followed
    	official guidelines for adult euthanasia.
    
    	Spokesman Liesbeth Rensman said Justice Minister Winnie Sorgdrager
    	decided to prosecute the physicians on murder charges only to 
    	establish a legal precedent on the issue of infant euthanasia.
    	A judge is expected to rule on the cases nest spring.
    
    	Mercy killing is still technically illegal in the Netherlands.
    	But doctors who follow guidelines stipulating incurably ill
    	patients in unrelieveable pain must repeatedly and lucidly ask
    	for death can expect immunity.

>    	two doctors on trial for killing severely deformed newborns
>    	are likely to be acquitted because the physicians followed
>    	official guidelines for adult euthanasia.
    
>    	... guidelines stipulating incurably ill
>    	patients in unrelieveable pain must repeatedly and lucidly ask
>    	for death ...
    
    
    	I find these contradictory.  How can infants "repeatedly and
    	lucidly" ask for death?

    Joe,
    
    what was the definition of "euthanasia" here anyway?  by "killing" the
    babies, did they give them a lethal injection, or withhold
    resussitation efforts on a child with no reflexes to continue basic
    bodily funtions like breathing?  Or did they withhold surgery which
    might save the life of  barely functional human, such as many Dr's in
    the US and world-wide have done with severely deformed infants?  
    
    I need more details.  Since some people define killing as not actively
    supporting "life," and knowing that articles are written for
    shock-value rather than factual information, I would like to see more
    on this.  Prehaps a european noteer would have more information?
    
    meg

    thanks for getting the article, Joe.  As Meg points out, it does raise
    more questions.  And fwiw, the Netherlands aren't scandinavian...only
    Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are.
    
    DougO

>    what was the definition of "euthanasia" here anyway?  

    	One of the network news magazines (20/20, perhaps) did a piece
    	on one of these killings.  The guy was wheelchair-bound, had
    	alzheimers, and was in lots of pain.  He scheduled his final
    	day on his 61st birthday.  On that day, the doctor administered
    	to him an overdose of a sedative to ensure that he fell into
    	a deep sleep, and then he was given a megadose of a muscle 
    	relaxant that would stop his heart from beating.

    	Clearly that's euthanasia and not merely the withholding of medical
    	care.  And THAT is what the article is about.

    	As for what specifically was done or not done for the infants,
    	the article didn't say.  You can choose to hide behind doubts
    	over the meaning of specific words, but to me the use of the 
    	word "euthanasia" is pretty clear.  They didn't say "killing".  
    	They repeatedly said euthanasia.  I'm sure we'll hear more 
    	about it after the springtime ruling.  If not before then.


.86>    thanks for getting the article, Joe.  As Meg points out, it does raise
>    more questions.  

    	You, who are so well-connected, and well-read, and well-informed!

    	You, too, don't know what "euthanasia" means?  What is being
    	hidden from you by those news feeds that you get?  Perhaps
    	the SHMN doesn't want you to know that this is the path that
    	the liberalization of society is taking?  Tsk tsk...

>    And fwiw, the Netherlands aren't Scandinavian...only
>    Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are.

    	FWIW, perhaps you noticed that I indicated in .73 that I didn't
    	recall the country in which this was taking place.  If it matters,
    	I thought I remembered that this was happening in Norway when
    	I entered the article.  Does it really matter though?  Does the
    	"cultural context" of either the Netherlands or any Scandinavian
    	country warrant infant euthanasia?

    	Just a few replies ago you were yapping like a poodle about
    	urban legends.  Now as you slink away with your tail between
    	your legs, you still attempt one last growl over some insignificant
    	error in the original posting.  Bad form.

    	The point that was started way back in .73 is that our acceptance
    	of the ending life is spreading into ever widening circles.  First
    	we open the gates by accepting abortion and the debatable life
    	involved there.  Then we start to embrace suicide.  Then
    	euthanasia for adults.  Now the same for infants.  The circle
    	widens.  Perhaps you'll remember this when some day you get 
    	swallowed up in it yourself.

    what *are* you going on about?  My objection to .73 has always been
    that it was completely unattributed.  Now that you have provided a
    citation, we can discuss the article.  Why are you treating my comments
    as an attack?
    
    DougO

    	Up until now you've been worthy of nothing less.  Attack begets
    	attack.
    
    	OK, so answer some of the questions I've asked.  I provided the
    	article but you've done no discussing.  Start with .81, and then
    	.84.

    re .84, I, too, find it contradictory that the doctors are expected to
    be acquitted when the guidelines specify that one must repeatedly and
    lucidly ask for death, when the patients in this case were infants.
    I think that answers to Meg's questions would help; absent information,
    yet faced with your demands for answers, one is forced to speculate. 
    If you insist...does the person who expects the acquittals have more
    information about this case that your paper didn't print (because it
    has an anti-euthanasia policy, of course)?  Information like, in this
    case, euthanasia meant simply stopping heroic efforts to keep the
    terminally ill, in pain infants alive?  Or perhaps did the parents of
    the terminally ill and in pain infants ask for their merciful relief
    from suffering, shortening weeks of agony with a single overdose of
    morphine?  One could easily imagine your paper leaving out such
    relevant facts.  One admits that absent further information (and I've
    been searching gophers world-wide) it is very hard to come to any
    definate conclusion.
    
    DougO

re DougO

>fwiw, the Netherlands aren't scandinavian...only
>Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are.
    
Finland is not Scandinavian.

The correct term when grouping those four countries is "Nordic".

/john

    I wonder if they use Nordic tracks...  8^)

    Covert is occasionally right.
    
    DougO

    
    
    
    Oh really!!!!

    
    CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia's Northern Territory passed a law
    allowing voluntary doctor-assisted euthanasia yesterday, becoming
    the first parliament in the world to sanction the right to die.
    

Open-minded people, those Aussies.

    Good for the Aussies!!!
    

   I haven't really followed this thread, but in Holland, doctor-assisted
   euthanasia is fairly common, and at least if the doctor follows some
   guidelines, no one will bother him.

   A film of such a mercy killing was made and broadcast on the French
   TF1 channel late in January.

   - Jim

    	Does life insurance (in general) pay up if the person covered
    	by the insurance commits (any form of) suicide?
    
    	Does it treat a physician-assisted suicide differently?

 Snarfanasia

    they say there are _strict_ guidlines.
    among them are :
    must be in terminal stage of illness
    must have a certificate from a doctor and a clinical psychologist
    
    but the life insurance question is a good one
    
    the AMA /australian medical association/ claim they will not allow NSW
    or other states to follow suit.
    
    it's funny the northern territory was pushing last year to become a
    state. I wonder if this would have affected the outcome ???

    
    Euthanasia in Oz is understandable.
    
      bb

    
    yes indeed a^)
        
    
    and the list should include:
    politicians, arthur tunstull, ......
    

    Dr. Kevorkian has assissted another suicide in Michigan at a clinic he
    opened.  A woman from Oklahoma City died from an unspecified procedure 
    in the presence of a friend and family members.  Kevorkian was to be 
    arrested, again.   

    
    Saskatchewan Supreme Court has upheld the murder conviction of farmer
    Robert Latimer, who killed his severely cerebral-palsy-disabled
    daughter.  His sentence was 25 years with no chance of parole for
    10 years.  His lawyer has filed appeal with the Supreme Court of
    Canada, and Latimer is currently out on bail.
    

    
    Fewer terminally ill people would seek assisted death if their
    depression and physical pain were managed better, the author of a 
    study on palliative care says.  The study by Dr. Harvey Chochinov of 
    the University of Manitoba, published today in the `American Journal 
    of Psychiatry', raises concerns about the lack of palliative care.
    

    re .106,
    
    But we can't have the dying "addicted to pain killers."  
    
    What a philosophy!
    
    Watched it, fought it, finally found a compassionate Dr. for my dad.
    
    meg

Autopsy: Latest to die with Kevorkian's help had no 'visible' cancer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net
(c) 1995 Associated Press

SOUTHFIELD, Mich. (Nov 9, 1995 - 11:18 EST) -- With every death he helps
along, Dr. Jack Kevorkian holds fast to his belief that the hopelessly ill
have a right to end their suffering. Did he make a mistake this time?

That justification was called into question when an autopsy on the 26th
known person to die in his presence, a cancer patient, found that the woman
had no visible trace of the disease.

"There was no cancer," said Dr. Kanu Virani, deputy chief medical examiner
for Oakland County, though he hadn't yet examined the woman's spinal cord or
brain and tests that might find microscopic traces of cancer were pending.

The body of Patricia Cashman, a 58-year-old San Marcos, Calif., travel
agent, was found wrapped in a blanket in the back seat of an old car outside
the morgue on Wednesday.

Virani said that while the woman had undergone a mastectomy on her right
breast, he found no visible cancer in her lymph nodes, liver or other
internal organs, where he had expected to see the disease.

Kevorkian lawyer Geoffrey Fieger called Virani's assertions "outrageous
lies" and accused the doctor of an anti-Kevorkian agenda.

Fieger said Cashman had suffered for three years from breast cancer that had
spread throughout her body, leaving her unable to walk, on morphine and
afraid of ending up a vegetable.

"The body he has at the Oakland County medical examiner is bald because she
was undergoing chemotherapy for metastatic bone cancer," he said.
"Metastatic" means the cancer is spreading through the body.

He told CBS radio, "I promise you, and you can take this to the bank, she
was dying of bone cancer, the most painful kind of cancer."

Dr. L.J. Dragovic, chief medical examiner, told The Oakland Press that
Cashman was not terminally ill and may have lived for years.

