Yesterday Italian Beppino Englaro won the right to end the life of his daughter after she has been 16 years in coma due to the consequences of a road accident.

The controversial decision to end the life of Eluana Englaro is the first such ruling by an Italian court. The judgement drew instant criticism from the Vatican, which condemned it as as 'euthanasia'. Miss Englaro, 35, has been in a vegetative state ever since she was involved in a road accident aged 19. The ruling marked the end of a lengthy legal battle led by her parents.

Eluana's father based his appeal on the fact that she had been in good health and of sound mind before the accident and would not have wanted to be kept alive in a vegetative state. He has been campaigning since 1999 through the courts to have the treatment to his daughter suspended and he had been turned down six times until yesterday's ruling in Milan.

What is so special in this case is that it is the first ever Italian court decision to allow suspending of any medical treatment and (artificial) ways of sustaining life. And also that the judgment drew instant criticism from the Vatican, which condemned it as as euthanasia.

Keeping to the legal appeal period of 60 days, medical treatment keeping Eluana alive in a Milan hospital will after that period be stopped (if no further appeal procedure is started).

The Vatican calls this 'euthanasia', while all that is allowed now is stopping all further treatment - a passive process.

I note that in the US yearly many people still get killed by State organized executions.
But I never hear of gigantic protests against that format of killing by huge groups of Christians, while these same Christians made 2 years ago a big spectacle out of the euthanasia of a US coma patient.

Why would this form of euthanasia - letting nature run it's own way - not be a morally correct decision?

Is it not much more morally reprehensible to force a human being - often against his/her will - into a permanent vegetative state to die after many years without any dignity ?

Your opinion please !

·

·

I cringed and cried when Terry Schiavo died wondering what was next and Terry was not in a coma at the time either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Terry was not in a coma at the time either.

---

Where do you get that from? She had been in coma for many years...
There was hardly any brain left in her cranium... See the photo's :
Left: CT scan of normal brain; Right: Schiavo's 2002 CT scan provided by Ronald Cranford, showing loss of brain tissue. The black area is liquid, indicating hydrocephalus.

:rolleyes:

·

To me personally a person in a coma is someone who does not open their eyes and sit up. A person in a coma to me is someone who cannot even open their eyes. Terry to me, anyway, regardless of your photos above of her brain inactivity was not in a coma. Her demise was highly untimely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

To me personally a person in a coma is someone who does not open their eyes and sit up. A person in a coma to me is someone who cannot even open their eyes. Terry to me, anyway, regardless of your photos above of her brain inactivity was not in a coma. Her demise was highly untimely.

---

Well... As you state : to YOU it seems to have been that way...

:rolleyes:

·

News flash! Most Christians don't have time to go somewhere to demonstrate about something. We are mostly working people and can hardly afford to miss a day's pay. That's probably not a problem with you rich folks and those who ride the welfare wagon.

This is how "Christians" rationalize the inconsistency in their views on abortion and capital punishment. Those executed by capital punishment "deserve it". The whole basis of their Christianity is punish, punish, punish not only criminals, but they also judge everyone harshly!

It is sadly ironic that these days when we are all being choked by overpopulation and resultant pollution of the air, water etc, that letting a brain vacant individual die naturally is so wrenching to Christians to the point that huge amounts of money are spent keeping the poor souls alive.

There is a big difference between actively ending a life , for example giving supraphysiologic doses of potassium IV, and withholding treatment at the request of that person.

It is called a living will. A person may, when competent, decide beforehand that in the future event of an illness that mentaly incapacitates them and that illness may cause them to die, they may want to die "naturally" or be a "no code." That is, no mechanical ventilation or cardiac resuscitation, or no feeding tube or no dialysis.

This occurs daily in hospitals. Even in the Catholic hospital I work at.

If there is no living will, the decision to continue on is left to the assigned power of attorney, and if there is not one, next of kin.

In the Schiavo case, it was determinig who had POA, the husband who had conflicts of interest, or the parents who actually cared for her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Credendovidis

Where do you get that from? She had been in coma for many years ...
There was hardly any brain left in her cranium ... See the photo's :
Left: CT scan of normal brain; Right: Schiavo's 2002 CT scan provided by Ronald Cranford, showing loss of brain tissue. The black area is liquid, indicating hydrocephalus.

:rolleyes:

·

---

Actually it is atrophy - a wasting of the brain tissue.
Hydopcephalus would but pressure on normal brain tissue. There would be no sulci or dark lines in the periphery if this is the case. Hydrocephalus , in many cases, is treatable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

The whole basis of their Christianity is punish, punish, punish not only criminals, but they also judge everyone harshly!

---

Choux, please get the theology correct before "judging."


