Execution, Prison, Marriage, and other Trivial Moral Stuff :D

As I have said, in my opinion, removing (or refusing to administer) artificial support is killing them, but not necessarily murder. Killing is just taking actions to end a life (and yes, in my opinion, refusing to take an action is actually taking an action). Removing or denying artificial support to let "nature take its course" is simply using nature to do the killing.

Killing is not necessarily bad or evil, though, in my opinion. Obeying someone's consensual Advance Directives and Living Will to end their suffering is killing them, but most definitely NOT murder. Murder is an entirely different thing: the premeditated, unlawful killing of another being, to be precise. The major difference between the two is the consent of the one being killed.

That's why it's so important to get that Living Will and Advance Directives made out, especially if you have family who would be your survivors. It's better to never start the artificial means than have to turn it off.

I have intimate knowledge of several people who made these kind of decisions.

My father had a stroke and was an invalid for seven years, essentially bedridden for most of that time. He was diagnosed with lung cancer in his last year or so. He decided not to treat the cancer at the time of diagnosis, as the recommended treatments were extremely painful and came with a large chance of being fatal themselves. Besides, giving an 80 year old a lung transplant was simply out of the question. Although he never made out a living will, he did sign a DNR, specifying palliative care only in case of future further incapacitation, as he was in and out of the hospital a lot. The last time was for a bout of pneumonia (one of many over the years) that he was actively, consciously fighting in the hospital (with antibiotics and other treatments) up to the point where he simply lost consciousness and stopped breathing. He had chosen to refuse extreme measures to prolong his life, such as ventilation or other artificial support in the DNR, so the decision was made.

Yes, by my personal standards, he chose to allow himself to be killed. I do not blame him or the hospital; what they did was with his consent, and the family supported his choice.

My FIL was an Alzheimer's patient. Personally, I wouldn't wish that disease on anyone. Prior to diagnosis, he made out a Living Will and Advance Directives, specifically outlining what he would allow done to him if he lost his ability to care for himself, including mental impairment (I still have a copy in my files, and it's a genuine masterpiece of legalese, as it is both thorough and comprehensible to the layman--I plan to use one very like it for myself).

After diagnosis, while he was still competent to make decisions on his own care, he consented to several drug trials for experimental treatments. Someday, we may cure Alzheimer's, and maybe some good will come from that. Unfortunately, they didn't do much for him.

Having the Living Will and Advance Directives made it a lot easier to bear when the disease eventually killed him, as by that time he didn't recognize anyone anymore, and although it may have been possible to use artificial means to prolong his heartbeat, the brain was damaged enough to not be able to ever do so on its own.

Again, by my standards, he allowed himself to be killed, but given the circumstances, he believed to do otherwise would be a waste, and I agree.

My MIL was a multiple cancer survivor. The treatments she had back in the 1970s were effective, but the side effects caught up with her 30 years later, when she was told her the recommended treatment (complicated abdominal surgery) was her only chance for continued survival. She realistically evaluated her odds of surviving the surgery (not good, she was in her 80s and very weak) and of the surgery being successful (the surgeons said it would be difficult and painful, and had a relatively large possibility of not helping at all) and decided to enter hospice care. She accepted pain medication (morphine) only, and died after about a week. I was there during the whole process, including spending several nights bedside while the rest of the family tried to sleep. She was lucid during the hospice process, and she said her goodbyes before she slipped into a coma and died.

Lest you think this was the stereotypical MIL-SIL relationship, she and I were not just connected through her daughter, we were good friends. In better days, I gladly took her shopping when she couldn't drive any more, and shared many lunch dates with her, getting to know her in ways her own blood relatives couldn't. I won't say her passing affected me as it did her children, but it wasn't in any ways a pleasant experience.

Once more, by my standards, she allowed herself to be killed, but she had set the limits on what she could tolerate, without coercion by anyone else. No one else should, could, or did make that decision for her, and I respect that.

And if anyone had tried to force her to make a different decision against her will, I would have fought them with everything in my power. That goes for all of the examples I've just posted, of course.

