iOwnTheWorld.com

Looks like the guy in the picture has had tee many martoonis!

Sympathies to the guys, though – further proof that people do not own themselves, governments do.

+5

This is one of the more disturbing stories I’ve read in a while. If I were trapped in that living hell, I would hope someone would be merciful and dispatch me to eternity. I can’t imagine living like that for years or even decades. It’s horrifying.

+9

I’m against assisted suicide but all for heavy duty drugs for people this incapacitated. It is sad for these guys in their condition but a human shouldn’t allow themselves to be put down like a sick animal because of infirmary. God doesn’t give us the right to take our own lives much less the life of an unborn baby.

+9

I guess they’re stuck like the rest of us that have to bear the burden of Obama.

+4

In our country they would probably be accepted for Hospice care and allowed to die with dignity.

+7

We’re not just gonna lie here and take this, you know!

+1

Again – what if the guy doesn’t believe in God?

+3

BFH (and everyone)–

What’s your response to this statement:

–It’s okay for a person to kill themselves if they DON’T believe in God, but not okay for them to kill themselves if they DO believe in God.–

+3

So rather than assisting him to die, via drugs or other means, what about keeping him sedated while removing artificial feeding, etc. After all, if it weren’t for medical intervention he would not be alive at all.

+8

Again – what if the guy doesn’t believe in God?
**************
He doesn’t have to. He’ll find out though in the afterlife. Who am I to say this?

+3

if these men have the wherewithal to bring suit, they would appear capable of assembling the means to end their lives with a morphine cocktail & whichever cardio-respiratory depressants [and some other adjunct compounds] in solution.

there are a lot of people who are suffering similarly and/or worse in various levels of coma–kept alive with tubes, respirators, and 7/24 seizure control [as best as possible.] I worked a few years [male nurse] on a traumatic brain injury unit–and no small number of the cases were absolutely wrenching [wrenching] and then they died. [.]

personally, I don’t see it necessarily as a God issue per se, so to speak, until the state assumes the that position.

I mean, it’s perfectly normal to lose the desire to stay alive without really that much trauma/assault–from one perspective.

We talk about the rugged nobility of the human spirit and so on, but otoh, we’re incredibly frail organisms in an incomprehensibly narrow slice of space and time surrounded by an incredibly hostile environment.

a pebble can withstand more for longer than I can.

for my part, the question of God in the matter, is a question of ethics, ie, if a person who is incapacitated–but not terminal–purposely effects their death, is his/her suicide a murder?

when a person is terminal, we can, and do, usually help hasten that process with morphine and other Rx.. but otherwise, as with these people’s cases..well what is the proposal?

why/ why not?

+5

@Danl–

Interesting points. No time to reflect on them, though, as I have to leave shortly. Drat.

For me, these are the most interesting threads.

+4

Very sad. I will never agree with assisted or unassisted suicide just as I will never agree with abortion….

+3

what are the criteria for decision making? I mean, if the [least] qualifying complaint are a profile of total dependent for care, intractable pain, and low quality of life–

is the health community ethically required to assist in/ fully facilitate euthanasia for all patients meeting that?

both of these cases are evidently medically stable, post brain trauma [stroke], cognizant, paralyzed, and totally dependent.

if they deserve some codified, structured, and facilitated right to die on those grounds, then all patients meeting that minimum criteria and desiring a medically induced death, should as well.

no?

+3

Only hope is for someone to act and to take responsibility for it in front of Christ and of Cesar.

+3

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die…”
Hebrews 9:27

The Lord will allow Death to do what is necessary when the LORD deems it the time to do so. Satan cannot “touch” you without God’s permission.

So, what’s the rush? We are all going to die sooner or later.

Keep them alive against their will, and anyone else who wants them dead, as long as possible.

It is written…so the subject is closed.

+2

Why doesn’t he just goes to Dignitas? They have upgraded their methods to include gas instead of drink for those more severely affected. Britain has a whole group of folks advocating for their own country’s version of it.

