Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: Alan McDougall on 29/06/2016 15:53:27
-
Is there a case for positive euthanasia for end stage Alzheimer sufferers?
Is it possible to maintain a youthful brain in an aging body?
Or are the two bound up with each other inclusively?
Alzheimer disease is the most frightening disease known to man, because it causes the complete destruction of a personality.
Would you want to be kept alive?,
My answer as a 76 year old man is an emphatic "NO".
I do not fear death and my wish would be that they give me a fatal injection and allow me to die peacefully and with dignity!!
-
This one is a real ethical bugger.
People of sound mind and body can end their lives at any time, but really don't need to - indeed we spend a lot of effort trying to stay alive. No real problem.
People of sound mind and intractable pain can end their lives as long as they are physically capable of doing so, but generally prefer to try to mitigate the pain. Miserable choice, but no legal or ethical problem.
People of sound mind who wish to die and are physically unable to kill themselves, cannot be assisted in doing so. This is a moral outrage. In a just world, anyone who votes against assisted suicide should be tortured incessantly, but never quite to death. No problem in principle, and some humane legislatures have solved it in practice.
But you have put your finger on the ethical problem. How do we distinguish between those who really wish to die but are incapable of expressing that wish coherently, and those who are just incoherent but perfectly happy to stay alive? Most people have at some time said "I want to die", but when should we take them seriously? My mother seriously contemplated suicide when she was fully rational but deeply unhappy, but towards the end of her life she was clearly both demented and cheerful.
I share your desire to die at a time and place of my choosing, but I wouldn't go for a lethal injection - significant failure rate with large and previously-healthy men, and no gentle transition to oblivion. Nitrogen hypoxia and slow hypothermia are very pleasant and orderly. My preferred approach so far has been to set an arbitrary date (currently my 84th birthday) when I want to die at my own hand or with the assistance of a lover, and to review that date annually. It hasn't changed in the last 30 years.
-
This one is a real ethical bugger.
People of sound mind and body can end their lives at any time, but really don't need to - indeed we spend a lot of effort trying to stay alive. No real problem.
People of sound mind and intractable pain can end their lives as long as they are physically capable of doing so, but generally prefer to try to mitigate the pain. Miserable choice, but no legal or ethical problem.
People of sound mind who wish to die and are physically unable to kill themselves, cannot be assisted in doing so. This is a moral outrage. In a just world, anyone who votes against assisted suicide should be tortured incessantly, but never quite to death. No problem in principle, and some humane legislatures have solved it in practice.
But you have put your finger on the ethical problem. How do we distinguish between those who really wish to die but are incapable of expressing that wish coherently, and those who are just incoherent but perfectly happy to stay alive? Most people have at some time said "I want to die", but when should we take them seriously? My mother seriously contemplated suicide when she was fully rational but deeply unhappy, but towards the end of her life she was clearly both demented and cheerful.
I share your desire to die at a time and place of my choosing, but I wouldn't go for a lethal injection - significant failure rate with large and previously-healthy men, and no gentle transition to oblivion. Nitrogen hypoxia and slow hypothermia are very pleasant and orderly. My preferred approach so far has been to set an arbitrary date (currently my 84th birthday) when I want to die at my own hand or with the assistance of a lover, and to review that date annually. It hasn't changed in the last 30 years.
"Nice to read a fully thought out post, at first I thought at first you were 84, but after reading your post again I realized that it was just a date on which you think further living might not have meaning or purpose, in that you are very wrong at 84 you might be healthier more capable than a 25 yer old.
You should not set a date like that. Maybe the nearer you approach 84 the more positive you will become if this is the time to end your life
I am not sure of your current age but if you are still fairly young 84 might be an eternity away making it easier to set such an arbitrary date of your demise?
At 76 years of age I feel exactly the same as you do and once my life becomes an unbearable burden both to myself or my family I would like to exit this world on my own terms in the manner of my choosing
Why 84 in particular there are many active vibrant 90 yer old like England's Queen Elisabeth?
It seems that for both of at present it is a moot point because our faculties,still very intact. In my family there been no evidence of dementia or Alzheimer's, although right at the end of her long life at over 90, for a few weeks my late grandmother on my fathers side stopped interacting with those around her.
What about 'A living will" In my will I have made it very clear that they must be no heroic attempts to keep me alive and if I am on life support they "MUST" switch the machines off and allow me to die with dignity.
God forbid if I become an Alzheimer vegetable I would want them to kill my body, in anyway they like, because I no longer occupy and it has become the nearest thing to a real zombie.
In South Africa where I live assisted suicide is a crime, although some people who have had family members or some sufferers of intractable pain of "Locked in syndrome are actively trying to make it legal
My parents both died at the rather early age of 78 so I have no idea in the would have become demented later in life but right up to the very last few moments of their lives they were both lucid, although my dad seemed to be both in this world and the next.
Both were very spiritual people with a profound love of God and in contrast to a few of my atheist relatives died peacefully, my dad just took his last breath while we were standing around him and one could actually sense his spirit leaving his body after which he looked more like a manikin.
Regards
Alan
-
Here is an article of tragic early onset Alzheimer's
Alan
http://www.webmd.com/alzheimers/news/20160628/basketball-legend-pat-summitts-death-points-to-ravages-of-early-alzheimers?page=2
-
I chose 84 as an arbitrarily distant but reasonable guess when I was about 40, and I review the date every birthday. I'm now 72 and apparently fit to fly (that is, I'm unlikely to have a heart attack or diabetic coma when airborne, but they never check my sanity or mental arithmetic - odd, 'cos aviation is a mental, not a physical task!) but I know that deterioration of mind or body is something of an avalanche when it happens, and the acquisition of new skills is already obviously slower than it was.
The great thing about being a rationalistic atheist is that I have no fear of being dead, just an aversion to the usual processes of dying. And having the absolute certainty that the show is over when the curtain comes down, gives me a strong impetus to get on and "do it now", because there ain't no encore!
-
I chose 84 as an arbitrarily distant but reasonable guess when I was about 40, and I review the date every birthday. I'm now 72 and apparently fit to fly (that is, I'm unlikely to have a heart attack or diabetic coma when airborne, but they never check my sanity or mental arithmetic - odd, 'cos aviation is a mental, not a physical task!) but I know that deterioration of mind or body is something of an avalanche when it happens, and the acquisition of new skills is already obviously slower than it was.
The great thing about being a rationalistic atheist is that I have no fear of being dead, just an aversion to the usual processes of dying. And having the absolute certainty that the show is over when the curtain comes down, gives me a strong impetus to get on and "do it now", because there ain't no encore!
On the 23rd of December this year I will turn 76 so in my eyes you are still as spring chicken (Just Kidding)
I have already had a very close encounter with death, I flat-lined due to total AV heart block and had to be resuscitated. I now have a permanent heart pacemaker in my chest wall keeping me alive, but I feel extremely well.
This event did not make me fear death any more than previously, indeed, it took away the my fear of of death almost completely "
I say live life like an incandescent light, blaze brightly and go out in one glorious flash".
I have been much closer to actual death than you and as a rational theist I must tell you death of the physical body is not the end of your conscious being. I am not religious or attend any church or belong to any cult, I just have my own personal knowledge about life and death and what comes after.
And this is not an attempt by me to move you away from your position about the existence of the divine etc!
-
Now here's a chance to do some proper science.
Wherever we go post mortem, you are statistically likely to precede me by a couple of years, so keep in touch and send me the photographs. Or better still, live video. Just like polar explorers and astronauts, we'll amaze the world. It would be so much easier to believe in heaven or America if anyone had ever sent back some actual evidence.
-
Very thought-provoking discussion.
-
Now here's a chance to do some proper science.
Wherever we go post mortem, you are statistically likely to precede me by a couple of years, so keep in touch and send me the photographs. Or better still, live video. Just like polar explorers and astronauts, we'll amaze the world. It would be so much easier to believe in heaven or America if anyone had ever sent back some actual evidence.
Maybe the authorities on the other side do not allow evidence to be sent back to this mortal realm.
Can I go a bit off topic.
I do not think that if indeed there is an afterlife that I would want to come back and haunt you. I think I would have moved on into a total new reality and have no interest in this one. Although I might be able to send you some good memes
Once I am gone from this world I will be gone forever.
If we contemplate the unimaginable concept of eternity, or the immense age of the universe and compare it to our tiny quantum flash of existence on planet earth, then it is obvious that we have we have been badly cheated by the universe a higher power or God or the simulation matrix we might exist in.
It was just yesterday when boy with a 103 kilogram body of muscle due to bodybuilding, indeed the entity inside of me is still that young boy, in an old decaying body (Sputnik beep beeping in space to my amazement)
My wife and I have just had our 55th wedding anniversary. I met her when she was 15 and I was a boy of 17 and for death to separate us forever would be hell and cruel. Thus even if I am wrong, I am forced into the conclusion that our existence is something like energy, in that it was not created, it cannot be destroyed, but it can be altered or converted into a different type of existence. "To me therein is the mystery of the afterlife"
However, our bodies might just be the clothes our consciousness uses during the time we exist as materiel beings on planet earth, to be discarded at death (Dust to Dust)
"Old age is cruel"
I dislike in the extreme the concept of Karma and believe that reincarnation is utter nonsense.
By the way I do not believe in psychic nonsense, such as mediums contacting your relatives so that you can hear how happy they all are on the other side of death. It baffles me how these ghosts are always in the neighborhood just waiting to be interviewed by the lying mediums. The "Long Island Medium is just one case" is just one example she is amazingly accurate, but maybe the producers only show her best guesses or she used stooges?
Or some form a telepathy?
Regards
Alan
-
My wife and I have just had our 55th wedding anniversary. I met her when she was 15 and I was a boy of 17 and for death to separate us forever would be hell and cruel.
My wife died just after our 25th, when life was just about to blossom - kids left home, business booming, looking forward to a healthy retirement with the greatest love I could imagine. There being no higher authority to blame, it wasn't cruel, just biochemistry in an indifferent universe.
-
My wife and I have just had our 55th wedding anniversary. I met her when she was 15 and I was a boy of 17 and for death to separate us forever would be hell and cruel.