"There might have been microscopic involvement by the metastasized cancer
that would have caused pain. ... She was not in the terminal stage of
cancer," Dragovic said.

Virani said he found "no tumor you can see anywhere with your eyes. If there
is a metastatic cancer, somebody who has thick glasses can see it very
easily. You would have to do an autopsy with your eyes closed not to see
it."

Virani planned to examine the brain and spinal cord on Tuesday.

Cancer "could be in the area of the brain where it can send the pain
impulses ... or in the lower end of the spinal cord that could give you a
lot of pain," he said. "(But) I have taken samples of the bone from the
vertebrae where the cancer of the breast spreads normally. As far as I can
see, there is no cancer there."

A microscopic examination of the organ tissues would be completed in a week
or two, Virani said.

Cashman's next-door neighbor, Barbara Allan, said she saw the woman last
week at their mobile-home park and disputed the lawyer's bleak picture.

"She was standing at the door," said Allan, who knew Cashman was being
treated for cancer. "She looked good. She was a heavy-set woman, but she
looked fine and seemed to be in a good mood."

Dan Maier, spokesman for the Chicago-based American Medical Association,
said Virani would have spotted the cancer if it were present in Cashman's
body.

"We're absolutely appalled at Kevorkian's continual flaunting of the law,"
said Maier, whose group opposes assisted suicide. "I trust the pathologist
far more than I trust Jack Kevorkian's lawyer."

The autopsy revealed Cashman died of carbon monoxide poisoning; the death
was ruled a homicide. Prosecutors and investigators said they would wait for
a final report before deciding whether to charge Kevorkian.

Kevorkian, a retired pathologist, has acknowledged attending 26 suicides
since 1990. Most involved carbon monoxide.

Kevorkian, 67, already faces assisted-suicide charges in four deaths in
Oakland County -- two in 1993 and two in 1991. He could get five years in
prison in each case. Prosecutors failed last month to have him placed under
house arrest while he awaits trial next year in the earlier deaths.

Fieger would not disclose the circumstances or location of Cashman's death
except to say that Cashman's sister was with her. Cashman was divorced and
had no survivors other than her sister.

The way the body was left for authorities followed Kevorkian's recent
pattern.

In the previous suicide in which Kevorkian took part, a woman's body was
found in the same car outside a suburban Detroit hospital on Aug. 21. And on
May 12, a man's body was left in Kevorkian's old Volkswagen van in the
morgue driveway.

Kevorkian would rather help his patients die in a clinic, but authorities
have thwarted his attempts to open an "obitorium," Fieger said.

In a July 6 letter, released by Fieger, Cashman told Kevorkian that she
"would go to almost any length to avoid ever being on pain pills again
because of the terrible side effects that I suffered."

"Thank God that I now know you will help me," Cashman wrote. "What a load
off my mind."

    John,
    
    what was not stated in this, was the coroner had not checked the bones,
    and that there are hospital records from Califgornia which stated that
    CAT scans had revealed bone deterioration consistant with metastatic
    bone cancer.  Having watched my foather go through this, even though
    his PSA was clear, I can attest that bone cancer is a horrible painful
    thing.  
    
    meg

So it seems like the worst case here is that the woman's oncologists
were lying to her, she didn't really have cancer, but she believed she
had it, had pain and a lessened quality of life, desired to end it
before it got worse, and enlisted Kevorkian's aid. How the hell is Kevorkian
supposed to be "to blame"? What makes this case any different than any
of the rest from his standpoint?

    	Jack D., I would hope that Kevorkian would want to verify that
    	the patient really has a terminal illness, and not just pain
    	from a sinus headache or an ingrown toenail.
    
    	Any proposed right-to-die legislations stipulates that the
    	patient's condition be terminal (and perhaps even that the
    	prognosis be for death within a year).  With Kevorkian taking
    	matters into his own hands, he ought to be a little bit 
    	responsible for ensuring the terminal condition of the patient.

    Joe,
    
    Kevorkian is the best reason I can think of for reasonable "Right to
    Die" legislation.  Right now, because of the insanity of laws and a
    market economy, kervorkian is filling a perceived need for some people. 
    A shame that they have to travel thousands of miles to find someone
    willing to help them end suffering.  
    
    The news today, again disputes the coroner's verdict of no cancer. 
    Apparently records from 6 months ago, that the woman had with her
    showed that she had been diagnosed with bone cancer.
    
    meg

It's the stupid coathanger argument all over again.

/john

    John and it does prove the point, no matter how distasteful, but this
    is the euthanasia topic.  
    
    meg

           <<< Note 28.112 by CSC32::M_EVANS "runs with scissors" >>>
    
>    Kevorkian is the best reason I can think of for reasonable "Right to
>    Die" legislation.  
    
    	Quite true, because as it stands now Kevorkian's tactics are
    	unreasonable, and apparently we need legislation to ensure that
    	reasonability rules the "industry".
    
    	Just as with partial-birth abortions, sometimes the extremes
    	draw legislative attention to their excesses.

    As with topic 20: Meg, you leave Mr Covert alone; the man is
    pro-choice, its just that the choice has to be his.....
    
    Pierre

        ..... he said piously.

    Actually it was patronising...
    
    Pierre xx

    FYI - Kevorkian's trial has been on Court TV recently.  

    
    	How does it look for him so far?
    
    	Go Kevorkian!!
    

    Go where?
    
    I despise the man.  The idea that the private individual owns his or
    her life, not the state, is valid IMHO, but Kevorkian is a slimeball. 
    It is an unfortunate product of the national do-gooder mentality that
    such as he are probably necessary for the time being to keep putting
    the rights of individuals in people's face.

    
    So Dick...
    
    If you were afflicted with a terminal disease... in constant agony from
    the pain... sane (as you seem to be), and wanted to be put out of your
    misery.... 
    
    But no one would let you or listen to your wishes...
    
    What would you do??
    

> but Kevorkian is a slimeball. 

How so?

    i like the message; i detest the messenger.  he's such
    a grandstander.

Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Although I'd always had 
the impression that Kevorkian would just as soon not have the publicity 
and exposure that's heaped upon him each and every time. The guy must
have a media parade following him to the john.

    Kevorkian has an incontinence problem?

    
    	Yesh, at least until he strays to another, such as Europe or
    	Asia.
    

    
    Omigawd.
    
    Could Dr.Kevorkian be related to Mr.Catheter-Problem?
    
    8^o
    
    

    >     Could Dr.Kevorkian be related to Mr.Catheter-Problem?
    yes he is... scares the p*ss right outa ya!
    
    gee, maybe he's part of the solution, and not part of the problem.
    

    Binder is now 0-for-2 in my book, calling Di some derivative of
    gun-controller and calling Kevorkian a slimeball.  I think Kevorkian is
    a highly principled man challenging the orthodoxies of institutional
    medical practise, ie, prolonging life at any cost.  Not a perfect man,
    but few of us are.
    
    Better luck next week, Dick.
    
    DougO

>                                                       I think Kevorkian is
>    a highly principled man challenging the orthodoxies of institutional
>    medical practise, ie, prolonging life at any cost.

DougO, do you really think that the only two choices are actively killing
patients and prolonging life at any cost?

    Is that what you are getting from his statement, Gerald?

>DougO, do you really think that the only two choices are actively killing
>patients and prolonging life at any cost?

Non seguitur alert! No one is "killing patients". Individuals with incurable 
disease or relentless unbearable pain are making decisions in their lives to
end their own suffering. No one, I repeat NO ONE, can ever know what these 
individual feel or all of the reasons behind their decisions. The fact that 
there are those, like Dr. K, who are willing to assist in carrying out the
personal decision of committing suicide is an advancment in the art human 
rational thinking and human compassion.

  SAN FRANSISCO - A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that
doctor-assisted suicide is legal.

    There is a third alternative then.  As it should be too.  Dr. Jack
    is taking the legal, high fast one for the team on this which I find 
    commendable.  If nothing else, he is principled.    
    
    Brian

>Non seguitur alert! No one is "killing patients". Individuals with incurable 
>disease or relentless unbearable pain are making decisions in their lives to
>end their own suffering.

Nobody's killing them?  I thought suicide is killing.

    What do you think the solution is, Gerald?

I have no solution.  I don't object to withholding extraordinary measures
(respirators, etc.).  I have a moral objection to suicide and assisted suicide.

I agree with Gerald.

>Nobody's killing them?  I thought suicide is killing.

Though this may be true in the "legal" sense, suicide is a decision for ones 
own individual life, where all other killing is unwanted force (the killing 
of another could be considered moral and non-criminal, if the person being
killed has made the decision to be killed). Suicide is every individuals right
and final option. By accepting the concept of the suicide option, one never 
needs to fear the permanent loss of happiness.

>Suicide is every individual's right and final option.

Yet another newly invented "right" by the culture of death prevalent in
this country.

No, you don't have the right to suicide, even if the courts decide to
create it.  You have a responsibility to society to continue to be a
member of it until your natural death.

You do have a right to prevent society from taking extraordinary means
to prolong your life, against your will.

But society has invested in you, and you cannot just "opt out".

/john

    Why not John?  Why can't I opt out when my ability to function properly
    has passed?  What debt to society do I have that is so great that
    it requires me to suffer from an incurable, painful and possibly
    delilitating disease?  What have my survivors done to deserve the
    burden that I may create and they may not be able to afford?  What
    responsibility am I fulfiliing by my sustained life?  
    
    Brian

>Yet another newly invented "right" by the culture of death prevalent in
>this country.

"culture of death" that's cute John but of course nonsense.

>No, you don't have the right to suicide, even if the courts decide to
>create it.  You have a responsibility to society to continue to be a
>member of it until your natural death.

