Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message

LOL!
Me, trying to clarify how a right, philosophically speaking, is
inherent to being human, and thus unalienable, and Elroy swings
in from left field :-)

Are you calling me a left-winger?

Pinko!

<all my conversations end up political these days...>

I guess my reason for the questions was because of the current case in
Florida, and also some real life experiences and thoughts I've had
about a close family friend who has brain damage and alzheimers and is
in bad shape and getting worse each year. If I were him, I'd rather
be dead, not only because I couldn't control my own bodily functions,
or talk or walk, but because I realize what a terrible emotional
strain it is on the people who have to take care of him. Out of
compassion for those who were taking care of me, I wouldn't blame them
for pulling some plug, especially if I'd made it known beforehand that
if I ever got into such a state of vegetable-like life, that I'd
rather be dead.

I understand that.
The thing is, it's easy to look from a position of health and so forth
and say, "I wouldn't want to live like that." But humans are rather
astonishing in their will to live, and things might look a lot
different from the perspective of the person in question.
Alzheimer's is rough. I'm sorry your family's going through that.

When I saw the government step in, and overturn a living will, it just
doesn't seem right to me, and I see it as a violation of what I
consider an unalienable right to die when I want to die.

That makes sense. I think, in this case, the problem in Florida is
that she *didn't* have a living will, and there's some conflicting
testimony regarding her wishes. Her husband says one thing, her
friend says another. Husband stands to profit rather substantially if
people believe him, which makes his testimony more suspect (though he
may well be telling the truth). Living wills are a good idea,
particularly as science keeps figuring out how to prolong life.

But a story :-)
My littlest wants to be a herpetologist when he grows up, so we do a
lot of reading about snakes. I happened on a story about some fellow
who is an avid researcher of snakes and their toxins. In the course
of his work, he kept running into stories of people who were bitten by
mambas and then got up days later, survivors. I've forgotten how he
concluded that, if one was bitten by a mamba (which venom is a
neurotoxin) that possibly, if you could just keep the main organs
functioning, the body would process the poison back out. He even
lectured on the possibility.
So one day one of his assistants screws up somehow, and this guy is
indeed bitten by a green mamba. He gets the antivenin injected,

after some time, but he knows it's still nip and tuck. They hop in the jeep
and head to whatever far place has medical facilities, while he feels
the poison start to affect him (it's apparently a fairly nice feeling,
all told, which surprised me). So they get him to the hospital, and
his body's already shutting down. But (you knew there was a but) the
head of the hospital happened to have heard his lecture, so he
attaches him to machines to manage his heart, lung, and kidney or
liver functions (I forget which, and it might be both).
Here's the thing. The poison has done its work. His nervous system
is screwed, and none of his vital organs are working on their own. He
can't move, he can't speak. But he's completely aware of everything
that's happening. He says he passed the time sort of watching the
shaft of sunlight move its way across the ceiling. And one fellow
kept coming in, shaking his head, and urging those there to "unplug
the poor bugger, and put him out of his misery." And all he could do
was think, "Don't you dare!" Well, it turns out the head of the
hospital wanted to give it time to work, and three or four days later
he was able to move his finger. A week or so later, he walked out of
the hospital.

Point being, if the person hasn't made express wishes known, and in
writing, it's just not safe to assume that they're going to agree with
the empathetic assessment of someone *else* who can't imagine existing
that way. And it's also not safe to assume (usually) that there's no
hope.

If "God or the Devil made me do it" is unacceptable in some court of
law, then why is some idea about some god being the only one who is
allowed to take away life even presented into some possible laws?

I'm not sure what you take exception to here.
Would you mind clarifying?

The government stepping in and overturning someone's living will was
what I was talking about. I may have missed some of the facts in the
Florida case, but it sounded to me like a violation of some
unalienable right to die.

I don't think you're going to find a living will in this case. If
there was one, there wouldn't *be* a case.

And here's the thing, Elroy. There's always going to be tension on
the edges --where life begins, and where it's ending. To me, Florida
is heartbreaking, but in a different way. If the woman there is, as
has been reported, actively brain dead -- well, she's not suffering.
She's not embarassed. She's not in pain.

One fellow on the radio speculated that her soul was screaming to be
released. I wondered how he could possibly know that.

So it comes down to the other people. And for me, as a parent, I
can't imagine anything more traumatizing than watching my child
*starve* to death over the period of a week or ten days. I mean,
let's be clear here -- by depriving someone of food, they're
essentially killing her, but it's passive (withholding care) rather
than active (shooting her full of morphine) and thus falls on the one
side of that thin ethical line, even if it is more barbaric.

If the parents are willing to accept responsibility for her care, and
she's not suffering, then let them, while the collective "we" work out
a better way to determine when to pull the plug.

And please don't mistake my comments. I think there are good, valid,
reasonable times *to* pull the plug.

It *sounds* like that you are rejecting the notion that humans (and
let's avoid the contentious issues like coma victims or abortion,
okay?) have a right to keep living if the state or some other more
powerful individual decides they should die, but that doesn't sound
like you, so I think I'm misunderstanding you.

I think it's just the opposite, so you obviously misunderstood me, or
I wasn't clear enough. I think it's wrong for the state or federal
government to step in and override the wishes of an individual's
right to die. Suicide being against the law is also a violation of an
individual's right to have complete control of their life, imo.

I think a lot of places have removed that law.

It's sort of silly, don't you think?

Don't go thinking I'm suicidal or anything, I just wanted to point out
that I find governmental meddling in such things as wrong.

If your argument is government is increasingly intrusive in all the
aspects of our personal lives, I'll quite agree with you. It's the
closet looneytarian in me :-)