My wife died just after our 25th, when life was just about to blossom - kids left home, business booming, looking forward to a healthy retirement with the greatest love I could imagine. There being no higher authority to blame, it wasn't cruel, just biochemistry in an indifferent universe.
I deeply sorry to her about the of your beautiful wife , "but she was not just biochemistry", she was much more than that she was/is a living soul and you know that, because when you looked into her eyes you did not see a brain looking back at you, but another soul that loved you.
You cannot say for sure that there is no higher power "I know there is" This statement is not based on belief, but on an encounter with something unimaginably more perfect and intelligent than me during my very close encounter with death. It was something that changed me from an angry atheist into hopefully a non-religious rational theist.
You will not know as an analogy that Timbuktu is a real place until you visit Africa and observe that it is a real city in an African country called Mali
I said old age is cruel and it is very cruel, if we look at the appalling effect it has when they get Alzheimer's in their old age.
One sufferer I met could only grunt like an animal but would still eat what you put in his mouth.
Alan
-
In reading through this thread, I am left with profound doubt that any of this was written by anyone with actual experience of spending time with an actual Alzheimerś patient.
As a sophomore I worked in a facility caring for them. I would get them out of bed and shower the pee off of them. None of them ever showed signs of distress --- certainly enough to require euthanasia.
I am sure there are those who lack sufficient tenacity of life that they fear the prospect of senility enough to commit suicide. That is tough darts for them.
I, however, recall that despair comes from lack of faith and that the Christian virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity. I have always been a stingy man so I must be strong in the first two.
As long as I can enjoy Tchaicovsky and pretty women you can stick euthanasia where the sun does not shine.
-
In reading through this thread, I am left with profound doubt that any of this was written by anyone with actual experience of spending time with an actual Alzheimerś patient.
As a sophomore I worked in a facility caring for them. I would get them out of bed and shower the pee off of them. None of them ever showed signs of distress --- certainly enough to require euthanasia.
I am sure there are those who lack sufficient tenacity of life that they fear the prospect of senility enough to commit suicide. That is tough darts for them.
I, however, recall that despair comes from lack of faith and that the Christian virtues are Faith, Hope, and Charity. I have always been a stingy man so I must be strong in the first two.
As long as I can enjoy Tchaicovsky and pretty women you can stick euthanasia where the sun does not shine.
I assure Tchaikovsky music would not move him or help in because most likely his brain was so damaged by the disease that he could not hear anything. Indeed, from a spiritual perspective his soul had left his body which was now just a shell waiting to decay and perish. To all extent at the very end of end stage Alzheimer's a person has become a zombie! Sorry to be so graphic but that is the truth of the matter.
Find me an end stage Alzheimer victim that responds to a pretty woman or anything else for that fact? You said you had experience with them , but that statement makes me doubt if you had to deal with a drooling vegetable that could only grunt like an animal and open his mouth to eat or drink, If he were not fed he would have just sat there and died of starvation or thirst.
Remember this thread is about someone doing something kind and positive, by helping someone those who can no longer help themselves, those who are a desperate sufferers of the most awful disease known, to mitigate their continued "Existence" in a state of intractable pain and misery, not keeping then in that awful state, which in my opinion a form of torture!
You were looking from the outside, you have no idea what is happening on the inside of an end stage Alzheimer sufferer, and I have had direct experience with an end stage Alzheimer person, who had been reduced to a grunting vegetable, who responded to nothing just sat all day with a glazed look and would only eat or drink if you fed him.
He might have been locked in totally unable to interact with the outside world in any way shape or form, I would not like "Exist" like that and would hope that someone would be kind and put me out of my misery. "That is "existing" a rock "exists it" which is not "life" or "living" which is a huge difference.
I have often had to put down my beloved pet dogs when I knew their suffering had become unbearable and would like the same kindness shown to me, if I become a locked in vegetable caused by a stroke or advanced dementia due to old age or end stage Alzheimer's.
In my opinion Alzheimer's is by far the worst disease known to man , it is the complete destruction of a personality, indeed the person you once were no longer exists and has been replaced by the walking dead.
Regards
Alan
-
Is there a case for positive euthanasia for end stage Alzheimer sufferers?
Although no human wants to be afflicted with AD, I think the answer would be different for each individual/family.
How end-stage are we talking?
If we're talking immobilized & permanently bedridden.... than yes - but remember we're usually looking at around 5 or 6-years from the point of diagnosis when that happens.
Yeah it's easy to say with a sane mind that we'd rather be euthanized when things start getting bad.... but someone in the family would have to bare the burden of having decide when that time is. Not a decision to be taken lightly.
Speaking from experience, I know I wouldn't have felt comfortable making that decision for my father. Sure there were some tough times, but my dad was rather happy through the majority of his illness.
I guess it just really depends on how end-stage, but then.... wouldn't the immobilized & permanently bedridden criteria define every similar disease, not just AD? Regardless, I think we can all agree that nobody wants to go through that.
-
Is there a case for positive euthanasia for end stage Alzheimer sufferers?
I don't think theres really such a thing as "positive euthanasia".
Furthermore, alternative treatments for Alzheimer exists. https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2016/06/30/cannabinoids-may-protect-alzheimers-patients-from-plaque-buildup/
-
I don't think theres really such a thing as "positive euthanasia".
So you don't think there is any medical scenario where you'd rather die than suffer?
-
Furthermore, alternative treatments for Alzheimer exists. https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2016/06/30/cannabinoids-may-protect-alzheimers-patients-from-plaque-buildup/
Understanding the pathogenesis of AD & the pharmacokinetic-conundrum of exogenous cannabinoids.... and without even have looked at the link.... no.
-
Is there a case for positive euthanasia for end stage Alzheimer sufferers?
I don't think theres really such a thing as "positive euthanasia".
Furthermore, alternative treatments for Alzheimer exists. https://alzheimersnewstoday.com/2016/06/30/cannabinoids-may-protect-alzheimers-patients-from-plaque-buildup/
I read the article pot for Alzheimer s this would be wonderful treatment that I hope might help (Not mocking)
At my age of 76 any cure would be too late
-
In many diseases positive mental attitude and reduction of stress can help improve the prognosis. It cannot reverse all disease but can extend the duration and quality of life for the patient. For families this can give more time with their loved one and the ability to support the person until the end. This can turn a negative experience into something more positive.
http://www.gdatf.org/about/about-graves-disease/patient-education/mind-body-connection-attitudes-affect-your-health/ (http://www.gdatf.org/about/about-graves-disease/patient-education/mind-body-connection-attitudes-affect-your-health/)
-
I deeply sorry to her about the of your beautiful wife , "but she was not just biochemistry", she was much more than that she was/is a living soul and you know that, because when you looked into her eyes you did not see a brain looking back at you, but another soul that loved you.
True, but it was the biochemistry that went wrong, which put an end to everything else.
-
Someone claimed that Alzheimer's is the worst disease.
That is an incredibly naive remark. I have known sufferers from Tic Douloureux to hang themselves -- while babysitting their niece.
Let us call a spade a spade. "Positive Euthanasia" for Alzheimer's means killing someone without their informed consent. People who do that are rightly imprisoned because it is Homicide.
Nor can it be argued that it is ethical because it inevitably involves freeing oneself of a burdensome relative and very often financial gain by inheritance. I have personally witnessed that more times than I care to remember.
In short, it is abhorrent homicide to civilized people no matter how much some people may try to pass it off as some act of "mercy".
If someone finds it too burdensome to care for a sick relative, then they should pass the burden off to someone with more fortitude. Making up some baloney about "positive euthanasia" to get out of caring for them may be understandable human weakness. It is never the less advocating a criminal assault.
Even in this Brave New World. So pull up your socks and let's hear no more of this deplorable double-speak about the propriety of Nazi style ethics.
-
Someone claimed that Alzheimer's is the worst disease.
That is an incredibly naive remark. I have known sufferers from Tic Douloureux to hang themselves -- while babysitting their niece.
Let us call a spade a spade. "Positive Euthanasia" for Alzheimer's means killing someone without their informed consent. People who do that are rightly imprisoned because it is Homicide.
Nor can it be argued that it is ethical because it inevitably involves freeing oneself of a burdensome relative and very often financial gain by inheritance. I have personally witnessed that more times than I care to remember.
In short, it is abhorrent homicide to civilized people no matter how much some people may try to pass it off as some act of "mercy".
If someone finds it too burdensome to care for a sick relative, then they should pass the burden off to someone with more fortitude. Making up some baloney about "positive euthanasia" to get out of caring for them may be understandable human weakness. It is never the less advocating a criminal assault.
Even in this Brave New World. So pull up your socks and let's hear no more of this deplorable double-speak about the propriety of Nazi style ethics.
"We are talking about "End Stage Alzheimer's"
Unlike the Tic Douloureux sufferers who still have their mental facilities, the "end stage Alzheimer's" person cannot decide for themselves to commit suicide or not.
You cannot rank the degree of those experiencing desperate suffering, for whatever reason, but my statement that Alzheimer's disease in the worst sickness known to man, remains!
I find your logic difficult to understand because, it is a contradiction? A Tic Douloureux sufferer is still in control of their mental facilities and can therefore; decide for themselves what to do about their continued existence, when they think they have has reached the end stage of unbearable suffering.
Unlike an Alzheimer sufferer, a Tic Douloureux sufferer (who according to you who is a lesser suffer), must be kept alive, at any cost, in a state of unimaginable suffering or even loneliness.
In contrast an end stage Alzheimer person does not have that ability and cannot decide for themselves to take their lives by suicide. They lack the ability to personally take charge of their own existence or put stop their suffering. "Someone must do it for them", as an act of kindness, compassion and love, for the person they once were, when they were still lucid and had healthy brain to think with.
They are left, locked into a dying body, to slowly to decay, physicality and in every other sense, until their brains turn to mush and thy have deteriorated mentally to the level of a complete idiot (In a medical sense)..
"This is what I would want done for me" and it has nothing to do with evil Nazi ethics, it is would an act of kindness, not an act of protracted cruelty, that was typical of Nazi evil philosophy, such as the Holocaust death camps.
I am appalled you make this silly connection and has nothing to with the dialogue going on relating to answering the question posed in this thread.
