total double standard.
So, i was thinking last night as i was watching an old episode of crossing jordan on like..fx or A&E or something. the show was about this care giver that takes care of the elderly and in his track record the majority of the old folks past on as result of a stroke. well, turns out he was drugging them up to help put them out of their mercy. i realize im going to get a lot of grief for what im about to say but im going to toss it in the ring and let it get kicked here and there. I dont disagree with the idea. i however dont think that it should be as the result of one mans decision. but heres the conundrum that i have issues with. with previous postings here and elswhere and as i watch different show specials i hear all of these horrible things that are happening in different parts of the world, such as the polar ice caps and the loss of food for the polar bears, therefor resulting in there endangered status. well we have the possibility to kick some help, but we dont, cause theres a large group of people that feel that we need to let nature take its course. or when we're in drought here in az and the mountain lions and coyotes are screwed for multiple reasons, we "let nature take its course". we have technologies to help. if we're going to let nature take its course then things like modern medicine and technology is worthless. if you have an 80+ yr old grandma and she's surviving on medication alone..well in the previous reguard, let nature take its course. we all die, its a fact of life..death and taxes, and i used to say "death, taxes and your hair grows" but thats not even true...cause im balding quite severely.
posted by matt @ 7:35 AM
4 Comments:
alright, dude, I got your back on letting nature take grandma's course. I think that's a good call.
Yeah I think this is a hard one. But what about "letting nature take its course" if your little baby is in the NICU and machines are keeping him/her alive-- with those machines and sophisticated medicines your baby will be OK in a month or so but for a while that little babe's life is totally dependent on that machine/medicine. Who gets to say what age it's OK to let someone die? Who gets to define "quality of life"? I don't know...this subject is a hard one because whether we do or don't intervene we are playing God, in essence.
i just feel that we're educated in certain areas for a reason. im not really saying that we should have the ability to pull the plug, as long as there is hope in the nearest future then medications and technology should be allowed to sustain life..as long as its not an ordeal that is hopeless. BUT my point, being an animal super freak, i feel that these abilities and techniques/technologies should be generalized to all life. we have the technologies and abilities to help different circumstances and save entire species from extinction, however we dont. in severe situations, i feel we as the top species (and that's a stretch..refer to mattbeems song "dolphins dont build casinos")should be intervening on behalf of wildlife that has no other alternative except to wander into towns where they will more than likely be shot or hit by a car. watch the movie Instinct...we suck.
I don't really think there's anything wrong with euthanasia, which is defined as: "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy."
We do it for animals. Why someone should have to linger in misery and pain, if their case is hopeless and they desire to end their life?
As far as "nature taking it's course"... it is not. Humans are screwing with the natural order with cars and factories etc. We are a cancer upon the surface of the earth.
Post a Comment
<< Home