0

Now, I don’t advocate suicide, assisted or otherwise. Just playing Devil’s advocate…

+1

So sad to see anyone suffer like this.

+7

with today’s technology, and given that the patient can be and often is incapable of making an informed decision

and that families are potentially disadvantaged in the decision process by way of the same immediacy and further emotional/psychological weight of the situation

there are large populations of post trauma people who meet the same minimum criteria as these cases in this article.

They are depressed, if they are conscious enough to experience emotion other than the emotion associated with sleep/dream cycles.

I was a nurse, and I want no heroic efforts beyond basic cpr. We used to joke about getting ourselves tattooed just for ER personnel: NO TUBES!

but, that’s me. The technology can and TOO OFTEN does keep people alive at a cost that they DO NOT want to pay. This is heavy stuff.

it’s often, not always, better for a dying>/b> person sometimes to forego or end tx at some point.

these guys are in a world of hurt, but they’re not dying.

+6

@MaryfromMarin: “What’s your response to this statement:

–It’s okay for a person to kill themselves if they DON’T believe in God, but not okay for them to kill themselves if they DO believe in God.–”

It’s a bit inaccurate. If people are truly free, if they own themselves, they should have the right to end their life if they so choose. If the same person adopts a belief system that considers suicide to be an evil, then they have voluntarily restricted their own right, so long as that belief is not being forced upon them. If they subscibe to a belief system that is anti-suicide and choose to kill themselves anyway, they’ll have to square that circle themselves.

The problem is if an outside system – to which the individual in question does not subscribe – says you have no right to kill yourself because I/we believe it is wrong. If they can restrict another’s right to do something to himself based on their beliefs, then the other person is in no sense free.

+3

Does the suffering of another open your heart?

People often question the existence of God when they see so much suffering in their lives and in the world. What kind of a God would allow this?

Always in charge of the entire existence of everything is quite aware of the suffering but knows as well the hearts of those who are touched by another’s suffering. Did the person suffering ultimately open your heart? Does it please God?
Compassion is a great gift that He gave us. The nobility of the sufferer holding on until the end is inspiring to us. Their reward is waiting for them.

Matthew 5:3-10

+1

What Roscoe said.

What happened to “don’t tread on me?”
That would include the right for someone to aim their motorized wheelchair off a cliff without kibitzers telling the surviving family that what they did will put them in hell.

Leave that crap for Phelps’.

You’re going to believe in God for others, and dictate their lives based on your faith?
I think this is exactly what the constitution was trying to prevent.
I’ll make you a deal. You can put the suicidal corpse in prison for the rest of their lives.

+4

And please keep in mind, my last comment does not mean I am anti-Christian. I’m not. It may be hard to tell, but trust me, I’m not. And I’m not an atheist, either.

+4

@muddjuice: “I will never agree with assisted or unassisted suicide…”

Not attacking, just asking –

Do you therefore disagree with the actions of Medal of Honor winners Howard Gilmore (ordered his submarine to dive with him still on the bridge in order to avoid a destroyer attack) and John Cromwell (stayed in his sinking submarine because he had details of US naval plans and believed he could not risk capture)? In the Air Florida crash on the 14th St. Bridge, was Arland Williams wrong to keep passing the lifeline to other passengers, saving them even though it killed him? How about the engine room crew on the Titanic – staying at their posts to keep power on and the ship trimmed (or, for that matter, any of the men who refused to enter lifeboats while there were still women and children left aboard)? What about Werner von Haeften stepping in front of Claus von Stauffenberg as the firing squad shot?

Sometimes suicidal actions are the very best of humanity.

+2

Those cases should be treated as exceptions and governed according to the principle of subsidiarity : let the family rules in those cases. Keep it as localized as possible.

+2

If I believe I am a creature of God, and God has blessed me with free-will then I choose to do with my life as I must, according to the dictates of my conscience.

For someone else to dictate to me what I must do with my life is blasphemy unto God.

+4

Besides, these poor unfortunates are not in a state to take their own lives. They only wish someone else will. These people are incapable of suicide.

