[Credendovidis]

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 !

·

·

[twinkiedooter]

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

[Credendovidis]

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:

·

[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.

[Credendovidis]

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:

·

[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.

[Choux]

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.

[inthebox]

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.

[inthebox]

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.

[inthebox]

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

[Alty]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

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?

[Credendovidis]

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

How true, Choux ! :)

===

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? :(

===

... 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:

·

[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.

Edit: ***To make Credo happy

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?

[Credendovidis]

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:

·

[N0help4u]

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

[Credendovidis]

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

·

[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.

[N0help4u]

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