I also want to made this very clear here, it is my personal desire for someone to in mercy to "intervene for me" if I am at the very end of the Alzheimer's the worst state,where I am no longer in this body and all of my personality has left and all that remains is an empty shell.
That is not "Life" that is not"Living" that is meaningless existing a stone "Exists'
In that awful state of non-being, I would want them to turn off life support, or give me an overdose of barbiturates to put me out of my misery. Just in the same in the manner of kindness and love for my beloved pet dogs that I have had to do, so many times, tearfully and in sorrow and very reluctantly to put them down.
Many doctors actually "Help" their dying patients this way in a final act of kindness, even out of love and compassion for them.
Assisted suicide is crime in South Africa, where I live, actively killing someone out of mercy and even from the position of love, would still according to our law would equate to an act of murder.
Alan
-
In the entire 40 plus years of my career involving frequent contact with Alzheimer's patients I have never seen even one of them "suffer".
They may be frustrated that they can't go walkies and get into the traffic. That, however, does not begin to approach the condition of "suffering" in any rational mind.
If anybody is "suffering" it is the family members. That is life in the big city. Life is a [uh-oh!] and then you die. You have to learn to deal with that without killing other people because looking at them makes you feel sad.
If a person who is sane ( and not being coerced by "well-meaning" relatives to save money on treatment) chooses to suicide that is one thing.
Killing somebody who is not asking for it because looking at them makes you feel down in the dumps is quite another.
They send people to prison for that depravity.
This is an extremely unfortunate discussion. Someone reading it may come to a wrong conclusion about a family member's "suffering" and commit murder in the mistaken belief that they are being ethical.
I wouldn't want that on <<my>> conscience. Would you?
-
I just found an interesting video about AD and I'd like to share it here.
youtu.be/dWcdBOYy_bU
-
The claim is made here that an individual can decide that it is merciful to decide to euthanize an alzheimer's patient.
I will tell you why that is dangerous twaddle.
PRIMUS: If an individual can decide to kill someone without their consent out of "mercy", then why can't a government decide that it is mandatory to kill alzheimer's patients out of "mercy"?
SECONDUS: Bearing the events of the last month in mind, how long then before you would see some future Nigel Farage type creature driving a big red bus around the country with some message that 350 million pounds can be saved the NHS by mandatory euthanasia? After that what else? ALS? Mental retardation? Cerebral Palsy? How about if they only kill retarded people who "aren't British enough"?
When a health administrator tells you, "It's not about the money, it's about mercy" 9,999 times out of 10,000 you can bet the rent it's about the money.
Am I wrong? Would you like to bet the lives of your family on it? Because that's what it means to accept "mercy" killing of alzheimers patients in the <<real >> world -- not cloud cuckoo-cuckoo land.
-
In the entire 40 plus years of my career involving frequent contact with Alzheimer's patients I have never seen even one of them "suffer".
They may be frustrated that they can't go walkies and get into the traffic. That, however, does not begin to approach the condition of "suffering" in any rational mind.
If anybody is "suffering" it is the family members. That is life in the big city. Life is a [uh-oh!] and then you die. You have to learn to deal with that without killing other people because looking at them makes you feel sad.
If a person who is sane ( and not being coerced by "well-meaning" relatives to save money on treatment) chooses to suicide that is one thing.
Killing somebody who is not asking for it because looking at them makes you feel down in the dumps is quite another.
They send people to prison for that depravity.
This is an extremely unfortunate discussion. Someone reading it may come to a wrong conclusion about a family member's "suffering" and commit murder in the mistaken belief that they are being ethical.
I wouldn't want that on <<my>> conscience. Would you?
What you say makes me doubt what you say simply because people with Alzheimer's do suffer
https://www.quora.com/Are-people-suffering-from-Alzheimers-really-suffering-or-are-they-just-as-happy-as-anyone-else
Also quoted from various internet searched I did but due too the many links so I will just put the comments in quote form
…...
"If you divide the disease process of Alzheimer's and related dementia s into thirds- early, middle and late stages- what I have observed in over fifteen years of working with such folks is that the first stage- early dementia- is difficult for the person; one of the answers here describes it as hell, and that's probably close. There is something wrong, you know there is something wrong, you may even guess or be told what it is, over and over, but you cannot stop it, fix it or mitigate it. There is often denial among flashes of acceptance, "Oh, I forget things". This stage is hardest on the victim."
…...
"Edited on Sun Jun-06-04 07:56 PM by Argumentus
They know THE ENTIRE TIME that something is wrong with them, but they've lost the mental faculty to know exactly what or even to express themselves. In the latter days they scream because they cannot remember how to speak, or wipe their ass, or chew their own food. They do not know when a wife is speaking to soothe them (who the f___ is this lady touching me?) or know when their own child is speaking to them (why the f____ are these kids touching me?)."
"Mere words cannot express the horror I have seen in a grown man's eyes."
…...
"It is, without doubt, the most horrible way a person can die."work with Alzheimer's patients and it's the cruelest disease I have ever witnessed.”
…...
“In the beginning of the disease, they know what's going on and what's happening to them. "They are terrified." To watch a person slip into oblivion is just tragic.
In the end they lose their ability to walk, talk, and eat. They die. It's a slow death.”
“How did we feel?” they ask. “We remember the feeling of our collar tightening, voice faltering, palms sweating, and face blushing.” Then they call to our attention that “The person with Alzheimer’s disease is in a giant classroom every day, one in which he or she never has the exact answer.”
…...
“A lot of what we think about death and dying is based on the cancer model," says Dr. Stephen Post, professor in the department of bio-ethics at Case Western University School of Medicine. "Alzheimer's is a complicated and difficult disease." Late-stage AD is characterized by the inability to communicate by speech or recognize family members, the inability to move about without assistance, incontinence, loss of appetite, and loss of the ability to swallow, with death usually resulting from aspiration pneumonia, infection, or coronary arrest. On the average, the advanced stage of AD lasts 1.5 to 2 years, according to Dr. Post, though 20-30% of patients will "linger" 4, 5, 6, or even as long as 10 years, he says.”
…...
“Despite our best research efforts, Alzheimer's disease remains incurable. Researchers are using sophisticated technologies to pinpoint how AD progressively steals memories and destroys personality; and yet, AD remains irreversible. Although one does not die of Alzheimer's disease, during the course of the disease, the body's defense mechanisms ultimately weaken, increasing susceptibility to catastrophic infection and other causes of death related to frailty. At some point after the mind has been lost to this devastating disease, the body will be lost as well”.
artificial Feeding and Hydration
…...
https://www.quora.com/Are-people-suffering-from-Alzheimers-really-suffering-or-are-they-just-as-happy-as-anyone-else
…...
“I was sitting with Grandma B. when she suddenly grabbed my arm in total, abject terror and said in a voice that just chilled me, "I don't know who any of these people are." The look on her face could have broken any heart”.
…...
“As far as I can know from the outside, my mother seemed to be in great pain most of times... She looked like she was conscious enough to know she was off kilter and not conscious enough to stop it... Fits my definition of hell”...
…...
“First, to answer your question: people with Alz have good times, but the overwhelming majority of the time they are confused, upset and angry. So, Alz patients are not "just as happy as anyone else”
…...
“As noted, it depends. My MNL was quite happy following the little animals and talking to childhood friends for several years. Later, her thoughts turned dark and frightening. It was a blessing for her when she died”.
“After caring for my mother in her last month and watching the fear and uncertainty on her face, I cannot imagine anyone thinking that these poor souls could be happy.”
…...
How does all of this feel? Terrifying! I fear that I will lose my livelihood given that my career is one of being able to recall facts and figures and information. I fear losing memories of my life and the details of the years I have had with my son. Losing that which IS my life. To become utterly and hopelessly dependent on others when I have been the strong one, the one in charge for all these years.
“I promise you, I will not suffer this disease?”.
…...
“A close relative has this disease. Now while I can't speak for her personally, I can tell you my opinion based on experience seeing what she goes through. Confusion, frustration, feeling scared and lost... I can't imagine categorizing those things into "happiness"... although some people do feel these things who DON'T have Alzheimer's”.
Written Apr 8, 2015
…...
“This is the final stage of the disease when individuals lose the ability to respond to their environment, the ability to speak, and, ultimately, the ability to control movement.”
“Individuals lose the ability to walk without assistance, then the ability to sit without support, the ability to smile, and the ability to hold their head up. Reflexes become abnormal and muscles grow rigid. Swallowing is impaired.”
…...
“At the end of Alzheimer's the brain forgets how to make the body function. At first the voluntary functions go, and eventually the body "forgets" how to make the lungs or heart work.”
…...
“It doesn't happen overnight, and the process of slipping into the memory loss can be extremely depressing and demoralizing. Plus, most cases are not "TV happy" cases of "absent mindedness", but rather result in acute paranoia, or violent rage, or severe depression. In many cases, the body outlives the brain, so the patient must be restrained to prevent violence against family and caretakers”.
…...
“My dad's father had it, and he was something of a mix, but it was painful to see this brilliant man reduced to a shell of himself. He lasted a couple years with full-on Alzheimer's, but some (like Reagan) live much longer in a hellish limbo. My dad has said if he starts showing signs, to just leave a gun out where he can find it -- he'll know what to do.”
I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
They exist in a Kafkaesque nightmare.
“ Then as it gets worse there's confusion and fear much of the time. Every situation is unfamiliar and only the people that you're with literally all the time are familiar at all. By the end my uncle went into panic every time my aunt left the room. He didn't recognize his own kids by sight but was so dismayed when he was told who they were. He lost control of his bodily functions because he couldn't remember what you're supposed to do about those things. He had to ask what to do with dinner when it was served to him. He didn't remember how to eat or that he was supposed to eat, but through all that he was sentient. He was not a vegetable. He simply had lost every cognitive ability that's required to function. He knew it, too. He was deeply depressed through most of it.”
…...
“Some have horrible hallucinations, terrible fear, though a few lucky ones are happily demented. My mother died a year ago from it (and her mother and my FIL shortly before) and she was completely frozen and unable to move the last year. I am sure every time we moved her it probably hurt a great deal. Finally became unable to swallow and that is when she died. They suffer a lot of falls and when they are in pain they are unable to tell you if they are pretty far along. I would notice my mother's jaw swelling and know a tooth had abscessed or notice inflammation but she could not tell me or point it out. It's a hell of a way to go.”