Logic’s a bitch, ain’t it?

0

I know there are a few Catholics on this board, and IIRC, the Church says “natural birth through natural death.” It would be a horrible way to go –like Teri Schiavo, starved and dehydrated to death. These gentlemen couldn’t continue living without assistance, and wouldn’t have made it through their initial health crises without major medical intervention. Would they want to “go” this way, considering they’re lucid?

+3

eat enough cabbage burgers and kale chips in one sitting – and presto

+2

Uh …if these guys are incapable of doing anything but lifting their eyelids, how did they tell someone they wanted to die?

+2

@Roscoe–

“Do you therefore disagree with the actions of Medal of Honor winners Howard Gilmore (ordered his submarine to dive with him still on the bridge in order to avoid a destroyer attack) and John Cromwell (stayed in his sinking submarine because he had details of US naval plans and believed he could not risk capture)?…”

You are confusing “suicide” with “sacrifice”. They are not at all the same thing.

+3

@Roscoe (again)–

In response to YOUR response (really sorry I had to be away for hours)–

“The problem is if an outside system – to which the individual in question does not subscribe – says you have no right to kill yourself…” etc.

I must apologize; I realize that the statement I put out there is more confusing than not.

What I was trying to get at is the absurdity of making moral statements when God is optional. If God is only real for some people, then of course there can be no moral absolutes.

Unfortunately, the abyss between those who believe in God and those who don’t is ultimately impassable. Some issues can be discussed and agreed upon, but some can never be.

Of course, if those who believe in God simultaneously feel that others’ beliefs that He does not exist are equally true, then they don’t really believe in God.

God is the God of all or of none–He can’t be the God of a few, and still be God.

0

Okay. Prepare to be trumped. Sorry.

The people who jumped off the Twin Towers committed suicide.
Spin that one.

+1

They took their own life. It was a sovereign decision. It was an exceptional circumstance. It’s about each situations. They were going to die ANYWAY. They choosed to jump.

+2

“What Roscoe said.

What happened to “don’t tread on me?”
That would include the right for someone to aim their motorized wheelchair off a cliff without kibitzers telling the surviving family that what they did will put them in hell.

Leave that crap for Phelps’.

You’re going to believe in God for others, and dictate their lives based on your faith?
I think this is exactly what the constitution was trying to prevent.
I’ll make you a deal. You can put the suicidal corpse in prison for the rest of their lives

__
as far as incarcerating the suicidal corpse for murdering itself.. I suggest that you conflate the issue.

it isn’t legal in most state to walk onto the thoroughfare =>bus [.] or blowing your brains out at the shopping center, your front lawn or something. You know as well as I do that, it’s often an exceedingly selfish murder that victimizes primarily the only people that actually care for the person..

This isn’t about the passionate discourse of personal ends–this is about institutionalized euthanasia

How does suicide on demand differ from abortion on demand?

+3

@MaryfromMarin: “You are confusing “suicide” with “sacrifice”. They are not at all the same thing.”

Perhaps in motivation, but not in result. In the examples I gave, with the exception of von Haeften who would have been shot regardless, all of the others could have – in some cases, easily – have lived. All made conscious decisions to choose death over life. And von Haeften’s decision could be cast as an attempt to avoid his own suffering, since he was to have been shot last after having watched his friends die. (I don’t think it was – but it could be argued that way).

But how about some different scenarios: June 25, 1876, a 7th Cavalry trooper lies wounded. He has one bullet left, and the Souix – who are notorious for torturing captives – are advancing on him, knives drawn. Is he not justified in killing himself?

June 1942 – an Eastern European Jew has a vial of cyanide that the SS overlooked. His fate is to be murdered, either by the Einsatzkommandos, who he’s seen in action, or “resettlement” to a camp like Sobibor, or even one where he *might* survive, like Mauthausen, of which he has heard rumors. Is he not justified in killing himself?

