Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (27950)	11/4/1999 6:02:00 PM
From: Jamey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Richard, IMO, I believe that many of the old and sick patients end up dying due to an overdose of morphine rather than have them lie there and be kept alive by machines. It happens all the time. Santiago

To: long-gone who wrote (27950)	11/4/1999 10:38:00 PM
From: LeeR	Respond to of 39621

(A little slow to respond) The fact that the person is still alive is proof enough that he hasn't "given up the ghost". Why should we give the person a real reason for dying?

To: long-gone who wrote (27950)	11/5/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: PCModem	Respond to of 39621

re: heroic measures. (all of this is, of course, IMHO) If I understand your question correctly, basically you are asking if it is right or wrong to do something to (or for) a person that is against their wishes (I'm stating the moral issue without reference to the medical issue for the moment). I'd have to say "no" in all cases in which the person is of age to make an informed decision. Thus children would not be included, nor would people unable to make decisions for themselves. For children and those unable to make decisions for themselves, I'd have to say the answer may very well be "yes" as long as the person making the decision is making a well informed decision that is indeed in the best interests of the person for whom the decision is being made. Now, for the medical issue. I've been thinking about this since my medical ethics class at university (I took it as an elective while working on my degree in Sociology). To me we have a difficult situation in the medical community in that doctors are able to prolong life without being able to cure the diseases (in many cases) of those whose lives they can prolong. That situation is compounded morally by a separate issue: the fact that some "cures" and some "treatments" are very expensive and thus are available only to those with the means to purchase them. A "classic" example would be a person in a coma who is expected to remain a "vegetable" due to their injuries. This person's body can be kept alive but they will not regain consciousness. Should they be taken off life support in the absence of instructions? Personally, I think after a reasonable amount of time and prayer, yes. What if the injuries are such that the coma exists, but whether or not the person may regain consciousness is not known, nor is it known if they would be "themselves?" Again, IMHO, the same answer: I think after a reasonable amount of time and prayer, yes, take them off life support. Why? To me the issue comes down to this: In the absence of the ability to cure, I believe we should allow "nature" to take its course. It seems to me that to do otherwise is to interfere with God's will. PCM

To: long-gone who wrote (27950)	11/6/1999 10:41:00 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

A real tough ethical question. From the standpoint of the patient (perhaps tired, in pain, hopeless, wanting/needing relief from struggle) I don't think we can say that either wanting or declining "heroic measures" is unethical. I'ved heard many (healthy people) express the opinion that they want no special measures when their time comes. Personally, I've told my wife not to spare anything at least as long as the insurance holds out. It's not as if you may miss your chance to die. Every day brings another opportunity. Death can always be counted on to be in your future. Life OTOH is short and precious. Something to be held on to as long as you can. The next world may be wonderful, but actually, so is this one. Life is wonderful. Even when it's bad, it's wonderful. From the standpoint of healthcare workers, though, I think the ethical thing is to err on the side of preserving life.