I do not want to be kept alive as a dependent vegetable
Alan
-
I just want to clear up a point of confusion, the only acceptable way this positive act of final kindness to end the suffering of an Alzheimer victim, is if the ill person has made it very clear and specific, by asking to be euthanized, while they still have most of their mental faculties, and still able to make a rational decision, to those who love them to do this final act of compassion. Maybe a "Living Will"?
You could even say it would be suicide by proxy!
Not the random murder of with severely disabled people like the Nazi's, and the comparison to this evil by some members to what I am suggesting, is so far off the reality of what I really meant, that it makes me ill on the inside.
-
A " living will" is not and should never be considered sufficient grounds for euthanasia of patients who are now non compos mentis. Full stop.
If a patient has become too obtunded to eat or drink ( or even feel hunger or thirst) and medical intervention cannot restore their ability to do so, it is often the case that a feeding tube is discontinued and death proceeds naturally.
This is a very different matter than shooting them up with a lethal dose of seconal before they have reached that point in their lives. Life is too precious for that kind of "mercy".
That is the way hospice issues are handled in the real world.
All of this nonsense about "positive euthanasia" is uninformed twaddle by people who have not yet come to terms with end of life issues.
People who have spent their lives by distancing themselves as far as possible from the dying have not had time to think this out sufficiently.
They should not get a vote.
-
A " living will" is not and should never be considered sufficient grounds for euthanasia of patients who are now non compos mentis. Full stop.
If a patient has become too obtunded to eat or drink ( or even feel hunger or thirst) and medical intervention cannot restore their ability to do so, it is often the case that a feeding tube is discontinued and death proceeds naturally.
This is a very different matter than shooting them up with a lethal dose of seconal before they have reached that point in their lives. Life is too precious for that kind of "mercy".
That is the way hospice issues are handled in the real world.
All of this nonsense about "positive euthanasia" is uninformed twaddle by people who have not yet come to terms with end of life issues.
People who have spent their lives by distancing themselves as far as possible from the dying have not had time to think this out sufficiently.
They should not get a vote.
You obviously did not read the question posed in this thread correctly "I was not distancing myself from the reality of death" "I was/am addressing it head on"
Also your twisted logic in that it is OK to discontinue feeding them and maybe allowing them to die an awful slow death by starvation and thirst beats me?
"And yes life is precious" but an end stage victim is not living "but existing", which is a huge difference and I personally do not want your type of "Precious Life"?
While you insist in prolonging the life of someone who like me has made it very clear that I do not want "to exist" in this type of vegetative state even though made it very clear that I would want someone to put me out of my misery, "as I know you have most likely, done by putting down a beloved pet of yours, in an act of kindness to prevent it from further suffering".
But insist that a human does not have the same right as your pet animal.In which the disease has reduced the person down to the level of a non-thinking entity, that has become not much more than a suffering shell of a nonthinking animal themselves.
-
It would indeed be silly of me to argue with someone suffering from the delusion that he can usurp God's prerogative and take upon himself the decision of when somebody else should die. I am continuing this thread to highlight the nature of this pernicious and depraved argument.
Let us hope that this deranged idea is not wide-spread in the post modern brave new television world which has spawned this unfortunate twaddle.
Being new, this post-modern nonsense ignores the fact that people have been dying all by themselves ( thank you very much ) without the "merciful" assistance of this kind for (What's today?) 100,000 years. That is God's own business. Only a benighted post modern heathen would dare to deny that it is not.
Those others of us who still fear the wrath of God may recall that he has said...."Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
If someone wants to go about preaching their own gospel about their right to interfere with God's business that is their own affair and between them and God. Bad cess to it.
I prefer this variation of Pascal's wager --Whether or not God exists, life is better if you act like he does.
God is <<not>> mocked. For myself, as that old hymn goes, I will cling to the old rugged cross.
Now doubtless Mr. McDougal will pop in again to deliver another 500 words of the gospel according to McDougal. I will ask you this. if you find yourself on the judgement day explaining how you helped bump off a dozen or so senile and helpless old women, will your defense be, "McDougal said it was OK"?
-
It would indeed be silly of me to argue with someone suffering from the delusion that he can usurp God's prerogative and take upon himself the decision of when somebody else should die. I am continuing this thread to highlight the nature of this pernicious and depraved argument.
Let us hope that this deranged idea is not wide-spread in the post modern brave new television world which has spawned this unfortunate twaddle.
Being new, this post-modern nonsense ignores the fact that people have been dying all by themselves ( thank you very much ) without the "merciful" assistance of this kind for (What's today?) 100,000 years. That is God's own business. Only a benighted post modern heathen would dare to deny that it is not.
Those others of us who still fear the wrath of God may recall that he has said...."Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
If someone wants to go about preaching their own gospel about their right to interfere with God's business that is their own affair and between them and God. Bad cess to it.
I prefer this variation of Pascal's wager --Whether or not God exists, life is better if you act like he does.
God is <<not>> mocked. For myself, as that old hymn goes, I will cling to the old rugged cross.
Now doubtless Mr. McDougal will pop in again to deliver another 500 words of the gospel according to McDougal. I will ask you this. if you find yourself on the judgement day explaining how you helped bump off a dozen or so senile and helpless old women, will your defense be, "McDougal said it was OK"?
Not so and you brought religion into the topic, just to clarify again this is what "I would want to happen to me" I do not speak for the rest of humanity Period!
And I am finished posting in this thread I have made my point and accept the critique, but it is not a depraved idea at all, but based on human mercy towards another.
Finally it is OK for God to kill " I dare you to read Numbers 31" the whole Chapter and tell me that is a merciful God that holds all life precious?
Alan
-
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs our opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)
Sometimes the Truth is surrounded by a circumference of lies and deception, but even then the Truth remains the Truth unchanged by anything.
Jesus stood before Pontius Pilot who asked him "What is Truth' Not knowing the very essence of Truth Stood in front of him.
Pilot washed his hands and gave up Jesus to the mob, now he has to wash his hands forever in hell!
Alan
-
Mr. McDougal enjoys a much more sanquine view of human nature than those of us who have observed the popularity of Donald Trump or Nigel Farage.
Mercy killing may be appropriate under certain strict ethical guidelines on a case by case basis decided by objective committees free of financial considerations...and always with informed consent by mentally competent patients.
Anything less than that criterion is an invitation to <<another>> general slaughter of the innocents.
-
It would indeed be silly of me to argue with someone suffering from the delusion that he can usurp God's prerogative and take upon himself the decision of when somebody else should die. I am continuing this thread to highlight the nature of this pernicious and depraved argument.
Let us hope that this deranged idea is not wide-spread in the post modern brave new television world which has spawned this unfortunate twaddle.
Being new, this post-modern nonsense ignores the fact that people have been dying all by themselves ( thank you very much ) without the "merciful" assistance of this kind for (What's today?) 100,000 years. That is God's own business. Only a benighted post modern heathen would dare to deny that it is not.
Those others of us who still fear the wrath of God may recall that he has said...."Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
If someone wants to go about preaching their own gospel about their right to interfere with God's business that is their own affair and between them and God. Bad cess to it.
I prefer this variation of Pascal's wager --Whether or not God exists, life is better if you act like he does.
God is <<not>> mocked. For myself, as that old hymn goes, I will cling to the old rugged cross.
Now doubtless Mr. McDougal will pop in again to deliver another 500 words of the gospel according to McDougal. I will ask you this. if you find yourself on the judgement day explaining how you helped bump off a dozen or so senile and helpless old women, will your defense be, "McDougal said it was OK"?
God shmod. What would your answer be in reality? If you took god out of the equation, since it doesn't exist and will therefore be unable to ever judge you for your decisions, what would your answer be then? Are you able to think of the OP's question in objective terms and answer it in such a capacity? I'd be interested in seeing your opinion under those terms, if you didn't have to fear anyone's wrath lol.
Only a benighted post modern heathen would dare to deny that it is not.
---proud to be a heathen and member of the advanced further evolved intellect of tomorrow.
-
Zinoviev himself couldn't have put the case for atheism better....right up to the time he was executed as a left deviationist along with Kamenev. Maybe you have heard of that? (Maybe not)
But you post modern television culture wallahs are all better than that.. Aren't you, young feller me lad?
Take care that you don't end up "sneezing into the basket" for being an ill-feckit "social parasite". Or perhaps they'll just pack you off to some GULAG on Baffin Island.
Here's a picture from a recent time when people bought your "wisdom"..
-
Zinoviev himself couldn't have put the case for atheism better....right up to the time he was executed as a left deviationist along with Kamenev. Maybe you have heard of that? (Maybe not)
But you post modern television culture wallahs are all better than that.. Aren't you, young feller me lad?
Take care that you don't end up "sneezing into the basket" for being an ill-feckit "social parasite". Or perhaps they'll just pack you off to some GULAG on Baffin Island.
Here's a picture from a recent time when people bought your "wisdom"..
The case for atheism is merely intellect and mental strength. The intellect to realize how nonsensical religion on its face is, how silly, if you actually zoomed back from the earth, the thought of jesus ascending to 'heaven' was, when he actually would've been flying sideways, how also if you zoom wayyyy out from the earth, and keep going, how silly it is to imagine that this blue dot by this dot of a star, in this galaxy that also becomes a dot, that then is just but an insignificant nothing in a universe of hundreds of billions of them, that this dot has some entity around it listening to all its inhabitant's prayers and guiding them and judging them after they die blah blah blah. And mentally strong enough to be able to handle the very straightforward and simple concept that this life is all we have and that we are ultimately completely on our own, that we are strong enough to not need that magical man in the sky, that best friend who is always there listening, that entity there to give us warm fuzzy feelings of unconditional love. Mentally strong enough to not need some created by man entity to be the source of that strength. Strong enough to accept that the baby died in the fiery wreck not cause it was the magical man's will, but because simply it was in a car that slammed head on into a truck, and crap happens, and circumstance happens, and it is what it is. We're intelligent enough to believe in science, reality and fact and strong enough to handle what comes our way without needing the crutch of religion. And we're decent enough to abide by almost the same moral code not because we fear the magical man in the sky nor fear being judged by it, but instead because we simply are intelligent to know what's right all on our own. And we're decent enough to not harshly judge entire sections of people because some human decided to write in a book that such people were to be condemned. Instead our moral code is stronger, more superior, and more decent. As we treat all humans with the same kindness and care they deserve. We don't need to be told who is worthy and who is not. We're intelligent and decent enough to know that all humans no matter what deserve that respect.