Responsibility to society? Even if you are in constant unbearable pain? Easy 
for you to say John. Also easy for you to eliminate the suicide option because
you don't like it and make up some bogus debt to society. Must be some of that
Christian compassion I hear so much about.

>But society has invested in you, and you cannot just "opt out".

I'm waiting with baited breath to hear why this is the case. :)

>I have no solution.  I don't object to withholding extraordinary measures
>(respirators, etc.).  I have a moral objection to suicide and assisted suicide.
    
    Ok. I understand.
    
    Personally, I believe that what one does with one's own life is one's
    own prerogative. I don't believe that needless suffering or being
    reduced to a stupor so as to avoid such suffering all in order to
    conform to someone else's moral beliefs is a reasonable imposition on
    another human, regardless of what I might choose for myself. I find it
    to be the height of arrogance to choose what someone else may or may
    not do with their own life.
    
    I quite understand the moral objection to suicide. I just question the
    jurisdiction.

>I'm waiting with baited breath to hear why this is the case. :)

Eating worms again?

    .130
    
    > Binder is now 0-for-2 in my book
    
    I'm so very sorry.  If you think I care what marks you make in your
    little book, you are sadly mistaken.
    
    I have retracted the epithet I appledi to Di, but I will not retract my
    opinion of Kevorkian.  I believe he is doing the righ thing, but I
    detest him personally.  In this case, I believe that it's the messenger
    who should be shot, not the message.
    
    In case you have not seen it by the time you read this, I will direct
    your attention to a Federal Court decision handed down in San Francisco
    yesterday, upholding the right of terminally ill Washingtonians to the
    assistance of a doctor to assist in the termination of their own lives. 
    The decision reads in part that the state's need to protect life is
    overridden by the individual's right to the dignity of controlling his
    or her own destiny instead of being forced into childlike, painful, and
    often mindless subjugation to the will of others.  This decision also
    effectively overturns a federal judge's decision to bar implementation
    of Oregon's right-to-die law.
    
    The ineluctable implication of this decision is that Kevorkian's
    repeated grandstanding tactics are no longer necessary to keep this
    issue before the public.  He should stop and let the issue progress of
    its own weight.  (Let us see whether he will do so.)  And before you
    object, I am well aware that some people who sould be allowed to die
    with dignity would thereby be denied that right.  The changing of an
    entire nation's moral will is a slow process.

    What grandstanding, Dick? People come to him because they cannot get
    anyone else to help them. I'm sure he'd rather just help them without
    being hassled by the authorities than be hauled into court.

    I guess so people have no ablity to see past their selfish need to
    control everyone and everything. I have a mother dieing painfully
    dieing. She is no longer 'alert to her surroundings" ravaged with
    cancer and alzheimer's disease this woman is suffering. The only good
    part (if you can call it) that, is that she doesn' t remember from day to
    day the pain she is in. Just what she feels, but if she felt that she
    wanted to be releived of this life, i would support my dad's decision.
    As my dad is now the primary care giver. I can not in my wildest dreams
    even image the fear and pain she feels. I only know that if I am ever
    in this situation I hope my husband to be follows my wishes and helps
    me go quietly. 
    
    it's just the selfish need for us not to let go of our loved ones. I
    would support the decision as the rest of my family probably would. 
    
    It must be nice to live in a rose colored world where there is no pain, 
    no suffering and only the lord to forgive for our sins....this is the REAL
    world and it ain't so kind...if someone wants to end terrific suffering
    and pain, if they want to unburden their families, what right is it of
    us to control that power of their own life. They will be at peace, that
    to me is the best nirvana they can reach. God wouldn't have allowed for
    the creation of this type of service if he hadn't intended for it to be
    used in a responsible way. Dr K is helping people who are suffering. If
    I thought I need to make that decision, I'd call him myself. 
    
    just my nsho
    and my 2cents
    

  .141  John, I'd like to hear more about this "responsibility to 
	society" that those in unbearable pain have, too.  Could
	you please elucidate?

    I'm very sorry to hear of your mum's pain and suffering.  I'm
    grateful that our family was able to make that decision last
    week, without any outside interference and with the help and support
    of her doctors.
    
    Colin
     

>Eating worms again?

My mother used to sing me a song about that.  :)

>You have a responsibility to society to continue to be a
>member of it until your natural death.

>But society has invested in you, and you cannot just "opt out".

And you accuse me of "blathering"?

You're a real piece of work.

Besides which, you're dead wrong.

    .141
    
    > You have a responsibility to society to continue to be a
    > member of it until your natural death.
    
    Codswallop.
    
    You may have an obligation to your God to allow him to determine the
    time and place and method of your dying, but that's between you and
    your God.
    
    You may have an obligation to your family, friends, and colleagues, but
    that obligation may well be to release them from the suffering and
    hardship that your own pain is causing them.  That's between you and
    your family, friends, and colleagues.
    
    You have zero obligation to society. So long as you provide properly
    for the disposal of your body and affairs, you owe the world nothing. 
    On the other hand, society has the obligation to allow you control over
    your own physical existence.

 >I have a moral objection to suicide and assisted suicide.
  
 Then don't kill yourself.

 Doug.  

re: .147

	Kevorkian is grand standing.  He wants to make it law that someone
can seek death as a medical option.  He is always at the police station with
the body, or calls them from the site, shortly after the event.

	Haven't you ever heard the term "suicide is easy".  People don't need
much help if they really want to do it.   Also, the reality is that Doctors
have been helping patients along for a long time now.  Kevorkian just wants it
to be an option.
Like antibotics, antifungals, decongestants, marital aids and suicide aids.

	This really cheapens life for all of us.  I have to agree with you
that I have no solution.  I don't object to withholding extraordinary
measures.  I do have this great fear of a doctor, probably in a managed care
system, making the determination that I am in pain and I cost too much to
cure, so only let em know about the suicide option.

    
    	What's the deal with life insurance for one of Kevorkian's pat-
    	ients?  Is the death considered a suicide, and therefore not
    	covered under a life insurance policy?
    

Suicide is covered if a certain period (2 years?) has passed since the
policy was written.

    re: .156
    
    Most insurance policies will pay out for a suicide that happens more
    than two years after the policy is taken out.
    
    Bob

    RE: .147

>	Haven't you ever heard the term "suicide is easy".  People don't need
>much help if they really want to do it.   

    I don't suppose that we could get one of the EMT's to share their
    experiences with people who tried and failed at suicide?  Suicide
    really isn't all that easy to do, and its really not very easy to do
    right.

    If you choose slitting your wrists, the usual mistake is to slice the
    wrist across the veins (a short horizontal cut around the wrist).  The
    veins will naturally close off and too often you'll just wind up with a
    bloody mess.  I'm not sure if it's against company policy to post the
    correct way so I won't.

    If you want to take pills, one problem is that you have to take a
    sufficient quantity to actually do the job.  Often times the person
    will take an insufficient number and/or pass out before a fatal dose is
    taken.

    Gun shots, while messy, are reasonably effective, but there's no
    guarantee.  A great aunt of mine tried putting a gun to her head. 
    Unfortunately she only performed a partial frontal lobotomy.  They said
    that you could hear her scream up to a mile away when they cleaned the
    wound out with alcohol.

    Car "accidents", even when successful, are usually slow and painful way
    to go.  You generally won't die immediately, even doing 90mph into a
    concrete barrier or post.  Don't forget that car "accidents" also
    destroy the vehicle so if you do live you'll be without transportation.

    Jumping from a high building can be rather effective.  You'll probably
    want to do it when there is little to no pedestrian traffic below ...
    unless you want to accidently take someone with you when you go.  You
    will have the entire flight down to think about it.  Not recommended
    for people who are afraid of heights.

    -- Dave

>				Don't forget that car "accidents" also
>    destroy the vehicle so if you do live you'll be without transportation.

A poser, for sure, Dave.

    for those who don't approve of a person committing sucide, even without
    assistance in the case of a terminal, painful illness, Do you also
    torture your pets this way when they come to the end of theior
    life-cycle?  
    
    

    RE: .160

>>				Don't forget that car "accidents" also
>>    destroy the vehicle so if you do live you'll be without transportation.
>
>A poser, for sure, Dave.

    Well, I was trying for a little humor.  I guess I should have added a
    ;^).  There should also be one after "afraid of heights".

    -- Dave

Pets aren't humans.  I have no qualms about animals being killed for good
reason, whether that's because they're a nuisance, they're food, or they're
in pain.

>Pets aren't humans.

  uh-oh.  wait'll i tell molly this.  she's insecure enough as it is.

    Pet aren't humans.  Humans have the ability to reason and choose for
    themselves.  In this regard, I believe that should include teh ability
    to chose the time of one's passing especially in circumstance where
    prolonging life is fruitless or causes undue suffering.  

 speciest!

>	Haven't you ever heard the term "suicide is easy".  People don't need
>much help if they really want to do it.   

Suicide is not easy. For those that would benefit from but could not execute
a suicide alone, assistance from a qualified knowlegeable doctor is a perfectly
legitimate option.

Doug.

	such a deadful topic

	Just say no to a 69 snarf!

    >         such a deadful topic
    
    don't take it too seriously, you won't get out of it alive anyway!

    
    	RE: Dave
    
    	I picked up on the "afraid of heights" remark.  And I was
    	hoping you were kidding.
    
    	8^)
    

    >> Binder is now 0-for-2 in my book
    >
    > I'm so very sorry.  If you think I care what marks you make in your
    > little book, you are sadly mistaken.
    
    Its a figure of speech.  You don't have to care.