In Christianity God is perfect. He loves us and created us. He gives us free will. NO ONE is perfect enough to be with God, we are all sinners. We do not deserve to be in Heaven with Him when HE JUDGES us. John 3:16 tells us the rest of the story. :D

Dare I? What the heck.

A little story; Both my parents died of cancer in 2001, 6 1/2 months apart. My dad lived for 2 weeks after diagnosed, my mother for 10 months.

Three weeks before mom died she was told that she was terminal, had less than 6 months to live. She took the news very well, finally she new what her destiny was.

She settled all her affairs, made plans to travel to Germany to see her relatives (of course I went with her) and then waited to die. For a week she still did Chemo, and radiation, and then one day stopped, why go through that for a few extra weeks?

One day, a terribly painful day, she looked at me and said this "if a dog gets sick, is in terrible pain, we take pity on him, a simple needle and he goes to sleep, no suffering, no more pain. Why are we so cruel to human beings, we think it is our right to make them suffer, why?"

I believe in God, so did my Mom, and if it had been legal, if I could have ended my mothers suffering in a painless, peaceful way, I would have done it, with no regrets. In the end, in Germany, when she took her last breath, I called no one, no ambulance, no doctor, not a soul, that was my promise to her, and I kept it.

That's my opinion.

Altenweg
I hear you. In my case my sister lived through a lengthy kidney disease. She suffered many years through transplant,eventual rejection of the transplant ;dialysis for many years and the eventual breakdown of other body functions as a result of her illness. All in all it was about a 20 year struggle .

These were the days when my faith was at it's lowest. To me she was a saint and I did not understand why she should be subject to the trial of Job. But if anything her faith increased during this time of her ordeal .She showed tremendous courage .

When she began her struggle kidney disease treatment was in it's infancy. It advanced tremendously in the time of her illness. I questioned the utility of continuing . I began to realize that she determined that her struggle would in the future help another kidney patient like her because of the added knowledge the medical profession gained from treating her.
Then when I recall what Jesus did for humanity with his sacrifice I connected the dots and it all made sense.

Now I do think that it is ultimately up to the patient or their guardian to decide what is right for the patient .
In the case mentioned in this posting I do not think that the State should be the decider unless there is a clear question of who is the proper person to make the choice. That was the issue in the Schriavo case. Ultimately the courts decided that it was the husband's call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

News flash! Most Christians don't have time to go somewhere to demonstrate about something. We are mostly working people and can hardly afford to miss a day's pay. That's probably not a problem with you rich folks and those who ride the welfare wagon.

---

What is the "you rich folks" thing about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

The whole basis of their Christianity is punish, punish, punish ...

---

How true, Choux ! :)

===

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Most Christians don't have time to go somewhere to demonstrate about something.

---

Your reply is deliberately sidestepping the real issue here, galveston1 !
And your remark on that "welfare wagon" : is that your "christian compassion" speaking there? :(

===

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

... if it had been legal, if I could have ended my mothers suffering in a painless, peaceful way, I would have done it, with no regrets.

---

Sorry to hear you went all through that. I fully agree with your conclusion. That is precisely what this topic is about! An attack at controlling religion forcing others to live along it's religious standards. It should be up to every individual to die in dignity.

:rolleyes:

·

He means that if you are rich or poor you CAN go protest because you have the time
But working people have to go to work and can not go to protests.

Edit: ***To make Credo happy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

News flash! Most Christians don't have time to go somewhere to demonstrate about something. We are mostly working people and can hardly afford to miss a day's pay. That's probably not a problem with you rich folks and those who ride the welfare wagon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

What is the "you rich folks" thing about?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

He means that if you are rich or poor you CAN go protest because you have the time ... but working people have to go to work and can not go to protests.

---

Please do not even TRY to suggest what I mean. You can not. As is clearly indicated by your reply here.
If one really wants he/she can go and do anything he/she wants.
The question is if he/she really wants, or if it is easier to be silent and not make too many waves in the christian dominated pool of control of individuals... See also my topic on religion and government.

:rolleyes:

·

I wasn't suggesting anything about what you mean
I was replying to JUDY KAY's question to Galveston
'
THANK YOU!:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I wasn't suggesting anything about what you mean
I was replying to JUDY KAY's question to Galveston

---

It is my topic question, and unless you clearly address another person you are addressing me ! You did not name anyone , so I react.

You do not even know the board rules, I see !

:D

·

Cred... clearly nohelp was writing at the same time as you were, that would have made her post right under Judys... I would think a person of your intelligence could have understood that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushg

Cred...clearly nohelp was writing at the same time as you were, that would have made her post right under Judys...I would think a person of your intelligence could have understood that.