July 20, 2012 – James Holmes stands on the brink. He has urges – and has planned and is prepared – to commit mass murder. He’s booby-trapped his apartment to kill police (and maybe his neighbors, too). He knows he’s a danger to anyone around him. Someone(s) is going to die, but he thinks maybe it would be better if he just shot himself instead. Is that wrong if he does?

0

BFH–

The people who jumped off the Twin Towers chose the manner of their death, when faced with imminent destruction. Imminent. Not eventual. I wouldn’t even use the word “suicide” in reference to what they did.

That’s not spin. The folks referenced in this article are facing eventual death, not imminent death. There is still a chance for life for them. There was no chance for continued life for those in the Towers, God rest their souls.

+1

Still those folks who want to die yet are unable to do so, yet can take the DECISION to die, need another person to actualize it, to kill them.

This is where natural law can collide with positive law.

Each case is singular, and the best judges of natural justices are the immediate family and close friends.

+2

I geared my posts above to traumatic events, but horrific disease processes are just as wrenching..

we used to build crib-like bunks lined with sheepskin and foam to try and keep affected persons from rubbing their skin off with seizure/convulsion and so on.

I know what it looks like to see fear, real pain and misery in the eyes of a young man who cannot move or speak–but he can cry as he is dying

we’re all passionate people. I’m not sure there’s any concrete answer.

but I’m not at all convinced of the shotgun approach

+4

We can not generalize a rule from an exception.

We can not negate exceptional situations in the name of the general rules.

This is where GRACE comes in. And sovereign decision, immanent to the DIGNITY of the individual.

Collectivism is a tyranny of the general against the exception, the collective against the individual.

Moral relativism is the tyranny of the exception against the Rule of Law.

In between, we have an an economy of justice, where the Law can afford being suspended to allow exceptions, and where exceptions are not relativising the validity and effectivity of the Law.

+2

@MaryfromMarin: “God is the God of all or of none–He can’t be the God of a few, and still be God.”

Fair enough, I suppose, but which one? Yahweh? Jehovah? Allah (he’s kinda pro-suicide, by the way)? Do Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists (who are also kinda pro-suicide at times), Sikhs, and others get a say? Or is it simply theocratic rule – the guy who decides which god rules gets to say what an individual’s rights are?

How do the assorted Christian soldiers who, after capture at the Battle of Hattin, falsely claimed to be Templars in order to be executed, and thus escape slavery stack up? Jehovah would likely doubly-disprove (lying and suicide), while the Allah would probably approve were the captives Muslim and the situation reversed.

0

Isn’t ANYONE interested in how these guys purportedly expressed their decision to die when they have no motor skills and means of expression? Could it be their loved ones want them dead because it’s too hard to take care of them? Does that change the calculus at all?

+1

@Katechon: “They choosed to jump.”

I don’t know that getting away from 1500 degree flames can be considered a “choice”. It is just as much a reaction. Some jumps were clearly considered (the man and woman who held hands before leaping, for example), but others were less so.

0

“Isn’t ANYONE interested in how these guys purportedly expressed their decision to die when they have no motor skills and means of expression? Could it be their loved ones want them dead because it’s too hard to take care of them? Does that change the calculus at all?”

We CAN’T know. That’s why subsidiarity should kick in. Family members and friends can KNOW.

Localize those decisions. Localize.

If there’s a consensus among friends and family on that regard, then let it be.

If not, then it should go to a higher level.

+1

So it’s an element of time with this particular
justification, not the act?

A helicopter could have been minutes away, but their, what, pain and agony, fear, lack of faith caused them to leap?

This guy is in pain and agony and full of fear, let him leap. Let him choose the manner of his death. Imminent shminiment.
You’re actually advocating to keep this guy from ending his agonizing life because YOU believe it to be a sin? He doesn’t hold this belief.
That’s stunning to me.
That’s arrogant.
That’s dangerous.

If this were a Poe story everyone standing in this person’s way would be tested in the same manner, and then the wheelchair rubber will hit the road, so to speak.

This man is not allowed weakness? When just about everything I can think of is forgiven as long as you repent.
This is ludicrous.