    > I have retracted the epithet I appledi to Di,

    yes, I noticed.  Fine.  So depending how we figure your at-bats, you're
    now 0-for-1 or 1-for-2.  I prefer the latter.

    > [...] I will not retract my opinion of Kevorkian.  I believe he is 
    > doing the righ thing, but I detest him personally.  In this case, I 
    > believe that it's the messenger who should be shot, not the message.

    I have no trouble parsing your hyperbole as a figure of speech.  You
    aren't really calling out for his execution, and it would be ridiculous
    for me to chide you over the hyperbole.  So I won't.

    Conclusion left as an exercise for the reader.

    Thanks for the pointer to the recent case, btw.  It would be nice if
    Kevorkian relocated to a locale where they won't prosecute him for his
    stand, and his work.  Now that there finally is such a place.  If he
    doesn't, well, so he may still be grandstanding.  Insofar as he is 
    committing civil disobedience, at least he's paying his civil penalties.
    I still respect him.

    > The changing of an entire nation's moral will is a slow process.

    That isn't what's going on.  The change is merely one of legalisms,
    which appear to be a decade or more behind the 'nation's moral will',
    or at least some subset thereof.  Don't bother to pettifog the
    definition of will, if you want to insist that you meant exactly what
    is embodied by the legalisms, surely you can tell I mean something else.

    DougO

    
    	I don't think he's going to just up and move to where the
    	practice is legal.  I think he'll continue to do what he
    	does best, in a location where he believes he's needed.
    

    /john, are you going to enlighten us on our societal duties for staying
    alive until we expire naturally?

One of the duties you have to society is evident from the previous discussion
of life insurance.

Life insurance rates are set for all of society based on actuarial tables
which properly spread the risk of unexpected or early death over all of
society.

Allowing someone to collect $100,000 (for example) on a life insurance
policy after only $10,000 (for example) has been paid in because of an
increase in assisted suicides has a detrimental effect on all of society.

But I'm much more concerned about other aspects of this "culture of death".

Just as some abortion advocates are claiming that abortion may be the
"socially responsible" choice in some cases, soon we will see euthanasia
advocates claiming that "it's time to go" and advocating "socially
responsible" early death.

Those who are suffering have an obligation to society to show everyone
that even at the end of life there is dignity and value to human life.

/john

    re: .175
    
    I needed a laugh, thanks.
    
    Bob

>Those who are suffering have an obligation to society to show everyone
>that even at the end of life there is dignity and value to human life.

Well, if'n it's all the same to you, if I get to the point that I'm suffering
I'll get a whole hell of a lot more pleasure out of telling society to eff-off.

    The whole concept of Euthanasia is to keep one's dignity by ending
    needless pain and suffering.  I would never want to be a vegetable
    hooked up to 2 tons of medical equipment and draining my family of
    their life savings.  No, no thank you.

    I wouldn't want to be a vegetable hooked up to 2 tons of harvesting
    equipment. That must hurt!

    > I wouldn't want to be a vegetable hooked up to 2 tons of harvesting
    >    equipment. That must hurt!
    
    	been to the company cafeteria lately?
    
    

    You lost me there, Proctologist. What did you say?

    Vegetable, Cafeteria, get it?  8P

    Hmmm. I'm always the last one to get a joke.

she wasn't asking you if you got the joke.....

    > she wasn't asking you if you got the joke.....
    
    what was she asking for?

>I would never want to be a vegetable hooked up to 2 tons of medical
>equipment and draining my family of their life savings.

I don't advocate this.

No extraordinary measures to prolong life; no extraordinary measures to end it.

/john

    -1 I'll buy that.

the words, "get it" mean anything???? :-)

>No extraordinary measures to prolong life; no extraordinary measures to end it.

    Is a plastic bag over the head extraordinary?

	Plastic bags are dangerous. They are not a toy! You could kill
you....oh yeah...very good tool for this topic. But don't use the plastic
ties kind, as you will need to use more than one for it to work. And then there
would be some bags without ties.


Glen

Re: .176
 
   >I needed a laugh, thanks.

I told you, John is the funniest guy in SOAPBOX, after Joe Oppelt left.  :)

    
    	John, what would you define as extraordinary?
    
    	Where's the fine line in the equipment list?
    
    	1) Paddles for heart "jumping"
    	2) Heart monitor
    	3) MRI
    	
    	etc.
    
    	Or is there a time limit that any/all of these can be used
    	for until you can survive on your own?
    

>Those who are suffering have an obligation to society to show everyone
>that even at the end of life there is dignity and value to human life.


	this is such a crock.  those who are suffering show everyone
	that sometimes at the end of life there is suffering.  a great
	deal of it.  gee, thanks, all you suffering people.  we really
	appreciate it, 'cuz we wouldn't have figured it out otherwise.

>Those who are suffering have an obligation to society to show everyone
>that even at the end of life there is dignity and value to human life.
    
     It occurs to me that lying there suffering or being in a stupor to
    control the pain does neither of those, in contrast to euthanasia. What
    exactly is life worth to someone who's in a terminal state and who has
    nothing but pain to look forward to for the rest of their life? Not a
    whole helluva lot, I'd wager. And what dignity is there to lie in a bed
    in agony? None. Wear a hair shirt if you want, but don't try to put one
    on anyone else.

    /john,  sort of what I figured.  There is no substance to the argument
    that those suffering have a debt to society in maintaining their
    suffering until their time comes, naturally.  
    
    You must have been kidding, as cruel as it may be, since no one could
    be so callous to seriously suggest a suffering individual should do so 
    for the sake of all of those around them and society in general.  
    
    Brian

    Why would somebody need assistance with suicide, anyway? Dr. Jack is a
    big fraud. Anybody that wants to die can certainly do so quite easily,
    all the while retaining their dignity, without some quack in a VW bus
    running around the whole time.

    Sometimes a quiet, guaranteed death is difficult to come by.  Oh, sure
    shotguns to the head are effective, but messy and not peaceful.  Pills
    can work, but only if you get enough down and keep them down, something
    which can be very difficult on a cancer-ravaged stomach.  Cooking up
    enough morphine, demoral, phenobarb, whatever and mainlining it isn't
    easy to do solo, espoecially if you don't know how to hit a vein.  
    
    meg

    
    
    	I agree with meg. This man allows them a painless/certain death. 
    
    
    jim

    re: .7167
    
    Yes, a painless/certain death, which is nobodies business but their
    own.

    If it has to be this way, at least keep the medical profession out of
    it.
    
    The medical profession was established as an institution of restoring
    life.  This is echoed in the hypocratic oath.  If it's going to be, and
    we as a society have no shame in endorsing such a thing. then create an
    institution for death and keep it away from the auspices of the AMA and
    the like.

    jack,
    
    Why seperate the two?  I don't take my dog or cat to a stranger when
    they no longer find joy in life, I take them to the vet they have known
    since they were babies.  I see no reason if I am in pain and terminal
    that my own Dr, couldn't help me out (if she was willing, this isn't
    something I would force on her.)  In the the days of Hippocrates, assisted
    death was accepted at the end of one's life span.  Somewhere in the
    dark ages with christianity, assisted suicide and suicide in general
    became some sort of evil thing.  This seems odd to me as the entire
    teachings of Christianity seem to point to one's reward as being in the
    afterlife, not during ones life.  Why this fear of and resistance to
    peaceful death?
    
    meg

    Because Meg, I can assure you that policies evolve.  I made this point
    a few weeks ago when stating that any change takes time and is done
    incrementally.  I guarentee you the next step will be the allowing of a
    family to determine the fatality of one's own life.  Right now the
    fight is for one to make up their own mind.  This will not be the case
    20 years from now.  So keep doctors out of it.

    Part of the reason suicide is illegal in this country is the insurance
    industry. If death occurs during the course of one committing a crime
    (i.e.- you get shot holding up a bank) the life insurance is null and
    void. If suicide remains a crime anybody who kills themself is a profit
    to the industry.
    
    					lunchbox

    
    Not true in all cases, but of course, you knew that... right?
    

    Don't let them fool you
    or even try to school you

| <<< Note 14.7167 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free." >>>



| I agree with meg. 


	I think meg should frame this one. :-)

    re: .7172
    
    If only you knew as much as you think you do.
    
    Bob

| <<< Note 14.7176 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>

| If only you knew as much as you think you do.

	Bob, he'd be your age, then. Let's not rush things THAT far! :-)

    Bob-
    
    	What don't I know that I think I do? I think I'm realistic about
    what I have and haven't learned, maybe you can fill us in.

    re: .7177
    
    Oh yeah...Ooops:-)
    
    Bob

    re: .7178
    
    It's your .7172.  I have had life insurance policies from at least
    three different major insurance companies (I'm not counting the free
    ones provided by my employer, from AOPA, etc.) and they all state(d)
    that there was a 2 year exclusion on suicide.  If I committed suicide
    in the first two years, they would simply refund all my premiums to my
    estate.
    
    Bob

    Two years is a pretty small window for a lifetime. While I wasn't aware
    of that clause, your premium over 2 years is a lot less than the amount
    you are covered for in the event of a "natural" or "accidental" death.
    BTW, the industry lobbies to keep suicide illegal, figure it out.
    
    
    					lunchbox

    
    	Meg, 
    
    	If you really wanted an answer to your question (ie, if it
    	was not rhetorical), my belief is that my life is in God's
    	hands, and He has a better plan for it than I do.  To take my
    	own life would mean I stopped trusting Him.
    
    	Karen
    

    I believe we all have to make our own decisions.  Taking my life would
    be a cop out for me.