I'll go one step further on the subject of killing: Barring sudden death from stroke, heart attack, murder, etc. that happens before I reach a hospital, I fully expect to be killed someday. It's simply a harsh reality that we all must face.

Some may find my use of the term "kill" disturbing, but as I've said before, I don't want to sugarcoat a harsh, cold, brutal fact. I don't want to trivialize or obscure what is really happening when making life and death decisions for myself or others.

In short, by admitting what I'm doing is killing, I hopefully will force everyone (including myself) to acknowledge that under the right circumstances, killing is justifiable, moral, and in many cases, even compassionate.

I also don't want to give myself or anyone else an excuse to kill for anything but those most thoroughly appropriate reasons. My conscience will be clear on the matter, rather than troubled by euphemism and evasion.

Yeah, it may be painful, but at least it's honest.

It should never be too easy to take a human life; it's not something to be flippant about. If you can stare everyone in the eye and honestly say "Yes, this is killing", and still sleep at night, then you have likely put in enough thought on the subject.

I have to respectfully disagree with the terminology of the use of the word Killing.

To kill is to end someone's life implying either by your inaction or action. Or Malice.

Death comes to us all.
At 100 yrs old and nature takes its course, and my body starts to shut down, the exact cause of death may be complicated and best left to a pedantic M.E., but in all aspects of the word, if its pure nature, the real cause is "Old age".

There has never been a death by AIDS...
Acute Immunity Deficiency Syndrome, because you have no immune system, "Anything", including a common cold, can kill, but thats not the aids, its the thing you are not immune to.

Therefore, death takes many forms.

In a Young healthy person, a small diversion into unconsciousness by an aggressive system shock should be fought by all means possible. Jump on that chest and get the heart going again....
In an older frail post 100 yrs old, the same treatment, such as cardiac work by chest compression, may crush the rib cage.

One size definitely does not fit all.

Where I have a problem is the aggressive life support of terminal cases who may have already indicated "Enough is enough".
That is NOT "OK" in My book...

And then Terminal.
My father went from terminal cancer.
I sat at his bedside offering him half of my Liver if it would help, could they replace his liver with half of mine to cut out the cancer he had there...
My father declined.
"That would only prolong the inevitable, and I may not survive the surgery, its not just the liver, its everywhere by now"
That and it would have left me in hospital for "Months" to recover anyway.
We managed to say our words, "That conversation", the one many people find hard to have.
And then the living will part, he bought me up to speed, that he was on experimental drugs, that may work, may not, but in his case, there was nothing else, so he had agreed to go one more roll of the dice in case it could help cancer research worldwide.
He wanted no lingering death, and had agreed to a DNR at the later stages.

Did I therefore kill him by allowing him to refuse my offer of a replacement Liver?.
I can hear a thousand hairy horsemen in my head led by my Father shouting at me to not even think that way.
Just exactly what he was doing with a thousand horses in the first place is extremely worrying, I never saw my Dad on horseback, he said he tried that one and got vertigo... this from the man who pulled a jumper off a bridge?.. nah, we all knew he secretly disliked horses, he didnt trust them.
Perhaps he is taking up new hobbies in his next life?.

My father went from Cancer... sure we could have prolonged the agony a few months by forcing him into life support, but, against his wishes?.
I do not see our allowing him to go with what little self respect he still had as "Nature" taking its course.
Nature can be cruel.

I do not see someone respecting someone else's wishes as "Killing them" if they are letting outside influences take their course.
The same as I do not see "Old age" as a battle to keep someone alive when they have no self respect or wish to continue.

We must all die at some point... I do not see letting that happen as Killing, unless you do so with malice.

In saying that, I have full respect here to emergency services who pull those back from the brink who's time has not yet come.
Accidental possibilities of death is immune from above conversation.
If an accident threatens someones life, all and any attempts to save them are sacrosanct, it is in the nature of most people to try and help, and in the training of others, to those, we all owe a debt of gratitude, who knows where we would be without them?..

For me, death on either a roadside after a bad motorcycle accident "Smidsy", delayed by a group of off duty firemen, or on a factory floor after an incident that required parameds to check me out before I checked out myself.