Atheism is a sign of a more evolved and advanced intellect, and it is also the way of the future. It is taking hold more and more but will still be more than likely a few centuries or more before enough evolution has taken place for the intellect to take hold across a greater spectrum and thereby eradicate the biggest stain on humanity, which is the concept of religion, of this magic man in the sky, of this intellectual crutch.
Long live science, fact and reality!
-
Life is not precious. Ask Tony B Liar, or any other politician. Or any priest who ever sanctioned a crusade or pogrom, or poured holy water on a tank. Or any soldier, or weapon designer. Or anyone who has ever invoked the blessing of the Almighty, or considered that he was doing God's work, or stated that he was protecting the nation, by killing others. Other people's lives are disposable if they are politically inconvenient.
God certainly doesn't ascribe much value to the lives of those he kills with plagues and earthquakes, nor of the newborns with congenital syphilis, nor of the stillborn. So let's get away from such fairytale drivel and consider the wishes and suffering of those whom we choose to care about, including ourselves.
When life becomes intolerable, you can kill yourself. Why should this most basic human right be denied to those who are not physically capable of doing it? It is, after all, illegal to discriminate against physical incapacity in work, leisure, commerce, sex, free speech....so why not in the one decision and overwhelmingly desirable activity that affects nobody else? As I said earlier, enlightened legislatures don't have a problem with assisted suicide, and anyone who votes against it should be subjected to endless torture in order to prove his point, just as every engineer makes the first test flight or drive across the new bridge.
The problem only arises where we are asked to assess the pain and suffering of someone who can't express it for himself. My feeling on this subject is that, once we learn to ignore the fairytale drivel and superstition of religious parasites, we can begin to set down objective criteria for human euthanasia just as we do routinely for other species.
-
The problem only arises where we are asked to assess the pain and suffering of someone who can't express it for himself. My feeling on this subject is that, once we learn to ignore the fairytale drivel and superstition of religious parasites, we can begin to set down objective criteria for human euthanasia just as we do routinely for other species.
Hear hear to that! Great points throughout your entire post and very, very well thought out. I appreciated all of it! But this part especially is just so completely spot on, and really just totally hits the nail on the head in relation to the debate. We have much intellect that can be found within the members of our species. It shouldn't be that hard for those minds to come up with rational and objective criteria for such situations. Fully agreed.
-
Life is not precious. Ask Tony B Liar, or any other politician. Or any priest who ever sanctioned a crusade or pogrom, or poured holy water on a tank. Or any soldier, or weapon designer. Or anyone who has ever invoked the blessing of the Almighty, or considered that he was doing God's work, or stated that he was protecting the nation, by killing others. Other people's lives are disposable if they are politically inconvenient.
God certainly doesn't ascribe much value to the lives of those he kills with plagues and earthquakes, nor of the newborns with congenital syphilis, nor of the stillborn. So let's get away from such fairytale drivel and consider the wishes and suffering of those whom we choose to care about, including ourselves.
When life becomes intolerable, you can kill yourself. Why should this most basic human right be denied to those who are not physically capable of doing it? It is, after all, illegal to discriminate against physical incapacity in work, leisure, commerce, sex, free speech....so why not in the one decision and overwhelmingly desirable activity that affects nobody else? As I said earlier, enlightened legislatures don't have a problem with assisted suicide, and anyone who votes against it should be subjected to endless torture in order to prove his point, just as every engineer makes the first test flight or drive across the new bridge.
The problem only arises where we are asked to assess the pain and suffering of someone who can't express it for himself. My feeling on this subject is that, once we learn to ignore the fairytale drivel and superstition of religious parasites, we can begin to set down objective criteria for human euthanasia just as we do routinely for other species.
Alan, at last, some who understands what I was trying to convey in that euthanasia for a person with end stage Alzheimers would put an end to their suffering and suffering of all those who have to watch their loved one decay to the level of a vegetable. It would be an act of kindness and mercy, not murder.
We do this for our beloved animals but not allow same kindness towards a human One member said life is precious and yes life is but an end stage Alzheimer victim does not have a precious life but the meaningless existence of the walking dead.
Their logic is that only God can decide when life should end and by this , meaning it is OK for God to kill the sufferer, but not those who have loved them in life as a final act of love and mercy.
Withhold this final act of mercy from a human being, but say it is an act of mercy and love when we very reluctantly have to put down a beloved pet, as I am sure all of us had to do with tears of sorrow flowing down our cheeks.
I asked them to read Numbers Chapter 31 and then rationalise their position, that at all cost we must keep a person alive regardless of their unspeakable suffering and come back and tell me if the God of that chapter of the bible is a God of love and mercy . "No response was received and that seemed to put an end to their religious rhetoric"
"If you take the position that God exists, then I am positive he would agree and would approve" ( but not the God of their perception).
Regards
Alan
-
So much twaddle and so little knowledge to support such hubris.
Crux sacra sit mihi lux
Non draco sit mihi dux
Vade retro satana
Numquam suade mihi vana
Sunt mala quae libas
Ipse venena bibas
If this is an example of what an Oxbridge education produces, give me a graduate of a redbrick university every time.
If anyone here doubts that the devil exists then let them read the Chilcot report
-
So much twaddle and so little knowledge to support such hubris.
Crux sacra sit mihi lux
Non draco sit mihi dux
Vade retro satana
Numquam suade mihi vana
Sunt mala quae libas
Ipse venena bibas
If this is an example of what an Oxbridge education produces, give me a graduate of a redbrick university every time.
If anyone here doubts that the devil exists then let them read the Chilcot report
You brought religion into the topic so you must defend that position in a rational way!
I believe in the devil and it it is he that wants to prolong human suffering.
Come back to me after reading Numbers chapter 31 which I will include below for your convenience "God" in this chapter really reminds me of Adolf Hitler, here he commands of the genocide of a whole race of people indeed a prime case of ethnic cleansing.
"'You know who 'God reminds me of in this chapter Adolf Hitler
I do not, however, believe the entity commanding Moes was Almighty God its attributes we those of Satan
Numbers 31
(31:1-40)
(The Midianite massacre: Have you saved all the women alive?)
Under God's direction, Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males but take the women and children captive.
When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive?
Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.)
(Is it wrong to commit adultery?)
God's 26th Killing
(31:1) "The LORD spake unto Moses, saying,"
(31:2) "Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites."
(31:7) "As the Lord commanded Moses ... they slew all the males."
Did the Israelites kill every male in Midian?
(31:8) "And they slew the ... five kings of Midian ... Balaam also ... they slew with the sword."
(31:9) "The children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives and their little ones."
(31:10) "And they burnt all their cities."
31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
31:14 And Moses were wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. (31:14) "Moses was wroth with the officers"
(31:15) "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?"
Was Moses meek?
(What the Bible says rape and abortion)
(31:17) "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him."
(31:18) "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
What the Bible says about Pedophilia
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
31:17 Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
31:19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
31:20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.
31:21 And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the LORD commanded Moses;
31:22 Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
31:23 Everything that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean: nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water.
31:24 And ye shall wash your clothes on the seventh day, and ye shall be clean, and afterward ye shall come into the camp.
31:25 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:
(31:26) "Take ... the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast,"
31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: (31:27) "And divide the prey into two parts."
31:28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep: (31:28) "And levy a tribute unto the Lord ... both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep."
31:29 Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for a heave offering of the LORD. (31:29) "Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for a heave offering of the LORD."
(Included in this "heave offering" were 16 of the 32 virgins in God's "booty".)
(Does God approve of human sacrifice?)
31:30 And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.
31:31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.
31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, (31:32) "And the booty,"
31:33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,
31:34 And threescore and one thousand asses,
31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known a man by lying with him. (31:35) "Thirty and two thousand ... women that had not known a man by lying with him."
31:36 And a half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:
31:37 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep were six hundred and threescore and fifteen.
31:38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve.
31:39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one.
31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.
31:41 And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD's heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses.
31:42 And of the children of Israel's half, which Moses divided from the men that warred,
31:43 (Now the half that pertained unto the congregation was three hundred thousand and thirty thousand and seven thousand and five hundred sheep,
31:44 And thirty and six thousand beeves,
31:45 And thirty thousand asses and five hundred,
31:46 And sixteen thousand persons;)
31:47 Even of the children of Israel's half, Moses took one portion of fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, which kept the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD; as the LORD commanded Moses.
31:48 And the officers which were over thousands of the host, the captains of thousands, and captains of hundreds, came near unto Moses:
31:49 And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us.
31:50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.
31:51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.
31:52 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.
31:53 (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself.)
31:54 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of the captains of thousands and of hundreds, and brought it into the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD.
-
Very well.
Mr T.S. Elliot summed up you and your pathetically manque friends here Mr. McDougal far beyond my ability. Here you go, Bub....
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
--There is more but it would be wasted on your sort. This will do to show what is underneath your braggadocio. Not for you, but for anyone else with the perspicacity to see the fear and despair that is pricking at you. so hard.
Yes, I was, fortunately raised in the Christian religion. I guess my favorite hymn is "There is a balm in Gilead".
Perhaps you might seek out the version by Mahalia Jackson. It might do you good --if you can get up the gumption to listen to it. It is on youtube. It starts out, "There is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole.."
It really is a powerful hymn. I just listened to it and it has removed most of the taint one feels in corresponding with you.
-
Very well.
Mr T.S. Elliot summed up you and your pathetically manque friends here Mr. McDougal far beyond my ability. Here you go, Bub....
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us—if at all—not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
--There is more but it would be wasted on your sort. This will do to show what is underneath your braggadocio. Not for you, but for anyone else with the perspicacity to see the fear and despair that is pricking at you. so hard.
