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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106970)	3/31/2005 6:05:52 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793689

I agree that our technology has advanced faster than our ethics. Nevertheless, it's a violation of law not to provide incapacitated people with food, water and medical care. If you don't feed your children, your disabled spouse, or your elderly parents, or take them to the doctor, you will be charged with negligent homicide.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (106970)	3/31/2005 6:11:47 PM
From: aladin	Respond to of 793689

Nadine, The "high tech" included not just the tube, but the medical knowledge needed to set up the arrangement, and the antisepsis and anti-biotics needed to keep it going. Did anyone live on a feeding tube even 60 years ago? Yes - actually the feeding tube has been around for a while. We can argue Terri forever, but there are some facts from this: o Most of us would not want to live indefinitely in a coma or PVS state o Most of us agree with a DNR when terminal o Most of us would withdraw extraordinary measures for ourselves when hopeless o Most of us would want palliative care at the end What cannot be decided is a definition of extraordinary and palliative care. And what we vehemently disagree on is: o Assisted suicide o Euthanasia John