    Jack - easy for you to say now.  Try again when your body is ravished
    by cancer, you are in agonizing pain all the time, and every day you
    live adds a further burden to your loved ones, both financially and
    emotionally.

    Stopping medication on myself is one thing.  Putting a carbon monoxide
    mask over my face is another.
    

>    Stopping medication on myself is one thing.  Putting a carbon monoxide
>    mask over my face is another.

	und vhy, pray tell, are zeez so different?      

    Pulling a respirator on someone who isn't breathing well on their own
    is no different that the CO mask.  So Jack, what is your point?

    I can kind of see a difference there, Meg. A person on a respirator is
    being held alive, if you believe in God, human hands are pumping air
    into a person and interfering with the "intended" death. Putting a CO
    mask on actually shortens an "intended" life.
    
    					lunchbox

I'm surprised at all of you. We've already been told that we owe it to
society to extend the poor quality of life and suffering in order to prove
that there is dignity in human life. Read it right in this here very
notesfile, I did.

TTWA:

   If Kevorkian's license has been pulled by the Michigan medical assoc.,
   how come they don't charge him with practicing without a license, if 
   they really want to put him away?

    Meg:  What Lunchbox said.  I would venture to say some of Kevorkians
    client could very well have lived productive lives for a few years more
    instead of snuffing themselves out.

    They don't charge him with practicing without a license because he
    isn't performing what is perceived to be a medical procedure. If he
    were to remove somebody's tonsils, he could be charged. 

    
    	Kind of silly to have your tonsils removed right before you
    	commit suicide, so I don't think he has much to worry about.
    

    Jack-
    	I don't mean that, though. I don't think that somebody
    hallucinating from intense pain can lead a very productive life. I was
    just pointing out that there is a difference between the CO mask and
    the use of life support.

| <<< Note 14.7183 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Taking my life would be a cop out for me.

	But cops have donuts when they are out.

| <<< Note 14.7190 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I would venture to say some of Kevorkians client could very well have lived 
| productive lives for a few years more instead of snuffing themselves out.

	Jack, the people he ends up killing are people who are told they are
going to die shortly, and their deaths will be painful. So the only productive
lives they will have is for the doctors and pharmacists.

    So?  They can still enjoy some things in their lives.  If anything,
    wait until the pain is there and don't bump yourself off because of
    some prognosis depressing you.
    
    America is without doubt the most gullible country in the world.

  i believe that there are people who are in unbearable pain from
  incurable illnesses.  why do i believe this?  because i am 
  an American, of course.

	Jack, how many of the people he killed were not in pain, and were not
near the end?

    .7169
    
    Ackshully, the Hippocratic Oath says the physician shall, first of all,
    do no harm.  Is it harmful to release a suffering person and his or her
    family from the intolerable certainty of a pain-ravaged or vegetative
    terminal illness and instead allow that person to go with dignity?  I
    think not.
    
    .7183
    
    > I believe we all have to make our own decisions.
    
    So of course you don't want other people to have the right to make -
    and carry out - their own decisions.

    Slaughter Snarf

Folks, take it topic 28 or I'll assist in your suicide.

    Glen:
    
    There was one woman diagnosed with Multiple Schlerosis who put herself
    to death with help from Dr. K.  She was at the beginning stages of MS
    and as we know, there are people out there...such as Annette Funicello,
    Richard Pryor, and others who although look haggard and feel pain, have
    chosen to stick it out.  I don't belittle the pain of the disease, but
    I don't believe depression of the future event of pain should be a
    motive for snuffing ones self out.  She may have lived another three or
    four years before the pain was strong enough.  
    
    The illogic...of waste.

	Nice of you to choose how long she could stick it out. But you seemed
to compare someone who is an everyday person to people who have a ton of money.
Ones who could afford the extra care, or the extra powerful medicine. How nice
of you to do that.


Glen

    
    Jack,
    
     You have to understand that each person's pain is different. There are
    people who have a high tolerance for pain, and others do not. You can't
    apply logic to personal decisions like that.
    
    Just my .02...
    

  Z   So of course you don't want other people to have the right to make -
  Z   and carry out - their own decisions.
    
    No....I didn't say that.  Unlike abortion, this is a decision one makes
    about their own person...of their own free volition.  I do believe
    however that my tax dollars in no way should be used for such a private
    choice.  I also believe my personal physician should not take part in
    this practice.  The AMA should have regulations regarding this.  It is
    a private entity, not a government; therefore, I'm not espousing
    government interference.
    
    -Jack

>    She may have lived another three or
>    four years before the pain was strong enough.  

Strong enough for who, Jacko? For you? Doesn't she get to decide how much
is too much for herself? You think that you, or somebody else in society
has a right to tell her, "Oh, that's nothing - you can take it. Stop
whining and enjoy your pain."?

And another thing -

Where's my 2-liter bottle of Classic Coke?

OK!  Martin, Silva, Krawiecki!  Line up by the VW microbus!

	Jack, what government agency is paying for assisted suicides?

| <<< Note 14.7204 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "tumble to remove burrs" >>>


| You have to understand that each person's pain is different. There are
| people who have a high tolerance for pain, and others do not. You can't
| apply logic to personal decisions like that.

	Andy....you almost sound......li....oh that L word!

    
    re: .7207
    
    >OK!  Martin, Silva, Krawiecki!  Line up by the VW microbus!
    
    
    Not unless I can have a drink at Lucky Jack's Bar & Brawl joint
    first!!!!
    

    Glen:
    
    None right now.  Medicaid and Medicare would most likely pick up the
    tab for this sort of procedure.  It would be in their interests
    financially to snuff out as many senior citizens as
    possible...considering the baby boomers will reach that age in the not
    so distant future.
    
    Don't worry Glen.  I have spoken and once again, I will be proven right
    and you will of course...
    
    
    Be
    
    
    
    		Wrong!!!!!

	But Jack, it would save money.....that should please you.

    Jack,
    
    You and I have no total comprehension of the pain that a terminally ill
    person has, I can guess having watched my dad eat demerol like candy
    and not even be phased by it and still be in pain.  Eating enough
    demerol was impossible as it is difficult to keep down on a stomach
    that has tumors growing in it.  Mainlining it into him would ease the
    pain, somewhat, but also denied him the ability to communicate with his
    family and totally unable to make medical decisions while his thoughts
    were not clouded by intractible bone pain.  
    
    Was there dignity or some basic message in his suffering?  Unless it
    was to make me realize that if I had treated my dog or cat that way, I
    would have been turned in for cruelty to animals, and that I would find
    another way out if it happened to me, no there was none.  His dignity
    was removed by incessant vomiting if he nodded or shook his head or
    was turned in bed.  His personal dignity was stripped from him when his
    ravaged legs would no longer hold him up and his arms became useless. 
    His joy in life ripped from him in the last 6 weeks of his illness as
    food no longer tasted good and generally most would come up 15 minutes
    after eating.  
    
    Before my cat hit this stage (feline leukemia) I cried, but didn't
    hesitate to carry her in to Dr. Sue, where she had friends to be with
    her in her last moments and a few moments of no pain with the first
    shot to relax her.  I also know that she is in the hands of Bast, as my
    father is in the hands of mom, and that some day I will be
    body-shopping as well.
    
    meg
    
    

    Glen:
    
    Don't confuse my desire to save money with my desire toward
    Constitutional spending.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    	I had to do some research on this topic for a debate
    	a few semesters ago.
    
    	Jack, in order for someone to request Kevorkian's assistance,
    	there is a rigid set of rules or "qualifications" (for lack
    	of a better word) that one has to adhere to, before he will
    	even consider doing it.  You can't just call him up and say,	
    	"Dr. Kevorkian, I have a disease that I don't want to have
    	to live with.  Please come help me die".  And as was said 
    	before.  What might be *your* threshold for pain is most likely
    	very different for many other people.  After watching cancer
    	completey wreak havoc on my grandmother's body,  be completely 
    	incoherent, couldn't breathe on her own, having my parents have 
    	to sleep on her bedroom floor so when she woke up screaming in pain
    	she wasn't alone, and in the end, living with a morphine drip
    	going directly into her system...... I don't fault *anyone*
    	for not wanting to go through that.  Months before she died,
    	she said "this is no way to live.  I want to die.  I want to
    	be with Ray." (my grandfather)  She knew what she was in for
    	and had she had the resources to do it, I wouldn't respect
    	or love her any less.
    	
    	JJ
    

    Judy:
    
    I wouldn't love her any less either...believe me.  I am not insenstive
    to the plight of people such as Megs dad.  All I'm saying is that
    we should consider the possible ramifications of making this a regular
    medical procedure within the medical profession.  
    
    Michele and I both have living wills.  There are alot of people I know
    in the church who are against living wills.  I still don't understand
    for the life of me why.  If I am in a cancer ward and in a similar
    situation...and I knew it would cause irreperable (sp?) financial
    burden to my family, then I have instructed Michele to discontinue life
    support for me.  I believe it is a selfless act.  I just feel like
    sitting in a VW bus with a Carbon Monoxide tube attached to my face
    isn't something the AMA should be encouraging if the patient is not in
    pain but only depressed.  An AIDS patient for example, can touch a
    persons live positively for years before reaching a point of strong
    pain and suffering.  David Brudnoy for example, a very intelligent
    radio talk show host in Boston has had HIV for years and although came
    close to death a few times, and no doubt suffers at times, considers
    his last days viable and worth living.  He has selflessly contributed
    to our society...regardless of whether you disagree with him or not.
    
    -Jack 

    jack.
    