---

EXACTLY but of course to Perkie that is totally irrelevant :D

This is my topic question, and unless you clearly address another person you are addressing me !
You ninc*mp**ps do not even know the board rules, I see !

:D

·

Better than being called a "gringo'!

I personally never saw a reason for christians to seek medical attention in the first place. According to them we live in an evil sin filled world(that is perfectly designed by god for us?) and paradise awaits us. The bible doesn't specifically say you have to get medical treatment or even develop new cures for things. If you really believe your own hype you wouldn't seek medical attention at all because it would be god's will to save you or not save you and if he didn't paradise awaits so what's the big deal.

Neither does the Bible say you should not seek medical help. After all, when peolple came to Jesus they wanted to be healthy, and Jesus had compassion and healed many, he did not just bring them up to heaven at that instant moment in time.

But we see the physical side, God sees the spiritual side, the side that matters for all eternity. Matthew 9 - Jesus healing the paralytic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I personally never saw a reason for christians to seek medical attention in the first place. According to them we live in an evil sin filled world(that is perfectly designed by god for us?) and paradise awaits us. The bible doesn't specifically say you have to get medical treatment or even develop new cures for things. If you really believe your own hype you wouldn't seek medical attention at all because it would be god's will to save you or not save you and if he didn't paradise awaits so whats the big deal.

---

I wouldn't rule out God not wanting Christians to seek medical help. We are told to take care of our bodies. Which of course means taking care of it so that you hopefully do not need a doctor but if you need one then it is not wrong. I think it is totally wrong for some religions to deny parents getting their children medical help to the point they die so that right there alone I have to believe God is okay with medical attention.

A man was swimming across the Atlantic Ocean and he was about to drown. A boat came by and the man in the boat said, "You're drowning, let me save you!"
The man drowning said, "No, that's okay I will put my faith in God."
The man in the boat says, "Okay, if you say so."

A few minutes later another boat comes by and the woman in the boat says, "You're drowning, let me save you!"
The man drowning said, "No, that's okay, I will put my faith in God."

A few minutes later another boat comes by and the people in the boat say, "You're drowning, let us save you!"
The man drowning says, "No that's okay, I will put my faith in God."
The people in the boat say "Okay, if you say so."

So the man drowns. He goes up to heaven and sees God. The man says, " I put my faith in you and you didn't save me."
Then God says, " I SENT YOU THREE BOATS!"

That's my take on it. :)

In response to Altenwegs post! #26

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Altenweg

A man was swimming across the Atlantic Ocean and he was about to drown. A boat came by and the man in the boat said, "You're drowning, let me save you!"
The man drowning said, "No, that's okay I will put my faith in God."
The man in the boat says, "Okay, if you say so."

A few minutes later another boat comes by and the woman in the boat says, "You're drowning, let me save you!"
The man drowning said, "No, that's okay, I will put my faith in God."

A few minutes later another boat comes by and the people in the boat say, "You're drowning, let us save you!"
The man drowning says, "No that's okay, I will put my faith in God."
The people in the boat say "Okay, if you say so."

So the man drowns. He goes up to heaven and sees God. The man says, " I put my faith in you and you didn't save me."
Then God says, " I SENT YOU THREE BOATS!"

That's my take on it. :)

---

Exactly!!
One I tell only it is a flood and the guy is stuck on the roof.

But I still say if you are so sure that paradise awaits you why not go as soon as possible. It seems like a simple logic problem to me. If you're here and you are sure over there is better why not go over there as soon as you can. Of course as an atheist every moment I'm here is precious because there isn't somewhere better to go, so my goal is to live as long as possible but for christians you should logically have the exact opposite goal. To live a short of a life as possible with very little sin and of course the shorter you live the less time you will have to be temped by sin.

Going to heaven is a reward for living. I have every intention of staying here as long as I can. I like life, it's good, love being with my family, my kids, walking on the grass, smelling the flowers. Do I believe in heaven? I sure want to. Am I wrong? Could be, I guess I won't find out until I die. Have I sinned? You betcha. So maybe I'm not going to heaven even if it exists.

My goal, live as long as I can, enjoy every minute and hope for the best.

What does this have to do with the topic Michealb?

Box guy,

Theology is the study of god fantasy and make believe. YOu don't seem to understand the basis of your religion.

The basis of Christianity is that GodAlmighty will torment you in hell for *eternity* if you, his "beloved" creation do not follow his rules. Salvation is the only way an individual can escape this horrific situation and "go to heaven".

That is what you BELIEVE whether you understand it or not.

It is not true, you just *believe it is true*. It is religion, faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Choux

Theology is the study of god fantasy and make believe. You don't seem to understand the basis of your religion.