Yes, I was, fortunately raised in the Christian religion. I guess my favorite hymn is "There is a balm in Gilead".
Perhaps you might seek out the version by Mahalia Jackson. It might do you good --if you can get up the gumption to listen to it. It is on youtube. It starts out, "There is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole.."
It really is a powerful hymn. I just listened to it and it has removed most of the taint one feels in corresponding with you.
""Stop ducking and diving and avoiding my question"" please rationalist the appalling cruelty through the command of "God" albeit by proxy through his agent Moses, as reflected in the Book of Numbers chapter 31?
Which I conveniently put in the previous post of for you to defend your kind, merciful God of love, whom you say informs you that all life is precious.
Just one example out of that appalling chapter, why then did this "God' command Moses to kill (murder??) all the Little Boys , why??????????
(The ill person does not have to read this or respond in this topic, if it offends his sensitivities and this is not directed at him)
-
I would say that the question in the op has merit, but that the answer is much better derived by using medical fact and a meeting of the minds to use intellect, logic and reasoning to determine the guidelines. And that such a process would have far more merit than using a fictional book written by a bunch of people thousands of years ago or using the fictional quotes that were never spoken in real life as a basis for argument one way or another as to how we should approach such a very real and sensitive topic. Using real life, and real circumstance, combined with the critical thinking skills, logic and reasoning of real people,would be far more relevant. As a species, we are more than capable enough, more than intellectual enough, to derive the answers to this complex issue without the need to consult a work of fiction with made up quotes for assistance. Using our own minds with the most current information and facts at our fingertips and our own problem solving ability and our own awareness of all the factors at stake is far more valuable than fictional advice written by some random dude thousands of years ago.
-
Upon reflection, I have begun to think that liberalizing the laws around euthanasia may be appropriate in England.
Based upon the evidence displayed in this thread, if the people of England choose to autodarwinate in this manner -- it may well be an act of God.
Weave a circle round them thrice and close your eyes in holy dread.
-
Upon reflection, I have begun to think that liberalizing the laws around euthanasia may be appropriate in England.
Based upon the evidence displayed in this thread, if the people of England choose to autodarwinate in this manner -- it may well be an act of God.
Weave a circle round them thrice and close your eyes in holy dread.
You brought religion and God into this thread but simply will not answer my question about Numbers 31 because you know it paints God as a merciless depraved psychopath of the likes of Hitler.
Simply answer this is the 'God" of Numbers 31 the one you serve, if so people should be very scared of you because you will have inherited his attributes in the process.
-
Upon reflection, I have begun to think that liberalizing the laws around euthanasia may be appropriate in England.
Based upon the evidence displayed in this thread, if the people of England choose to autodarwinate in this manner -- it may well be an act of God.
Weave a circle round them thrice and close your eyes in holy dread.
You brought religion and God into this thread but simply will not answer my question about Numbers 31 because you know it paints God as a merciless depraved psychopath of the likes of Hitler.
Simply answer this is the 'God" of Numbers 31 the one you serve, if so people should be very scared of you because you will have inherited his attributes in the process.
With the caveat that it's all a work of fiction anyway thereby making it all irrelevant, just for sake of curiosity under what possible interpretation does that part of the Bible cease to be the word of God? Why? Merely because you don't like how it paints it? Technically, if one chooses to believe in the fiction, that was the word of God same as any other part. For someone who believes, I'd think they'd realize they don't have the ability to declare what God said and didn't, as if they're a prophet. But instead would have to adhere to the word of God in the Bible. After all, that's how it works no? So technically, whether you like it or not, you serve that very same god you compare to Hitler. The very same god. No scholar argues that numbers 31 wasn't the same god, its commands. Its brutal, hitleresque commands. Yes, that's the same god you serve, no matter whether you try and deny his sometimes evil, selfish, arrogant, narcissistic, brutal, murderous ways. Same god. Numbers 31 was its commands. No scholar argues otherwise.
But again, it's all made up anyway, so I guess you're free to also make up whatever other parts you want. I was answering more under the terms of the theoretical circumstances of the book being real, as so many believe, and therefore the rules and reality that go along with that. Do you not agree that pretty much all religious scholars would agree it was gods command?
-
Gentle Readers,
The people advocating "positive euthanasia" here apparently wouldn't know a line from Coleridge if it kicked them in the arse.
Are <<these>> new men the people who are qualified to decide matters of life and death among these dark satanic mills?
-
Invoking Blake to describe modern England? Try John Cooper Clarke.
-
euthanasia for a person with end stage Alzheimers would put an end to their suffering
Agreed, obviously.
and suffering of all those who have to watch their loved one decay
Absolutely excluded from my scheme of ethics.
I don't care how many tears are shed by the pre-grieving relatives, nor whether they are genuine tears of compassion or tears of frustration as granny hangs on and fritters her estate away on "care". The only person whose wishes and feelings matter, is the patient. The moment you admit a third party interest into the proceedings, you are opening the door to corruption.
-
"There is a balm in Gilead to make the wounded whole.."
It really is a powerful hymn. I just listened to it and it has removed most of the taint one feels in corresponding with you.
But have you ever seen the balm working? This is, after all, a science forum.
And if the wound is caused by one of God's charming creations, how does it decide whether the host or the parasite should live?
-
I have, indeed, seen the "balm of Gilead" working.
Mr. Calverd, you and your friends here have made it abundantly clear that you lack the rudimentary spiritual resources of the Neanderthals.
In consequence, the vicissitudes of life give you all an aggravated case of the chronic collywobbles. You all cover this up with a load of flippant and supercilious smartass as a compensation for your profound despair.
I have spent over 40 years in medicine. Nobody can do that without gaining knowledge of the divine mysteries of life. One gains that knowledge through dealing with the harsh realities of life that you "scientific" wallahs lack the spittle for.
" The world of dew
is the world of dew.
And yet, and yet--"
Kobayashi Issa
-
JeffreyH
John Cooper Clarke, eh?
Saw him on "Pointless Celebrities" or was it "Never Mind the Buzzcocks".
Comparing him to William Blake highlights the silly and feckless inanity of contemporary England. It has been said by many ( and who can blame them? ) that what is left are the tired dregs of the gene pool. That the vitality of England has long since escaped it's class-ridden, xenophobic nonsense to Canada, Australia and America.
I, myself, hope that is not the case, but those hopes are not enhanced by reading the examples of current English thought in this thread. [Sigh] John Cooper Clarke, indeed.
Well, I will nae fash about it. Hope springs eternal. Let's see what John Oliver or Dara O'Brien have to say about it this week.
PS: If anyone knows where I can get an ebook copy of "Goodbye to all that", I would be very grateful to hear of it.
-
I have, indeed, seen the "balm of Gilead" working.
Mr. Calverd, you and your friends here have made it abundantly clear that you lack the rudimentary spiritual resources of the Neanderthals.
In consequence, the vicissitudes of life give you all an aggravated case of the chronic collywobbles. You all cover this up with a load of flippant and supercilious smartass as a compensation for your profound despair.
I have spent over 40 years in medicine. Nobody can do that without gaining knowledge of the divine mysteries of life. One gains that knowledge through dealing with the harsh realities of life that you "scientific" wallahs lack the spittle for.
" The world of dew
is the world of dew.
And yet, and yet--"
Kobayashi Issa
Atheism and science are the way of the future... It's where every evolved intelligent species will ultimately end up. Some of us are just a little more ahead of our time. But in due time we'll be in the mega majority. All good things in due time.
As an aside, you might not want to be so quick to launch personal attacks against a mod though. After all, on this site, they're your god lol.
-
If Mr. Calverd or any of the moderators here think they are my God, then it is time one of their friends took them out back and set them straight.
Mr. Calverd had the temerity to mock my religion. I hope either you or he lives to see the day that I would abide such insufferable behavior and tug my forelock and remain silent.
Gentlemen, even Gentlemen in England, even atheistic Gentlemen in England, do not do that. It is not admirable. It is, in fact, pure Jeremy Clarkson style beneath-the-salt gaucherie.
I am well aware of England's current intolerance of dissenting voices. If I cannot discuss this matter without having my religious beliefs ridiculed by some "scientific" unholy and profane "gentleman" then this forum can take its phony imposture of "civility" and blow it out its phony, ridiculous, and atheistic nose.
Finally, as to your brave new atheistic world, Mr. High Pockets....Winter is coming.
-
If Mr. Calverd or any of the moderators here think they are my God, then it is time one of their friends took them out back and set them straight.
Mr. Calverd had the temerity to mock my religion. I hope either you or he lives to see the day that I would abide such insufferable behavior and tug my forelock and remain silent.
Gentlemen, even Gentlemen in England, even atheistic Gentlemen in England, do not do that. It is not admirable. It is, in fact, pure Jeremy Clarkson style beneath-the-salt gaucherie.
I am well aware of England's current intolerance of dissenting voices. If I cannot discuss this matter without having my religious beliefs ridiculed by some "scientific" unholy and profane "gentleman" then this forum can take its phony imposture of "civility" and blow it out its phony, ridiculous, and atheistic nose.
Finally, as to your brave new atheistic world, Mr. High Pockets....Winter is coming.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
“In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns.
If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"?
Moses claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Now be brave and?
"Then stand up and defend your religion" and at least, tell all of us why it is OK for "God" to murder little innocent boys and commit genocide against he Midianite people by proxy though kind gentle Moses as depicted in Numbers 31, or keep quite and let the other members debate the subject from an ethical scientific perceptive?
Getting back to the subject of the thread I think euthanasia should only be used of those who have made it very clear while still in control of all their mental faculties that it is their expressed wish that this final act of love and mercy be done for them when they no longer have the means to do it for themselves.
One could say it would be an act of "Assisted suicide by proxy .
Not running around murdering people with disabilities like our religious member keeps on telling us that is what we are suggesting!
-
Mr. Calverd, you and your friends here have made it abundantly clear that you lack the rudimentary spiritual resources of the Neanderthals.
...a group whose skills in medicine and warfare resulted in their complete annihilation. And since they left no written record, I might challenge your presumption of their spiritual values.
I have spent over 40 years in medicine.
Me too. There's nothing like experience to make you doubt the existence of benign fairies.
Mr. Calverd had the temerity to mock my religion.