    David Brudnoy hasn't come to the end stage of AIDS yet.  My father
    fought cancer for 16 years before the final illness, beating the odds
    of death within a year for 15 of those years.  He did the slash/burn/
    poison trip and was miserable during short periods, was killed by a
    radiologist who didn't believe his seafood allergy would transfer to
    radio-opage iodine, and was brought back.  He had another 6 productive
    years.  However the last three months of his life were bad and the last
    two, sheer hell.  The man I knew and loved wasn't really there for most
    of it, thank goodness, but keeping that shell going was nothing short
    of human torture.  
    
    My cat had Fe-leuk for three years.  We did the immune system boosting
    thing and she was happy and relatively comfortable until the last week
    of her life.  When became unable to function as a cat, I took her to
    the vet, rather than have her lie there in pain, crying for release,
    unable to eat, chase the other cats or bask in the sun.  
    
    I and others who have seen it do know the difference between serious
    illness and a terminal condition.  Just as I didn't euthanize my blind
    dog or the sick cat when they were enjoying life, I wouldn't suggest
    suicide, assisted or not, to someone who is still capable of enjoying
    life.  I would like to see some provisions and protocols for assisted
    suicide, even if it is just a lethal prescription and proper
    instructions, so that people like kervorkian aren't necessary to the
    dying, and so that a person can enjoy life to the fullest and say when
    their's should end.  I think it would also make life much easier on
    families and on paramedics when the sick and desperate don't have to
    resort to messy means to end an unbearable life.  But it has to be the
    dying person's choice, not mine, not their Doctor's and certainly not a
    batch of lawyers in various states or in Washington DC.  
    
    meg
    

 Z   But it has to be the
 Z   dying person's choice, not mine, not their Doctor's and certainly
 Z   not a batch of lawyers in various states or in Washington DC.
    
    I agree with this.  Another concern I have is the fact that dacist
    countries like Germany started condoning the practice of Euthanasia.
    Amazing how history can repeat itself.

Romania is a Dacist country.

	Jack Martin, if you had a cat, and it was hit by a car, and you took it
to the vet, and the vet said that the cat is suffering, and will do so while it
is alive. What would you do and why would you do <insert action>?

    re. -1
    
    Good example.
    -ss

Don't give him these hard ones. I'm still waiting for a response as to
who gets to decide how much pain someone should be faced with before they
throw in the towel.

How much pain?

Not more than they can bear.  Give them more pain medication.

If the pain medication has to be given at such a high level that it kills
them, and that's what they want, so be it.

Palliative treatment which hastens death is not suicide.

/john

         What the heck, we all gotta go sometime.
    

re:             <<< Note 28.254 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>How much pain?
>Not more than they can bear.  Give them more pain medication.
>If the pain medication has to be given at such a high level that it kills
>them, and that's what they want, so be it.
>Palliative treatment which hastens death is not suicide.

'Scuse me, squire?

So, it's okay to over sedate/tranquilize/dope/desensitize/whatever in order
to relieve pain even to the point of inducing death via a pre-emptive strike
on the autonomic or central nervous systems but a Kevorkian special is 
different? How so, pray tell? Why isn't that "murder"? _Or_ Suicide, for that 
matter.

As per usual, you've found a cerebro-logical placebo to make a comfy bed
for you to lie upon, while failing to recognize that you've not at all 
addressed the issue. Mind you, I don't care if you address it, but I'll
continue to take you to task for pretending to do so when you have not.

>	Jack Martin, if you had a cat, and it was hit by a car, and you took it
>to the vet, and the vet said that the cat is suffering, and will do so while it
>is alive. What would you do and why would you do <insert action>?

I'm not Jack Martin, but it seems to me that people are different from cats.
F'rinstance, if a cat required a $1000 operation to regain health, most
people would consider it acceptable to have it put down.

    .257
    Good thing I don't consider myself most people. I wouldn't put down my
    cat, she's probably more human than some people in this file. If she
    could be saved by an operation, I'd save her. But if she was suffering
    and there was no hope of her regaining her "catly" abilities or that
    she'd still be in pain, I'd think about putting her down.
    
    

What if it was a $50,000 operation?

| <<< Note 28.257 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| I'm not Jack Martin, but it seems to me that people are different from cats.
| F'rinstance, if a cat required a $1000 operation to regain health, most
| people would consider it acceptable to have it put down.

	Life is life. Look at the story that was shown yesterday on the news in
NY. A mother cat had burns on her paws and face, but she saved all of her
kittens when the house they were in went up in flames. That tells me that the
animals have the same survival instincts that we do. Does it make them any
lesser than us? It should not. But maybe it's one of those things like they
showed on the Simpson's last night. The vet trying to save the hampster by
using the paddles. When it could not be saved, he picked it up, threw it
accross the room, and it went into the wastebasket through a basketball hoop.



Glen

>                    <<< Note 28.258 by MKOTS4::MINICHINO >>>

>   I wouldn't put down my cat

	must make typing difficult.

	gerald, so you don't think people and cats deserve the same
	treatment when it comes to taking extraordinary medical measures?
	what is wrong with you, man? ;>

 Z   if you had a cat, and it was hit by a car, and you took it
 Z   to the vet, and the vet said that the cat is suffering, and will do so
 Z   while it is alive.
    
    The Jack Martin of 10 years ago...
    
    I'd back up over it about three times to make sure I finished the job.
    
    The Jack Martin of Today...
    
    I'd have it put to sleep.  It's the humane thing to do.  
    Like I said, I believe in peoples right to stop life support for
    themselves.  Don't forget, I have a living will stating this for
    myself.  What I do have a problem with is our society sanctioning the 
    snuffing out of people by a doctor who DON'T have a terminal disease.
    
    -Jack

    >But maybe it's one of those things like they showed on the Simpson's 
    >last night. The vet trying to save the hampster by using the paddles. 
    >When it could not be saved, he picked it up, threw it accross the room, 
    >and it went into the wastebasket through a basketball hoop.
    
    
    Now that's funny!!   :)
    
    By the way, my life and the life of my family, followed by the lives of
    other human beings, are much more important to me than any non-human. I
    love my dogs but would put them under if they ever adversely affect my
    families welfare or financial situation.

    re: .257
    
    Of course I'd give my cats a $1000 operation.  Or any of my ferrets
    for that matter (but you knew that, didn't you :-) Rommel is 
    quickly working his way up to a $1000 in annual medical costs.
    
    Re: .259
    
    Not a valid example.  Depending on the surgery, my insurance
    company could deny ME a $50,000 operation, and I wouldn't have
    the resources to undergo it myself.  Is the insurance company
    inhumane in denying me life-saving treatment?
    
    

>	gerald, so you don't think people and cats deserve the same
>	treatment when it comes to taking extraordinary medical measures?
>	what is wrong with you, man? ;>

I'm allergic to cats.

>    Not a valid example.  Depending on the surgery, my insurance
>    company could deny ME a $50,000 operation, and I wouldn't have
>    the resources to undergo it myself.  Is the insurance company
>    inhumane in denying me life-saving treatment?
    
Yes.  BTW, your insurance company is probably mandated to pay for
that $50,000 surgery as long as it's not experimental.

  i don't believe this.  people are really trying to compare cats
  to humans.  this is nuts. ;>

I'm trying to visualize a veterinarian with sufficient balz to attempt
to charge $50K for anything having to do with a cat.

    Agreed.  Bees are closer.

Di, nothing surprises me in a world where there are animal rights fanatics who
compare the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust.

    A poultry comparison, as Jack would have it.

    >i don't believe this.  people are really trying to compare cats
    >to humans.  this is nuts. ;>
    
    I'm not surprised that some think cats and humans are equal. Shows 
    how out of wack things are.  :(

    SAVE THE RATS!  Aren't we all god's creatures?   :-)

    re: .266
    
    That may be true, however, at one time much of today's 
    routine surgery was considered experimental.  Should you be
    allowed to die simply because you are a victim of bad timing?
    

    You don't want to tell a rat ciao?
    

	so how's Joe?
	oh, didn't you hear? - he died.
	really??  what happened?
	bad timing.

    
      The source of this (I agree, Di, ridiculous) miscalculation is
     that people maintain the illusion that human life is of infinite
     value.  So they anthropomorph their cats to be worth $1000, in a
     country drowning in a surfeit of cats.  There's big bucks in pet
     medicine due to the irrationality of pet owners, but it pales next
     to the big bucks in HUMAN medicine, where we spend billions to extend
     life a few brief weeks.  If you examine it coldly, the contention
     that human life has infinite value is ridiculous on its face.  But
     since the truth that we are dust in the wind is painful to us, we
     expend vast sums for benefits that are largely illusory, and the
     doctors vacation on Bermuda golf courses.
    
      bb

    If someone loves their life, not wanting to die is not unreasonable.
    Spending whatever one can to stay alive, in this case, is not
    unreasonable. It is due to the disregard for human life and worth that 
    medical science has not yet solved the death problem. One day it will. 

 ZZ   medical science has not yet solved the death problem. One day it will.
    
    No it won't.  

    
      Why expend your lifesavings, which you intended to leave to your
     children, or to some worthy cause, to extend a long life beyond
     it's time ?  Only in the USA would we spend millions to prolong
     drastic cases a bit.  As to medical science "solving the problem
     of death", I hope it never does.  It is good that we die.
    
      bb

    re: .277
    
    We are also a world drowning in a surfeit of people.  However,
    many people balk at the thought of restricting indiscriminate
    breeding practices.  This is part of our human "superiority"
    complex which has been steadily ruining this planet, ostensibly
    for our own comfort and convenience.  Perhaps if we lost the
    "ruler over all" garbage and came to the realization that we
    are no more or less important or deserving of life than anything
    else on this planet,  people wouldn't be so worried about whether
    or not I cared more about my cat than I did about their kid.
    