---

Great response, Choux !

:D

·

It fits in with euthanasia, religion and morality I'm sure, but I guess it has to do with the question of why is it wrong to let nature take it's course when your sick or when someone who is unable to think for themselves is sick.

I'll accept an answer of "I'm not sure there is a heaven but I am sure I am least here." It's really a question for those people who are certain that there is a heaven and that they are sure they have a personal in with Jesus. I know there are certain sects of Christianity that don't take medical attention I just don't see a reason why all the ones that are so sure don't do the same.

Jesus main earthly ministry was *healing the sick*... If Christian people *really believed*, they would engage in faith healing... omit physicians. Of course, they don't really believe because it is dangerously passé.

I just ask myself why there is such a clear Christian opposition each time anywhere any format of euthanasia is introduced.
What is essential is that there are strict rules for the euthanasia process, and that the patient has signed an instruction towards euthanasia (and when to perform euthanasia).
What Christians think of that should be totally irrelevant. Who does not want euthanasia should simply not sign an instruction to do so.

What therefore is very important is that every person should sign a last will with instructions regarding euthanasia. I feel that the decision when and how to end your life is up to you, regardless what other people find of that.

The only part of euthanasia open to debate should be when people who have not signed an instruction suddenly fall ill or are injured , and are as a result of that too late to sign an instruction, or who get killed.
That part should be up to an independent judge, to prevent misuse.

Any serious comments ?

·

Yeah Jack Kevorkian had the right idea and they sent him to jail because he was before his time.
Many people sign DNR papers
Many Christians say that if they have to be kept alive artificially they would rather die.
So far there is no legal way to actually euthanize people so even if some Christians are for it it is not an option-yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

So far there is no legal way to actually euthanize people so even if some Christians are for it it is not an option-yet

---

Well : that you do not have that option is just due to the pressure by US Christians who disagree with this euthanasia option.
Here in Western Europe more and more countries have thrown off the Christian reins, and introduced an euthanasia process under strict legal controls and rules.

:)

·

I agree NoHelp. I'm not against euthanasia, society is against euthanasia, at least the majority are.

Like I said before, if I could have ended my mothers suffering, legally, I would have. She was terminal, she suffered for 10 months, at the end she weighed 80 pounds soaking wet, had to have an oxygen machine, couldn't walk by herself, had no hair left, and no finger nails or toe nails left, couldn't eat, couldn't sleep, couldn't do anything but suffer. Who would wish that on someone they love?

I do believe in God, but not in a conventional way. I don't go to church, nor do I read the bible, so I won't quote scriptures or anything else, but I do believe in God. I know, I'm a contradiction, as such, I don't need to explain my beliefs to anyone, because there isn't a "group" of people that has the same beliefs and faith that I do.

I go to doctors when I'm sick, that's what they're there for. I do know people who's religion forbids them to seek medical attention, they get no sympathy from me. If you believe that God made the world, well, then he made everything in it too, doctors, lawyers, everything.

Having said all that. If my daughter or son (both of whom I love more than anything, and I'd give my life for them in a second) were on life support, in a vegetative state, with no hope of recovery, I'd pull the plug without a seconds hesitation. Would I be remorseful? Not for what I did, but for what I couldn't do.

I agree that if the quality of life is gone then machines and all should not be used to keep you alive. Makes sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

I agree that if the quality of life is gone then machines and all should not be used to keep you alive.

---

Yes Linda : it is terrible that there are hundreds of people having to live either in pain or as plants for years, before they die an undignified death. In my volunteer work in the local hopes I saw people kept for weeks under strong sedation because of the horrible pains they have, before they died in agony. Even dogs and cats have more dignified ends to their life !
If that is what people want themselves : fine with me. But if people prefer to die in a dignified way : why not?

I strongly support an OFFICIAL legal arrangement that one can put in one's will to ensure that one is allowed to die when all other dignified options are finished.
There is nothing to fear in dying. It is nothing but going to sleep, without ever awaking again.
All religious connotations and beliefs are up to the individual to consider. But they are just religious claims. Not facts. Just possibilities. It is up to each individual to see what is the validity of these possibilities. In my case that is nil. For others that may be different.
But it never should be that religious people decide that others are no allowed to die in dignity, because the religious people believe that you have to go on till the end.

:)

·

I liked the idea of IF you WANT to be kept alive that you should have to have THAT in writing instead of the other way around.
I know if I don't have my health I don't even like the idea of being stuck in a nursing home the rest of my life.
It's about QUALITY of life
Why be a vegetable that can't appreciate a thing cause you are so out of it and all you have to look forward to is another day of pain or another day of not even recognizing or knowing anything.