+1

@MaryfromMarin: “The people who jumped off the Twin Towers chose the manner of their death, when faced with imminent destruction. Imminent. Not eventual.”

Except it wasn’t *known* to be imminent by everyone. 911 dispatchers were telling them not to jump, help was on the way. Clearly, the people in the burning areas knew their numbers were pretty much up, but the ones in the upper levels were only facing smoke, if anything (especially early on).

0

BFH can not understand the relation between a general rule and an exceptional situation.

He must be an idiot.

0

*Idiot* in the sense Doestoevsky gave to the word of course.

As in this lovable dude in The Idiot.

As in Prince Myschkin.

0

Look at the video. If you can blink you can communicate.
Even if you can move your eyes you can communicate. These guys aren’t retarded. They are fully functioning mentally. they are trapped in a completely useless and painful body. They suffer spasms and seizures. I am sure they feel as if they are a burden.
TRUMAN SAVED LIVES BY DROPPING THOSE BOMBS!!

Let this man be Truman and save the life of his wife.
You all have justifications for every friggin scenario and then clamp down hard on this poor man that doesn’t have to believe in your God.

You can’t even allow him to do one last dignified and heroic act by releasing his wife from this shared hell.

+1

9/11 gives another interesting example: Abe Zelmanowitz. He could have gotten out, but chose to stay with his paralyzed friend, Ed Beyea, who he could not have saved on his own. Noble, certainly. Suicide? Perhaps. Would a just God condemn him for it? I would hope not.

0

@Roscoe–

I have to repeat John 15:13 here, along with John 10:11b–”The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” In the cases you first referenced, men sacrificed themselves for their friends and/or those under their authority. In my opinion, that is very different from the classic definition of “suicide”.

0

“Would a just God condemn him for it? I would hope not.”

We can’t judge in the name of the LORD !!

We can only do our best to enact His will on earth.

If someone chose to die with his loved one, and tell her how much he loves her, and wants to die with her, together, then let him do it.

0

As soon as you say “exceptional situation” you have lost the argument.
Mortal men are now judging what is exceptional.
Why can’t pregnancy through rape be an exceptional situation? Because Joe Shmo says so? And by Joe Shmo I mean The Pope.

There are no asterisks in the Bible.

I’m declaring this argument won by me.

0

@Montjoie: “Isn’t ANYONE interested in how these guys purportedly expressed their decision to die when they have no motor skills and means of expression?”

If they can still control their eyes, there are computer systems (like that used by Prof. Hawking) that would allow for communication.

“Could it be their loved ones want them dead because it’s too hard to take care of them? Does that change the calculus at all?”

Yes, because then it is not *their* choice. It is someone else exercising dominion over them.

0

@katechon: “If there’s a consensus among friends and family on that regard, then let it be.”

What if the family members stand to inherit substantially if the individual is dead? Interested parties don’t necessarily have someone’s best interest at heart.

0

BFH–

“A helicopter could be minutes away”? A whole fleet of helicopters, maybe, to save everyone there? As the flames advanced on them and they heard the rumblings of the Towers as they started to disintegrate?

“Their lack of faith caused them to jump”? Nonsense. It would be equally valid–or non-valid–to claim that God told them to jump.

“You’re actually advocating to keep this guy from ending his agonizing life because YOU believe it to be a sin?” I’m advocating to keep this guy from ending his agonizing life because I do not believe that all hope is gone for him.

+2

“Why can’t pregnancy through rape be an exceptional situation?”

Pregnancy through rape IS an exception.
Are you trolling again?

+1

“There are no asterisks in the Bible.”

Since you are a jew, I’m guessing you are referring to the Torah.

Yes there are : there are the PROPHETS.

The MESSIANIC community.

They are living the Promise, yet are so often taking exception to the Law of Moses.

Hence the perpetual tension between the doctors of the Law and the prophets.

0

In Judaism, the ECONOMY of the Promise to Abraham have precedence to the LAW of the Commandments to Moses.

+1

“What if the family members stand to inherit substantially if the individual is dead? Interested parties don’t necessarily have someone’s best interest at heart.”