    

    
    What this world needs is a good pesticide.

>                                          Perhaps if we lost the
>    "ruler over all" garbage and came to the realization that we
>    are no more or less important or deserving of life than anything
>    else on this planet,  people wouldn't be so worried about whether
>    or not I cared more about my cat than I did about their kid.
    
Do you swat mosquitoes?

 >   people wouldn't be so worried about whether
 >   or not I cared more about my cat than I did about their kid.

    so, while this is an unlikely scenario, if it came down to either
    your cat or someone else's child being administered a life-saving
    medical procedure, you would opt for... your cat?

A more likely event would be choosing between saving a cat or saving a child
from a burning building.

    My life is important to me. I love it and I'm enjoying it. The longer I
    live the more knowledge I gain. I'm having fun, I'm producing for
    myself and others. If you don't like your life that's your problem. If 
    you expect me to give up my life for you or others, you will be 
    disappointed. If more of us practiced self interest and did it without 
    expecting others to provide for us, the entire world would be a rational 
    and wonderful place. Anyone who wants can place themselves on the same 
    level as a cat. The result will be a lack of self-esteem and
    worthlessness. I will not subscribe to it. I live to live. I don't live 
    to die.

    re: .284
    
    Which promotes a more interesting scenario:  if I have extra
    income, does someone else have the right to tell me where I
    should spend it?  If I have extra money and I want to give
    my cat a $1000 operation, should my neighbors be able to
    strong arm me into donating to Junior's heart bypass
    instead?
    

    
     >so, while this is an unlikely scenario, if it came down to either
     >your cat or someone else's child being administered a life-saving
     >medical procedure, you would opt for... your cat?
    
    What has someone else's child ever done for me, except cause me to pay
    high property taxes to educate its little butt for "free"?
    
    My cats are MY children.
    

   .287  no.

	 but you didn't answer _my_ question.

    >if I have extra income, does someone else have the right to tell me 
    >where I should spend it?
    
    no
    
    >If I have extra money and I want to give my cat a $1000 operation, 
    >should my neighbors be able to strong arm me into donating to Junior's 
    >heart bypass instead?
    
    no
    

    re: .283 
    
    The point isn't whether I swat mosquitos or eat meat
    (yes, I eat meat.  Swatting mosquitos in my yard would be
    a futile gesture at best :-).  The point is that we feel that
    it is of the utmost importance to push everything else out of
    our way in the name of our own progress.  What we have lost in medicinal
    plants and animals, especially in the rain forest, cannot be
    recovered.  We have damaged ourselves and our environment in
    the name of progress.  Those of your who worry so much about
    not passing along the national debt to your grandchildren should
    also worry about passing on to them a world which is worth 
    living in.
    
    

    
>    My cats are MY children.

    no they're not - they're your cats.  so you would opt for administering
    the procedure to your cat, i take it?
    i love my dog with all my heart, but there's no way in hell i'd
    choose her life over the life of a child, regardless of whose child
    it was.

    i'm funny like that. ;>
    

If you pay medical insurance premiums (as we all presumably do, either
directly or indirectly) and you're reasonably healthy, you're putting
in more money than you're getting out.  Hence the kid who needs the
expensive operation is taking away some of your money.

    >i love my dog with all my heart, but there's no way in hell i'd
    >choose her life over the life of a child, regardless of whose child
    >it was.
    
    your just an extremist, that's all!!   :)

    re: .285
    
    I would grab the child and try and shoo the cat out in front
    of me.  If that didn't work, I get the child first, and go
    back for the cat.
    
    Would I put my life on the line for an animal?  Absolutely.
    

    >    Perhaps if we lost the
    >    "ruler over all" garbage and came to the realization that we
    >    are no more or less important or deserving of life than anything
    >    else on this planet, 
    
    Deserving over others is certainly a debate and will never to come to 
    finality considering we all have different views of the condition of 
    humankind.  I believe we are strictly here by grace and mercy.  Others
    believe we are here through natural selection.
    
    Some believe others gave mankind dominion over the earth, others don't
    believe it.  

| <<< Note 28.267 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| i don't believe this.  people are really trying to compare cats
| to humans.  this is nuts. ;>

	No, it is cats and humans. Please pay attention! :-)

    re: .284
    
    I can't imagine when this would be the case that the 
    final decision would be in my hands.  In an emergency situation,
    obviously the human would be taken care of first.  That's an
    EMT's job.  In any other situation, I would certainly try and
    help if I could, but ultimately the financial responsibility for
    any child rests with it's parents, and the financial responsibility
    for my animals rests with me.  Certainly because of the quantity
    and type of animals I have, eventually their special needs will
    cause me to have to make decisions about their care.  Knowing that
    I've done the best that I can for them makes it easier to make
    those decisions when they arise.
    

	All I know is this morning on my way in from the parking lot, the
sidewalk was covered with worms. I tip toed around them, so as not to disturb
them if they were sleeping, and to not step on them. When summer comes, we will
see which worms want to commit suicide. They will be the ones who got baked.


Glen

 ZZ   What has someone else's child ever done for me, except cause me to pay
 ZZ   high property taxes to educate its little butt for "free"?
    
    Mz. Debra:
    
    I appreciate your common sense regarding the privatization of schools.
    I brought this very issue up in other strings and was summarily
    ridiculed by the Elitists without credentials, (EWC).  I'm glad to see
    I have an ally here in the issue of school privatization.
    
    As far as the value of cats vs. children, a cat is a pet while a child
    is a being that shares a common link.  Not only that, children are
    Spiritual beings while cats, aside from being companions are nothing
    more than poop factories.
    
    -Jack

    
      Does Kevorkian have a relative who does cats ?
    
      bb

re .291:

>                                   The point is that we feel that
>    it is of the utmost importance to push everything else out of
>    our way in the name of our own progress.  What we have lost in medicinal
>    plants and animals, especially in the rain forest, cannot be
>    recovered.  We have damaged ourselves and our environment in
>    the name of progress.  Those of your who worry so much about
>    not passing along the national debt to your grandchildren should
>    also worry about passing on to them a world which is worth 
>    living in.
    
That's all very nice and noble, and I don't think too many people would
disagree with you.  But it also has nothing to do with your previous
statement:

>                                          Perhaps if we lost the
>    "ruler over all" garbage and came to the realization that we
>    are no more or less important or deserving of life than anything
>    else on this planet,  people wouldn't be so worried about whether
>    or not I cared more about my cat than I did about their kid.

If I were starving to death, and the only thing to eat was the last
female dodo, I'd have no qualms about eating it.  A human life is more
valuable than that of any animal.  

    did jack say he wants to privatize poop factories?

    re: .302
    
    I suppose that's all well and good from your viewpoint as
    a superior predator.  However, should the last thing left
    to eat be a female bengal tiger, you may find the predator/prey
    scenario reversed. :-)
    

    We don't want any of that socialist chite.

    re: .300
    
    If you don't consider a cat a spiritual being, you've never
    been owned by one. Or two. Or five. :-)
    
    If you don't think a child can be a poop factory, you've missed
    the first 12 months of life.  :-)
    
    

    Touche!!

	It is not unreasonable to anthropomorph pets.  I've known lots of
animals with Human characteristics.  I've also know a lot of people with
animal characteristics (horses, vultures, asses, bunnies, raccoons, ...).



	I believe there is a "spirit" to people and to animals.  While the
spirit continues, so does the being.  I believe to euthanise (?sp,?word) a
being with spirit is to kill it.   Is this wrong?  I don't really know, I just
think it is!  I could not kill something because of the $$$ savings it would
provide.   Is euthanasia of a being without spirit or hope killing?  It seems
we need to redifine life beyond the functioning of the heart or the brain
stem.


	There is a time for all things to die, hopefully the spirit goes close
to the same time as the body.  It is truely sad when they don't.

    
      Interestingly, in the African National Parks, armed wardens shoot
     and kill poachers of protected large wildlife, and leave the bodies
     for the predators/scavengers to consume.  The alternative is the
     extinction of rhinos, elephants, etc.  This constitutes an overt
     statement that the elephant or whatever IS more valuable.  This is
     true in both senses : the animal is rare, the human not; and the
     net income stream the country expects from wildlife tourism has a
     net present value that exceeds the value of the human's labor.
    
      I don't know it, but I suspect the policy only affects the large,
     rare, endangered species highly susceptible to poaching.
    
      bb

>      I don't know it, but I suspect the policy only affects the large,
>     rare, endangered species highly susceptible to poaching.

Not salmon?

  .308  "animals with human characteristics"?  we're all animals.
	it only stands to reason that we'd have common characteristics.

 
  .298  so apparently you can't/won't answer my question.  
	so be it.

    Speaking of saving cats from burning buildings...

    Did you folks see the story on the news last night about a mother cat
    who went into a burning building *5 times* to rescue her 4 week old
    kittens (one by one)?

    She got all 5 kittens to safety, but she was badly burned.  The kittens
    were only singed a bit.

    Apparently, doctors were worried that the mother cat had been blinded
    but I heard this morning that she's opened her eyes and the doctors
    say that she will regain her full eyesight.

    The kittens look to be in pretty good shape.

    Obviously, this mother cat must have been in terrible pain as she went
    through fire during this rescue - but she did it anyway.

    RE: .301
    
    Yes, Doktor Katvorkian.

    re: cats vs. kids
    
    I agree with Mz_deb.  For the greater part of the last 5 years I have
    lived alone.  No SO, and either absent or no roommates.  When I walk
    through the door at night, that little purring furball is the only
    thing that greets me other than the mess I left from the day before.
    