I therefore respect the wishes of a Living Will, and do not see following that as "Killing", I see that as respect for their wishes.
I just wish we all made such wills before we were incapable of doing so.

I'm sure it was a factor.

here is a link to a more in-depth pro/con discussion of the legislation and what the FDA already has in place to allow terminal patients to get early access to drugs.

www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/fdageneral/67222

also note the senate vote only forwards the bill to the house, where it is one of a plural number of right to try bills.

and there is the question of what counts as a genetic disease.

so for the sake of argument: a fetus that definitely had a non-survivable condition? as in no hope of surviving for a week post-birth.

Genetic modification is going through the argument like that already.
Maybe that kind of gene therapy would have taken an inch or two off my height before evolution caught up, and I wouldnt have the back problems I have now with the arthritis, common in a lot of people my age, and this height or taller, but, interestingly, not so much in the younger generations, for whom the height issue without the accompanying health problems has been corrected by a certain amount of evolution.
Perhaps that gene "Fixed" its self in evolution?.
When I was a kid, being 6ft at the end of school, I stood a good six inches above many others of the same age.
I still do.
Only younger generations now are the same height as us older "Giants"

Do we play god with the choice of looks as well?.
Erm, let me see....
YES!.
I dont see why changing the fact that there is an inherent crooked nose in the family cant be sorted now rather than expensive painful corrective surgery later in life?.

Where does that end?.

I suppose younger generations will have to face the problem all of their ownsome.
We as the older generation at the end of our lives should not [-sod-] it up for those so near the begging of theirs?.
And yes, it was Douglas Adams who said that line before me, I just happen to agree with him.

Should the Female of the species be able to pick hair colour, BMI, and other vacuous vanity variations?.
If they got the money to waste, let 'em.

If in doing that, that type of gene mapping just happens to isolate inerrant genetics disorders, and eradicates Huntingdons, Fragile X, Downs, ME, Muscular Dystrophy, Lupus, to keep it brief just those from a whole page full of possible inerrant disabilities, and then also completely eradicate all forms of Autism, including Aspergers, and just leave behind a highly intelligent child without the social awkwardess that goes with it, you will get a standing ovation from many of those who suffer that problem.
Including me.
In fact I will standing applause you every time we meet until one of us dies of extreme old age.

Where should we go next?.

Hows about eradication bovine TB in all species?.
Foot and Mouth.
Bird flu.

If in doing that we end up with a set of stunningly beautiful healthy livestock that just live eat sleep produce milk repeat for many years, again, that standing ovation.

For me, this is no more than bug chasing errant code in XP, first you need to identify all the useless junk in there that doesnt change anything, then work out where the bugs are, and then replace broken strings with good strong ones.

If by doing that you just happen to help the UI get easier to use, its all good....

And if Mummy and Daddy are billionaires who want "The perfect child", then as long as they sign the "No promises but to the best of our ability" clause, let em pay.

Those on social welfare can just get what they get, and maybe pick up the pieces whereby all kids now are genetically manipulated to prevent childhood disease and early death, you are giving them the nest start in life, and thats still value of "priceless".

This is an ideal world we are dreaming up, why not go big on the ideas?.

Question on Vanity...
The good friend I had from back many years ago since school has a problem with OVER Large breasts.
Its a family trait.
All the women back up her own family tree had this problem.
She eventually had a reduction.

However... if they can isolate that family gene and eliminate it, and let the Girl kids in the family graduate from buckets and yard rope into proper fitting bra's in future generations, would that be Vanity or a good medical practise?.
Let alone the problems of underwear, the back problems by having all that top heavy weight.

As her, I know I did, about the possibility of having kids without that problem, she is all for allowing that kind of progress.

now, to further complicate the equation, what if it is a condition that shows a 50% chance of taking the mother with the baby?

As I said before, if the mother's life is in jeopardy, that's the only time I would find abortion an acceptable choice. But a 50/50 chance? I don't know. A 50/50 chance both will die vs a 100% chance that one will. That would be up to the mother, but if it was me, I'd have to take the risk. Could be other factors involved in the decision also. Such as how many other small kids are dependent on that mother. Some pretty hard decisions to make.