It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The culture of life vs. the culture of death

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer

Originally posted by 1wintermute1

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Is being a joe schmoe is dangerous? Do you feel threatened by someone just because they live in suburbia, have 2.3 kids, 2 cars and a dog?


Scares the hell out of me for one........



Why? Is it because of death?


No. I just don't want to die because of some joe-schmoes pent up sexual aggression...sans "Geofferey Dahmer style".....

I hope to die peacefully




posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
There is a HUGE difference between thinking and acting. All those stories about the guy with a wife and kids, neighbors thought he was great, upstanding citizen, goes out and whacks his family one night? These scenarios are far more popular. Is being a joe schmoe is dangerous? Do you feel threatened by someone just because they live in suburbia, have 2.3 kids, 2 cars and a dog?


I know a family who had this happen to them, they seemed like a loing family and all when I knew them, they moved to California and one day their dad lost it and shot his two sons, wife and then turned the gun on himself. I could not believe it, its too heartbreaking to put into words.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I'm gonna throw my two cents in, speaking as both a nurse and a funeral director.

We, for the most part, are a culture of life. Wakes are now meant to be "life celebrations", not the mournful events of centuries past. Photo's are placed around the casket, mementos are placed inside, and the time is spent remembering the deceased. The days of making sure dear ol' grandma's hair was died just like it was when she was young(er) are gone- our society has become more accepting of the time leading up to death, and aside from very few instances, our grieving process now encompasses the entire life-span, not just the "good times", as I know so many were told to remember during times of grief.

On to Terri Schiavo... this woman has SUFFERED for 15 years. Having a permanent feeding tube, not to mention an indwelling catheter, are not pleasant. She could be fed by the tube, and the catheter removed, but then she'd be lying in pooled urine for several periods of time each day, leaving her succeptible to severe skin breakdown- namely decubitus ulcers, which are not only terribly painful, but also life threatening (as was the case with Christopher Reeves). Her feeding tube and catheter were only meant to prolong her life so that her parents would not be forced to suffer the death of their child, which is admittedly hard for any parent to deal with. Someone bedridden for over a decade would be lucky to make it much further without some form of decubitus ulcer, or the life threatening infections that come with it, not to mention pneumonia and muscle atrophy.

I don't know many people who have stated in their living wills- which EVERYONE should have if they'd like their wishes followed- that they would like to be kept alive even if their brain was dead.

I guess my main point here is to look at the quality of life issues involved- why prolong the suffering of someone for years, considering they have 0% chance of recovery, instead of letting them die with dignity?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Basically you're summing up my assertion fairly well. Why prolong their life when there's 0 chance of recovery? I would agree with you if there were 0 chance of recovery. However, we seem to be getting quicker and quicker in that diagnosis and I think the Schiavo case is an example when that diagnosis is wrong based on the sworn testimony of several doctors, yet we're basically putting her to death anyway.

Look at it this way, a lot of people seem to err on the side of death. My mindset is to err on the side of life. Of course I realize there are people that are in like end stage cancer and other things that you can just let go naturally, but we're expanding that group into some areas I don't think we should be going. But my final point is like I said a lot of people err on the side of death, it is my mindset to err on the side of life. Which side can more afford to make a mistake?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
One should only err if one need err.

We've thus far spent 15 years keeping this woman alive. I don't know standard procedure, but that's erring for AT LEAST 5 years, if not 10 or more, on the side of life.

BOBBO said it well, very well. And WM, I don't quite see your point, you see to disagree then agree...

jrod, I'm really sorry to hear that. It must have been terrible, I can't even begin to imagine.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
this is an excellent thread, by the way. I wish it was a "livelier" discussion, actually. I'm sure a lot of members have more insight to add.

great work.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join