    That cat is my kid.  And if she was suffering from cancer or kidney
    problems that were terminal, I'd have her put down.  Watching her
    suffer would be far worse than not having her there.
    
    (And after a sufficient grief period, I'd get another and start the
    whole cycle over.)
    
    Lsia

    Lisa:
    
    You just met the man of your dreams but he is highly allergic to cats? 
    What do you do?  
    
    I already discussed this issue with Mz. Debra a few years ago.  I'm out
    on my ear! :-)
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 28.313 by SPECXN::CONLON >>>

| Did you folks see the story on the news last night about a mother cat who went
| into a burning building *5 times* to rescue her 4 week old kittens (one by 
| one)?

	You might want to check out .260....old nooooze, Sue...heh heh

    
      Tom : of course, your life is valuable to you.  Mine is valuable
     to me.  Hopefully, our lives are valuable to others.  If I were
     faced with a choice of saving my spouse's life or yours, or of
     my spouse's life or my own, I'd choose hers.  We all make decisions
     every day that at least "risk" death - your chance of death is
     certainly higher when you commute to work than if you stay home.
     Yet most of us make it in, most days.
    
      To others, on the cats : I have had many cats, several kids.  Value
     varies in both cases.  I've had cats put down rather than undergo
     expensive medical treatment, but routinely pay for normal vet
     costs.  When cats die, I get others for free, from other owners
     or shelters, and currently have three.  Never been faced with this
     with the kids, but while I'd go higher, there's limits on everything.
    
      Remember, you only have finite resources.  How many kids' college
     educations would you forego in order to extend the life of a
     comatose vegetable ?  In the real world, you make choices between
     good things, because you can't do all of them.
    
      bb

>      Remember, you only have finite resources.  How many kids' college
>     educations would you forego in order to extend the life of a
>     comatose vegetable ?

Who's talking about a comatose vegetable?  Suppose your kid needs a heart
transplant.  If he gets it, he'll lead a fairly normal life.  If he doesn't,
he'll die within a few months.  For some reason, you have pay for the whole
thing out of pocket.  What's your limit?

    You pay for it and live a life of servitude.

    
    .316
    
    Actually, even tho you're not asking me again 8^), the Man Of My Dreams
    is highly allergic to cats.  He takes antihistamines when he's around
    them.  It's not an ideal solution by any means, but it's the best one
    for the time being.
    
    
    
    

    jack,
    
    I can already tell you, the man of my dreams could not be allergic to
    my pets.  If he were there would be no way he could be the ideal human
    male.  Ability to realate to pets is a criteria of how human I consider
    a person to be.
    
    I am owned by three cats a dog three rabbits, three kids and live with
    a wonderful man who may not have my affinity for the cats, but
    understands that my animals are better people than a lot of two legged
    animals that proclaim they are human.  
    
    meg
    
    Now to get back on subject, Jack no one is saying that at the first
    sign of any disease a person whould be or want to be squelched. 
    However, our medical system is doing that daily to people who can't
    afford the treatments needed for whatever their disease is. The AMA and
    hospitals will treat one friend when her cancer causes her to be unable
    to walk, but won't do the follow-up treatment that could grant her a
    shot at a  long, relatively healthy life.  I fail to see where this
    medical neglect is any different than Dr. Jack's CO tank and mask.  
    
    Of course I guess it isn't euthanasia if you ignore the infertile women
    with no dependants.
    
    meg

  .319  i'd say the kid gets the heart transplant only if there's enough
	money left over from the cat's brain transplant.  but that's just
	me.

    Experience has shown that the cat will be around a lot longer than the
    guy.
    
    If he's allergic to cats he's not the guy of my dreams.  That's one of
    my initial criteria in screening out potential dates. Same emphasis as
    has to be a non-smoker, similar interests, etc. I've tried dating men
    who failed one or more of my initial criteria.  Made me miserable.  I'd
    rather be alone.
    
    Lisa

    re: .300
    
    >poop factories
    
    
    agagagagagag...
    
    You can add "allergen" to the above, too.

    /Experience has shown that the cat will be around a lot longer than the
    /guy.
    
     Mebbe the cat doesn't mind the grungy clothes. :-)

| Experience has shown that the cat will be around a lot longer than the guy.

	But I bet the female cat gets into more car accidents.

    
    
    	Ditto Lisa's sentiments.  "the perfect guy" wouldn't be perfect
    	for me if he didn't like animals or was allergic to my cats.
    	Fortunately, my honey likes my cats and they ADORE him, as 
    	do I.  =)
    
    	JJ
    

    
    	Well, JJ, they're obviously not intimidated by his size.
    

    
    
    	hey, Hey, HEY!!!    =)
    
    
    	You're just saying that cuz he's the only guy actually smaller
    	than you.
    

Shawn, size doesn't matter.  HTH.

    
    Well, it's certainly nobody's FAULT if they're allergic to cats, and
    he's willing to take the antihistamines, so it's working for now.
    
    If he hated cats, now, that'd be a horse of a different colour.
    

 Z   Ability to realate to pets is a criteria of how human I consider
 Z   a person to be.
    
    Well, so much for running a cat over three times to finish the job.

>  <<< Note 28.332 by POWDML::HANGGELI "Little Chamber of Full Body Frisks" >>>
    
>    If he hated cats, now, that'd be a horse of a different colour.

    that's my take on it too, debster.  if a guy hated Molly dogger, well,
    i just couldn't relate to him, that's fer dang sher.
    

    
    	RE: Diane
    
    >that's my take on it too, debster.  if a guy hated Molly dogger, well,
    
    
    	Ummm, the dog itself or the name?
    

    re: .312
    
    No I didn't say I wouldn't answer it, it's just kind of strange.
    I suppose I'd go for the kid in the end with the hope they'd
    be kind enough to replace my cat for me afterwards and buy a
    nice little memorial marker for my deceased kitty, place fresh
    flowers on it everyday and understand that another living 
    thing was sacrificed so that their child could go on living.
    
    Perhaps they'd become more sensitive people, and their child
    would grow up to become a vetrenarian and start the largest
    no-kill cat shelter in the nation and name it after my
    deceased cat.
    
    I *might* be satisfied then, but nothing could still replace
    the memory of my kitty.
    
    
    

    MM:
    
    This is off the beaten track, but I have a client coming in tommorrow
    evening who has a business selling and breeding ferrets...Quite
    interesting talking to her and I immediately thot of u.
    
    Ron

	I'm a little troubled by shawn talking about the size of JJ's
boyfriend. 

    
    	RE: .330
    
    	I was only kidding!!  And yes, that's probably part of the reason
    	I said it.  8^)
    
    
    	RE: Glen
    
    	I was referring to overall size, not anything specific.
    

    
    	And wait a minute ... he's not the ONLY guy who's smaller than
    	I am.  He's the only 1 I can think of right now, though.
    

    re: .339
    
    How do you know if JJ's boyfriend wears overalls? :-)
    

    
    
    	bwahahahahahahahaaaaa!  {snort}
    
    
    	*that'd* be the day!
    

    
    
    >How do you know if JJ's boyfriend wears overalls? :-)
    
    M-M... 
    
    
     He doesn't... notice his attire Saturday? That's his general look
    throughout the year... including winter...
    
    :)
    

    
    	RE: MM
    
    	Unless Shane wears overalls that are either too big or too
    	small for his frame, it's quite easy to guess how big they'd
    	be if he did wear them.  Doesn't necessarily mean I've seen
    	him in overalls [or underalls, for that matter], but it does
    	mean that I could guess the size of same.
    

    Pete Grooby, who lives in New Zealand, reported the following to a
    computer-oriented moderated mailing list I'm on.  The moderator said he
    really pondered a long time before sending it out.
    
        I saw a news item last night about a euthanasia law which will soon
        be  passed in the Northern Territory of Australia.  During the
        article they  showed the system by which patients could terminate
        their own lives.
    
        An automated syringe full of a lethal substance was hooked up to a 
        laptop. The patient was asked a series of questions about whether
        or not  they really wanted to kill themselves.  At the end of the
        questions they  click on a button to activate the injection and
        they die within 30  seconds afterwards.

    Don't make a typo, or you'll get the hypo.
    

    hmmm.. Bill Gates may wanna invest in this.
    
    or Bob Palmer.. I can see the ads now:
    
    the Ultra Death Note! 

    
      Self rightsizing station 1000 ?
    
      bb

    A terminal should suffice, along with some new UNIX messages:
    
    "You must su to root before pushing up the daisies"

    .347
    
    > Bill Gates may wanna invest in this.
    > or Bob Palmer..
    
    Too late.  The computer used is a Macintosh PowerBook.

    
      There might be a problem with market differentiation.
    
      I mean, how would Consumer Reports review competing models...
    
      bb

    > how would Consumer Reports review competing models...
    
    Ease of installation, i.e., did it require three people and eighteen
    calls to the manufacturer to get the thing running.
    
    Ease of use, i.e., did the deader have to have the setup explained to
    him or was it intuitively obvious.
    
    Frequency-of-repair record, i.e., how many stiffs per tuneup.
    
    Rider comfort, i.e., did the deader go screaming or smiling.
    
    Resale value, i.e., how much did the estate auction get for it.

  re: mr. bill 11.15129

|  Where does this "likes to watch" stuff come from?
    
>    From a bizzare essay he wrote on death.
>    *AND* from his "rule" that he must be present to "assist."
    

	Is the inference supposed to be, then, that he wouldn't be
	going about this business but for the fact that he likes to
	watch people die?  If that is indeed the case, I mean.