Not just yours, and not merely mock. Most faiths demand the abrogation of moral responsibility and intellectual honesty. I find that disgusting.
-
“In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns.
If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"?
Moses claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god.
I didn't realize that entire part was plagiarized from another site (http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html (http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html)). You probably would want to give credit when you do that to the originating site, lest the words be taken as your own. But regardless, it was ironic that the very site you got it from devotes the whole page to actually dissecting that quote and tearing it to shreds in a very detailed way, and go on to give their assessment of what the real reasons were for. It was interesting reading actually.
"Then stand up and defend your religion" and at least, tell all of us why it is OK for "God" to murder little innocent boys and commit genocide against he Midianite people by proxy
First, it's the same religion and same god as yours, and the same moses. I would ask you to stand up and defend the same.
Because it is not ok for 'god' to murder innocent anyone. The sad part is god is fictional and can't murder to begin with. The problem is man committing these disgusting acts of murder in the name of this false creature. Time and time and time again, murdering in the creature's name. It's disgusting. It's why it's laughable that atheists are the ones looked at as immoral, or needing moral guidance from the ignorantly religious. So much death and destruction throughout history in the name of the false creature. The last thing atheists need is moral guidance from a group of people who have throughout history been responsible for so many disgusting crimes against humanity.
But again, this example of above is from the same bible and supposed orders from the same creature and same moses that you worship. How do you defend it?
But those are just more rhetorical questions, since I guess technically a bible study class isn't what I'm on this site for. Just couldn't help but see the irony in your questions.
through kind gentle Moses as depicted in Numbers 31
Apparently, he was neither kind nor gentle lol
Getting back to the subject of the thread I think euthanasia should only be used of those who have made it very clear while still in control of all their mental faculties that it is their expressed wish that this final act of love and mercy be done for them when they no longer have the means to do it for themselves.
I very much agree with that.
-
Mr. Calverd had the temerity to mock my religion. I hope either you or he lives to see the day that I would abide such insufferable behavior and tug my forelock and remain silent.
He did so with absolute legitimacy. I commend him greatly for it.
Gentlemen, even Gentlemen in England, even atheistic Gentlemen in England, do not do that. It is not admirable. It is, in fact, pure Jeremy Clarkson style beneath-the-salt gaucherie.
I honestly couldn't care less about england or gentlemen. What I know is that it's long overdue for atheists to finally come out of the woodwork and no longer be scared of declaring their stance, for it is the true admirable one. It is a position of evolved intellect and solid moral foundation. It is a position we should be proud of and should no longer allow the religious nuts, those who suffer from immorality with their false judgments, from judging us, shaming us and making us feel like second class citizens. I've decided I no longer will, and not only that, but that I will speak up and no longer allow religion to go unchallenged, to just have an 'ehh, it's ok for people to believe if they want" type stance. Not when religion is the biggest stain on humanity, its most tragic flaw, its greatest sign of ignorance, and what is responsible for so much death, destruction, pain, immoral judgment, bias, politics, bullying, denial of science, and roadblocks to advancement as a society. It's time for the intellectuals to take the world back, and help to eradicate it from the stain and ignorance of religion. It's time as a race that we move into the future, now having enough science and knowledge at our fingertips to no longer have to ascribe to the ignorance of the past, the archaic way of thinking, that things need to be attributed to some ridiculous deity. We shouldn't hide anymore, should feel shame in standing up and shouting out "Everyone, wake up! Science rules the universe, your life is your own, things happen cause they do, stop doing things in the name of a creature that doesn't exist, stop judging based on a book written by man and stories made up just the same! Use your heads, and logic and science and fact and reasoning to guide you, not this made up book and in the name of the made up creature! Use your actual brains, and insight and awareness instead! Be brainwashed no more!" Yes, that is most definitely the admirable thing to do; for us, for society, for the planet.
And what's wrong with Jeremy Clarkson? I adore this quote by him:
" I genuinely believe we are born with a moral compass and we don't need it reset every Sunday morning by some weird-beard communist in a dress. I am, as you may have gathered, completely unreligious, but it doesn't stop me trying to be kind to others, and I'm never completely overwhelmed with a need to murder madmen in pulpits. Slightly overwhelmed sometimes, but never completely. Morally, the world would be no worse if religion were abolished. Practically, it would be much, much better. And so, given the choice of which we should give up, God or the patio heater, the choice is simple" -Jeremy Clarkson
I am well aware of England's current intolerance of dissenting voices. If I cannot discuss this matter without having my religious beliefs ridiculed by some "scientific" unholy and profane "gentleman" then this forum can take its phony imposture of "civility" and blow it out its phony, ridiculous, and atheistic nose.
This is a site of science. There is nothing scientific about religion. This is a site of intellect. There is nothing intellectual about religion. So I for one, am all for it being mocked. But I believe it had still been done with civility.
Finally, as to your brave new atheistic world, Mr. High Pockets....Winter is coming.
Nah... Still much summer left to go. But look at the numbers... Year by year atheism is growing. Because as a species we're evolving. Because our knowledge is growing. Because the next generation is waking up and realizing how silly religion is. And advancement always takes time. But it's happening. And a few generations from now we'll be in the majority, and centuries from now the world will be ruled by intellect, not religion. That is the ultimate fate of all intellectual advancing races. I can practically guarantee that if an advanced alien race visited us that they would not be part of any religious cult, but instead would be ruled by intellect.
But I should probably end the religious debate here. But I guess it's all tied in to the OP, since so many would protest the quite humane allowance of assisted suicide in such situations merely on the basis of ignorant religion. That's why it needs to be completely removed from the equation. So that real morality combined with actual intellect can be used in the decision making.
-
“I should have thought,” said the officer as he visualized the search
before him, “I should have thought that a pack of British boys—you’re all
British, aren’t you?—would have been able to put up a better show than
that—I mean—”
-- Lord of the Flies
-
“I should have thought,” said the officer as he visualized the search
before him, “I should have thought that a pack of British boys—you’re all
British, aren’t you?—would have been able to put up a better show than
that—I mean—”
-- Lord of the Flies
What the heck is your obsession with the british? I'm so confused lol.
-
IAMREALITY
I plagiarized nothing just copied something identical to what I wrote out of my own head I was so desperately trying to get over "in different wording" to get him to address the appalling cruelty as depicted in Numbers 31
No one would be interested in the link other than you who tries to find fault in everything I do or say, stop it for 'Gods sake"
Please stop trying to make trouble between us again , we have managed a few posts without it until this latest post of yours.
Alan
-
IAMREALITY
I plagiarized nothing just copied something identical to what I wrote out of my own head I was so desperately trying to get over "in different wording" to get him to address the appalling cruelty as depicted in Numbers 31
No one would be interested in the link other than you who tries to find fault in everything I do or say, stop it for 'Gods sake"
Please stop trying to make trouble between us again , we have managed a few posts without it until this latest post of yours.
Alan
I believe it is you finding fault here. I hadn't known those words weren't yours. When I suddenly found them on the page I had just clicked on (simple search of "moses midianites"), it surprised me. That's why I gave the advice that you should make it clear when words aren't your own. The link was provided as I had found the actual rebuttal of that very quote you posted as interesting. Thought others might as well. Hell, you even might've, if you actually read it. But I'm fairly certain that the including of a link caused you no personal harm.
You also call out the other poster to defend his creature. I found it an interesting request being that it is the same creature as the one you worship, and what is referenced is the same disgusting story found in the same book and same religion as the one you worship, so I figured the demand to defend should apply to you just the same. I'm not sure why it wouldn't, nor why that would be 'causing trouble' instead of an actual, logical, reasonable and based on the merits request. Was your only intention to 'cause trouble' to Eeyore? Or do you feel it had been a legitimate request? Do you accuse yourself of the same?
-
Gentle Readers,
It was asked of me why I am "obsessed" with the British.
If I am obsessed with anything it is the depraved, specious contention that a valid case may be made for murdering Alzheimer's patients.
I am all too aware of this forum's de facto policy of disappearing anybody who disagrees effectively with the "scientific" cant of the honorable "hero Members". A glance through the threads of this forum will show this to be the case. Where are the dissenting voices of yesteryear?
Such a question as "mercy killing" of the infirm has not existed outside of extremist nut jobs on this planet since the fall of Berlin in 1945.
It speaks to the shame of modern Britain that it is now promulgated here in this government funded new-speak forum for three pages....so far.
J' accuse.
-
Gentle Readers,
It was asked of me why I am "obsessed" with the British.
If I am obsessed with anything it is the depraved, specious contention that a valid case may be made for murdering Alzheimer's patients.
I am all too aware of this forum's de facto policy of disappearing anybody who disagrees effectively with the "scientific" cant of the honorable "hero Members". A glance through the threads of this forum will show this to be the case. Where are the dissenting voices of yesteryear?
Such a question as "mercy killing" of the infirm has not existed outside of extremist nut jobs on this planet since the fall of Berlin in 1945.
It speaks to the shame of modern Britain that it is now promulgated here in this government funded new-speak forum for three pages....so far.
J' accuse.
Though much of what you say is not readily coherent, what I can say is that I've seen plenty of dissenting voices here. Furthermore, this is a science based forum, with its roots, in, ya know, science.. You can throw in facts, logic, critical thinking skills and reasoning into that mix as well. That's why religion doesn't fit so much, but I digress. But still, I find it perfectly reasonable that the administrators of this site would want topics and discussion to revolve around those tenets... It just, I dunno, makes sense?
As far as your twisting of the OP to being murder, into the horrors of germany, and relegated to extremist nut jobs, is just beyond the pale. No, that is not what is being discussed here. But instead, the perfectly reasonable, sane, humane and decent topic of whether law should allow for the assisted suicide of those suffering from the horrors of severe alzheimers, for those that willingly would choose such a fate. Twisting it in such the way you did only makes you appear as an extremist, not us.
...and I still have no idea what your obsession with the british is all about.
-
For sake of the spirit of the thread, I agree that Alzheimers is horrible due to what it does to a person, diminishing them to merely a shell of themselves, their minds almost no longer present at all. And it takes a lifetime of pride, of one putting effort into themselves to come across best they can, present themselves best they can, to grow as a person best they can and to hold their heads high through good times and bad best they can, and reduces them to something they'd be so ashamed of or embarrassed of if they had their wits about them (though it's not their fault and there is no shame!).