In that cases, there should be litigious discussions among family members and close friends. Hence the need to refer to a higher arbiter.

+1

I’m declaring this argument won by me.

__
That’s straight up stand up at the Comedy-Club right there–

that’s what that is

+2

Yes, BFH is a clown, a funny one.

0

@Katechon: “In that cases, there should be litigious discussions among family members and close friends. Hence the need to refer to a higher arbiter.”

So everyone but the individual gets a say in whether or not he can kill himself? Yikes.

The scary thing about the inheritance question is that it is quite possible that the “higher arbiter” would never know about it. Plenty of trusts are outside of court supervision and would be easy enough to hide.

Likewise, how would life insurance companies deal with it? It wouldn’t be terribly hard to draft a policy that allows an individual to kill himself and retain all or partial benefits in the event of a terminal disease, etc. But if the decision is in the hands of others, it would be pretty difficult.

0

“So everyone but the individual gets a say in whether or not he can kill himself? Yikes.”

Errr.. no.

0

In Judaism, the ECONOMY of the Promise to Abraham have precedence to the LAW of the Commandments to Moses.

__
I was just about to close the old lap-top for the night, when I saw that.. did one of those eyelids:

blink–blink, blink–blink
and said, Hey Now that’s cool

naw–

that’s Very Cool!,/b>

best from the Mile-Hi City to you there in Canada, Katechon–stay cool, peace out for tonight

‘night iOTW

+2

” If people are truly free, if they own themselves, ”

A Christian is NOT truly free : he is a SLAVE of Christ.

Christ is my Master. And Judge. And I fear Him.

I was a prisoner of Satan, and Christ delivered me. He’s my Master since, and again, and again…

+1

Closing the ipad too. ‘Night indeed sir!

0

+5 agreed, the way I see it, you can’t kill a dead man.. [Gal 2:20]

+1

When I was young and healthy I had a very narrow view of it all – you know, buck up, suck it up, etc., don’t be a coward. And then I got older and wiser and a lot more compassionate. We have a son who is a doctor and I discussed this with him one day. This precious young man is a dedicated Christian. He told me that the day is rapidly coming when decisions will have to be made. Do we spend resources on the 90-year-old or do we help the young mother? We have another son who is a physician’s assistant and both these sons have told me it is the family who wants to keep the dying relative alive, it is NOT the dying person who wants desperately to rest in peace.
Something to think about when we want to keep Granny around for our own reasons!

0

Fur, I have really enjoyed this thread. Like a Baptist preacher told me years ago, “there are worse things than death.” We all want to die in our sleep, but it’s not that simple most of the time. May God bless all of you for the thoughts this morning. The tower jumps still haunt me.

+1

Then we have the very real possibility of government intervention, the most horrifying aspect, imho.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebelius-decrease-human-beings-will-cover-cost-contraception-mandate

+1

My ^^^^, not referring to abortion per se, but any government official with power to control our healthcare delivery is a danger to all of us.

+1

Too bad, I missed a good thread.

Everyone is focusing on man’s intervention at the end of life (i.e. assisted suicide), but not considering man’s intervention during the course of life (i.e. assisted living).

If you truly believe that these men (or anyone for that matter) should be allowed to die according to God’s will, why then should they not be allowed to live according to God’s will? If I read the article correctly, these men would not be alive if it weren’t for medical assistance.

This argument becomes pretty much on of a Darwinian survival of the fittest, but most people here are being very selective in deciding when it’s ok to introduce social intervention and when it is not.

+1

@ stirrin the B.S.

Like Danlboone, I’m an old school nurse.Have also seen plenty of situations like this, heartbreaking. Medical pros tend toward saving and nurturing life as opposed to snuffing it. This is not something an ethics board should decide. Let your wishes be known thru your attorney. Big dilemna.

If you get rolled in no one is going to wonder off the top what you want anyway, they just see a very sick person in need of care.

Very complex, very difficult what ifs here. Talk to family and friends.

We pray the suffering of these men goes easier.

+1