Something for both Christians and non-Christians to chew on

[Soundbear]

For an individual to determine whether their life has quality or not is one thing; trying to decide that for another human being is much, much more difficult.

Scenario: You have been married for 40 years. Your wife has been your best friend and companion since you were both teens. Sadly, she has suffered a catastrophic illness, and is clinging to life on a respirator. You had many conversations with her about this kind of thing, and over the years, she consistently told you that she would rather be let go, than linger in a state like that. But the illness struck suddenly, before she had the chance to put anything legal in place, to deal with an issue like this.

The doctor walks up to you, and asks, "There is nothing we can do for her. The only thing keeping her alive is the respirator. What do you want us to do?"

Would you be morally and ethically wrong to say, "She doesn't want this, turn off the machine"?

Would you be morally and ethically wrong to say, "I don't care what she wanted. Keep her alive, at all costs"?

You have now entered the paradox zone. You can't win, either way. So, what do you do?

Those who claim this issue is straightforward or simple, haven't really gone through an exercise like this.

Wanna bet??

I'll let you know later.

[lynys]

Life begins at conception. Non-Christian here.

It makes me ill to know a woman can so easily choose to destroy an embryo or a fetus without recourse. Sad.

[RWGR]

It may be obvious to you that life begins at conception, but millions of people disagree. So, if you're just stating your opinion, then that's fine, but if your making a declarative statement, you will have to provide more than just that.

What is your definition of "life"? My basic definition is this: if the heart is beating, there is life. Now, the human heart usually does not begin beating in a fetus until three weeks or so after conception. Inasmuch, I still say life begins at conception, because the production of the heart (for lack of a better phrase) is already in the process of fulfillment. There is something going on that is not totally connected to the mother's body. Taking that life for any reason is an arbitrary decision, and in today's world the reasons for that decision are many time selfish, or clouded in ignorance.

'A life is a life, therefore it has quality', is not a valid statement. It's just a circular argument.

A life is a life is not circular, it is definitive. You can't get more linear.

The concept of 'quality of life', means making an assessment on whether or not life has purpose or meaning for the individual involved, and determining a course of action or inaction, depending on those findings. Does just having a pulse give life meaning? Does it give it quality?

Who defines "quality"? You? The government healthcare board? The U.N.? A council of twelve from the World Health Organization? And if it is any of them, why them?

If life ends according to nature's rule, then are you opposed to artificial heart transplants? If you say that no group should arbitrarily decide when life ends due to political or economic reasons, then how do you rationalize the artificial extension of life, based on those very same parameters?

Because I believe God created science, I believe if an artificial extension of life is available, then it is okay. And what are these "political" or "economic" reasons someone would benefit from an extension of life through artificial means? Seems to me it is the political (government health boards trying to use limited funds to care for an aging population) and the economic ("we must pull the plug on father, it is costing too much to keep him alive at this point) that in fact are the leading sources of arbitrary decision-making. Life is boiled down to its political or economic utility.

That, sir, is wrong

[The Left Sock]

LAKE ELMO, Minnesota, February 15, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 65-year-old Raleane "Rae" Kupferschmidt’s relatives were told by doctors that she was "brain dead" after she had suffered a massive cerebral haemorrhage in mid-January, according to an Associated Press Report. Her family had taken her home to die and were in the process of grieving and planning her funeral when she awoke and was rushed back to hospital.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...8/feb/08021508

Life is not simple. Not saying that in my scenario, the man was wrong for telling the doctor to pull the plug, but if something like this happened, tell me it wouldn't play games with someone's mind, after the fact.

So, what's the moral of the story? Perhaps something like, "Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so we should just let people decide for themselves, and their loved ones, what steps to take in the struggle between life and death."

Would that be a good "Golden Rule" for quality of life issues?

[lynys]

May I ask why you are making a topic such as this about religion? People of all faiths, and no faith at all are faced with this decision everyday. Why does a "Golden Rule" need to be brought into it?

[Soundbear]

May I ask why you are making a topic such as this about religion? People of all faiths, and no faith at all are faced with this decision everyday. Why does a "Golden Rule" need to be brought into it?

The Golden Rule is mere common sense and has nothing to do with religion.

[lynys]

Ah. I was always under the impression that the Golden Rule had more of a religious connotation.

[The Left Sock]

Well, the whole object of the exercise is to find common ground between Christians and non-Christians, so finding a 'Golden Rule' (aka general principle) that both sides can agree upon, is the big prize, the major objective.

[Soundbear]

Ah. I was always under the impression that the Golden Rule had more of a religious connotation.

Ther bible mentions it.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Want to be treated right?? Then you should also treat others right.

[The Left Sock]

Sorry, I should have used different terminology, didn't mean to confuse things with what is obviously a Christian concept. I meant a 'golden rule' for quality of life issues specifically, not a general rule that applies to all areas of life.

[Soundbear]

Huh?? It's not a Christian concept. And it applies quite nicely to your needs in this case.

Naturally, the Christian has other concerns that tend to override the rule when it comes to stuff like assisted suicide etc.

I sure can't visualize any other rule of life that makes better sense.

[NewCasa]

The concept of the golden rule originated with the Greek philosophers before Christianity. It comes from meden agan and means 'nothing in excess'. It has nothing to do with religion, thought Christians have their own take on it and often claim it as their own, as with so many other concepts.

[RWGR]

The concept of the golden rule originated with the Greek philosophers before Christianity. It comes from meden agan and means 'nothing in excess'. It has nothing to do with religion, thought Christians have their own take on it and often claim it as their own, as with so many other concepts.

And before the Greeks it came from the Jewish faith, which is the progenitor of the Christian faith.

[lynys]

So, what you are all saying is it does in fact have the religious connotation I thought it did.

Thanks.

[RWGR]

So, what you are all saying is it does in fact have the religious connotation I thought it did.

Thanks.

Sure!

[The Left Sock]

Te refresh everyone's memory, this is what I proposed a while back. Forget the 'Golden Rule' part, because the thing I was proposing, and the classically understood Golden Rule, are not the same at all:

"Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so we should just let people decide for themselves, and their loved ones, what steps to take in the struggle between life and death."

[Soundbear]

So, what you are all saying is it does in fact have the religious connotation I thought it did.

Thanks.

I'd love to see your version.

[RWGR]

"Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so we should just let people decide for themselves, and their loved ones, what steps to take in the struggle between life and death."

Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do,so I should not get out of bed today

Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so I best prepare for a meteor to crash through my roof

Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so we should all stop having kids, because bringing them into this world is cruel

Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so I will not pay back my house loan, because we may all be gone tomorrow anyways


Where does it end??

[lynys]

Like pulling teeth here sometimes.

[Soundbear]

Te refresh everyone's memory, this is what I proposed a while back. Forget the 'Golden Rule' part, because the thing I was proposing, and the classically understood Golden Rule, are not the same at all:

"Life is uncertain, unpredictable, and we really don't have the control we think we do, so we should just let people decide for themselves, and their loved ones, what steps to take in the struggle between life and death."

"...just like we would want those choices for ourselves"

I thought so. More words. Same concept. Not religious.