I for one, would most certainly be grateful to my loved ones for sparing me from such a fate. No, Alan, I would not want to end my days under the horrors of that disease either. In that we agree. And I find the discussion to absolutely have merit, if assisted suicide is called for in such situations. I actually would consider it to be one of the most humane and gracious things that can be done. And though I always think suicide is the right of any individual, I do not always find it to be honorable, and oftentimes actually selfish and short sighted. What might not be known here is that I've actually saved many from committing such an act throughout my life, and have several that say they owe their lives to me and are so grateful, because they since have gone on to have families, or become successful, or have gotten through the dark time, and realize the mistake they would've made. Hell, I'm one of those people myself. The whole iamreality moniker started after a suicide attempt I was hell bent on. After the attempt was unsuccessful (won't go into details), I was left with a mental strength I hadn't had before, a clear voice in the middle of my head that I've been able to tap into ever since for wisdom and logic. And it's since helped many others. But that's cause suicide most often is a rash and impulsive decision and the bigger picture isn't seen. In most of those cases it simply wouldn't be the right thing to do. But in cases such as this, such as what is being discussed here, there would absofrigginlutely be honor and legitimacy in the act. It wouldn't be rash, impulsive nor short sighted. It would be the most logical and reasonable of desires that would be at the root; the desire to die representing who we were in life, with the dignity and grace that should go along with it.
Yes, it is a reasonable, credible, humane, decent and intelligent option to be on the table, and on the table it should be, for everyone.
-
If I am obsessed with anything it is the depraved, specious contention that a valid case may be made for murdering Alzheimer's patients.
Murder cannot be justified. But nobody here is advocating murder. The question is whether and how you can interpret the sincere wish of a person who can't express it in legal language. History abounds with instances of people being tortured to death for their own good, but in the absence of a religious justification, can we produce a scientific process for determining whether an incoherent person wants to live or die?
-
[size=78%] [/size]
For sake of the spirit of the thread, I agree that Alzheimers is horrible due to what it does to a person, diminishing them to merely a shell of themselves, their minds almost no longer present at all. And it takes a lifetime of pride, of one putting effort into themselves to come across best they can, present themselves best they can, to grow as a person best they can and to hold their heads high through good times and bad best they can, and reduces them to something they'd be so ashamed of or embarrassed of if they had their wits about them (though it's not their fault and there is no shame!). I for one, would most certainly be grateful to my loved ones for sparing me from such a fate. No, Alan, I would not want to end my days under the horrors of that disease either. In that we agree. And I find the discussion to absolutely have merit, if assisted suicide is called for in such situations. I actually would consider it to be one of the most humane and gracious things that can be done. And though I always think suicide is the right of any individual, I do not always find it to be honorable, and oftentimes actually selfish and short sighted. What might not be known here is that I've actually saved many from committing such an act throughout my life, and have several that say they owe their lives to me and are so grateful, because they since have gone on to have families, or become successful, or have gotten through the dark time, and realize the mistake they would've made. Hell, I'm one of those people myself. The whole iamreality moniker started after a suicide attempt I was hell bent on. After the attempt was unsuccessful (won't go into details), I was left with a mental strength I hadn't had before, a clear voice in the middle of my head that I've been able to tap into ever since for wisdom and logic. And it's since helped many others. But that's cause suicide most often is a rash and impulsive decision and the bigger picture isn't seen. In most of those cases it simply wouldn't be the right thing to do. But in cases such as this, such as what is being discussed here, there would absofrigginlutely be honor and legitimacy in the act. It wouldn't be rash, impulsive nor short sighted. It would be the most logical and reasonable of desires that would be at the root; the desire to die representing who we were in life, with the dignity and grace that should go along with it. Yes, it is a reasonable, credible, humane, decent and intelligent option to be on the table, and on the table it should be, for everyone.
Thanks you I agree with everything you said in that post.
My stance in religion is that of a rational theist. I despise fundamentalism in all its form and am selective in what I believe or do not believe in the Bible. What happened in my opinion, in Numbers 31 was the dictator Moses acting on his own and claiming God told him to murder all the Midianites.
The God of my understanding does not need help from a Moses or help it or any mortal human it can look after itself and does not need its ego stoked day and night be fawning human beings.
-
My step Grandmother died due to not drinking water for the last week of her life.
Whilst she was a horrid person, not a wet eye at the funeral, I would not wish such a death on anybody at all.
Surely in circumstances where we put to sleep a dog in missery without all this ethical fuss it is similarly clear in 99% of the times that it would have been a lot better to have doen the same to the old lady rather than allow her demented and lost mind to neglect her own body to death.
-
She was lucky to have a choice. "The Liverpool Care Pathway" is a euphemism for killing by deliberate dehydration and malnutrition in a hospital. Obviously it can only be applied to people who are incoherent and unable to fend for themselves , so once it has been prescribed, it is a good idea to sedate the patient and thus maintain incoherence and incapacity until clinical death - which may take days or weeks.
I cannot understand why this is ethically preferable to nitrogen hypoxia - 5 minutes of euphoria and a painless death. http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html (http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html) is splendidly detailed, but you can skip to "The Effects of Hypoxia at Various Altitudes" and consider the effect of being transported to 25,000 ft quickly without the discomfort of decompression.
But it still doesn't address the question of establishing the patient's wishes.
-
My step Grandmother died due to not drinking water for the last week of her life.
Whilst she was a horrid person, not a wet eye at the funeral, I would not wish such a death on anybody at all.
Surely in circumstances where we put to sleep a dog in missery without all this ethical fuss it is similarly clear in 99% of the times that it would have been a lot better to have doen the same to the old lady rather than allow her demented and lost mind to neglect her own body to death.
My exact point and the reason I started this thread which validates the concept of euthanasia as a kind act of love, to help those who can no longer help themselves out of sometimes prolonged intractable suffering for the victim and even more distress for the family members that have had to care for and endure the horror of observing a person they love decaying into a mindless vegetable (I regret being so graphic)
Vindicated thank you!!
Alan
-
She was lucky to have a choice. "The Liverpool Care Pathway" is a euphemism for killing by deliberate dehydration and malnutrition in a hospital. Obviously it can only be applied to people who are incoherent and unable to fend for themselves , so once it has been prescribed, it is a good idea to sedate the patient and thus maintain incoherence and incapacity until clinical death - which may take days or weeks.
I cannot understand why this is ethically preferable to nitrogen hypoxia - 5 minutes of euphoria and a painless death. http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html (http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/181893-1.html) is splendidly detailed, but you can skip to "The Effects of Hypoxia at Various Altitudes" and consider the effect of being transported to 25,000 ft quickly without the discomfort of decompression.
But it still doesn't address the question of establishing the patient's wishes.
This option should be addressed while the Alzheimer patient is still in the early stage of the disease where it is their express the wish that in the event of reaching a vegetative state they should be put out of their misery.
Of course, that still leaves those who have not said anything and the ethical problem of euthanasia "regardless again for the same reason previously mentioned. I do, however, highly doubt that this would ever become legal practice for a whole host of other reasons?
-
Since we seem not to die from communicable disease or minor trauma these days, and more people each day are surviving cancer and heart disease, everyone is a potential Alzheimer patient. I consider it the hallmark of a civilised society that everyone should be able to choose the time, place and method of his death. So my draft proposal has four essential parts:
1. Anyone can make a "living will" to specify the circumstances in which he wants to be killed, and this must be given the same legal status as a property will. That is, it can be challenged on grounds of coercion or insanity, must be legally executable, and must nominate a willing executor to carry out the wishes expressed.
2. Where such a will exists, it is the duty of the person's medical carers to bring it to the notice of the executor (and vice versa) if it appears that the conditions are or shortly will be met.
3.The executor must present the will and the medical case to an independent ethics tribunal competent to weigh the medical evidence against the conditions set out in the will.
4. If the tribunal agrees that the conditions are met, the executor must arrange for a licensed practitioner to carry out the euthanasia in a timely manner.
The object of all this is to ensure that, on the one hand, a trusted friend or family member is fully involved in the process, but on the other hand, there can be no hint of coercion or medical convenience in the decision. Evidence to the tribunal should be anonymised to ensure independence.
In the absence of a trusted individual, the will can specify the State "duty executor" - a branch of the Office of the Public Guardian with legal but not medical expertise.
In answer to the inevitable "who would be willing to serve in any of these roles?", I would consider it an honour to investigate and carry out the expressed wish of a citizen in irreversible distress, and I don't think I'd be alone in volunteering.
-
Since we seem not to die from communicable disease or minor trauma these days, and more people each day are surviving cancer and heart disease, everyone is a potential Alzheimer patient. I consider it the hallmark of a civilised society that everyone should be able to choose the time, place and method of his death. So my draft proposal has four essential parts:
1. Anyone can make a "living will" to specify the circumstances in which he wants to be killed, and this must be given the same legal status as a property will. That is, it can be challenged on grounds of coercion or insanity, must be legally executable, and must nominate a willing executor to carry out the wishes expressed.
2. Where such a will exists, it is the duty of the person's medical carers to bring it to the notice of the executor (and vice versa) if it appears that the conditions are or shortly will be met.
3.The executor must present the will and the medical case to an independent ethics tribunal competent to weigh the medical evidence against the conditions set out in the will.
4. If the tribunal agrees that the conditions are met, the executor must arrange for a licensed practitioner to carry out the euthanasia in a timely manner.
The object of all this is to ensure that, on the one hand, a trusted friend or family member is fully involved in the process, but on the other hand, there can be no hint of coercion or medical convenience in the decision. Evidence to the tribunal should be anonymised to ensure independence.
In the absence of a trusted individual, the will can specify the State "duty executor" - a branch of the Office of the Public Guardian with legal but not medical expertise.
In answer to the inevitable "who would be willing to serve in any of these roles?", I would consider it an honour to investigate and carry out the expressed wish of a citizen in irreversible distress, and I don't think I'd be alone in volunteering.
Great well thought out logical response, I think it could not be better summated in the succinct way you did thank you.