AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2008-11-17, 15:59   Link #41
Shadow Kira01
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PMB Headquarters
I don't see how the girl's refusal of a heart transplant have any ties with euthanasia or suicide. Its not even related. However, it is entirely possible to drag any unrelated issue to have relations as long as you try hard enough.

All I see is.. A 13-year old female teenager refuses to have a heart transplant, because the chances of the surgery may be unsuccessful and it may also have side effects. Aside from that, the surgery will leave physical scars. And on top of that, the actual idea is to have one's chest opened up by surgeons, the heart forcefully removed and then the surgeons will forcefully put in another person's internal organ into the teen, then sew it up. It is very understandable as to why she refused the transplant. And it is definitely not related to euthanasia or suicide. She is not requesting any fatal injections and neither is she trying to kill herself. How hard is this to understand? I don't get it.
__________________
Shadow Kira01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 16:34   Link #42
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
I did no say so, I said I call them zealots, but I did not say they are zealots.
So, your defense is that you call them as you don't see them. Wow, you were right. You do suck at making arguments.

Quote:
Your name could be Dick, but you wouldn't actually be a dick.
No, but if you call me a dick, I'd expect you to think I'm a dick.

Quote:
They are zealot-like,
Because they believe in an afterlife? It takes more than that to make a zealot.

Quote:
because if somebody created a perfect war machine, he would either give it a simple, animal-like mind like orks in Warhammer,
Or, you know, enough smarts to use modern weapons and tactics.
Quote:
or a religion.
As Stalin proved, you don't need a religion, let alone a belief in an afterlife (which, by the way, doesn't imply a religion on its own), to bring out the worst in people. If that's what you mean by "perfect war-machine".

Quote:
I've been in hospitals when I was younger, and no I wasn't in pain and not in surgery, but it was in no way even sad.
So, no heart transplant, then. And no prospect of having to go back regularly for the rest of your life?

I don't have much personal experience with hospitals either, but my mother does. While she's thankfully never needed an actual transplant, I know she balks at her own should-be-regular visits. Not to mention her medication. I imagine it'd be worse for that kid.

Quote:
Majority of mankind does. Also, of men, a massive majority.
That's not the story the declining birth rates in developed countries is telling. Please don't confuse having a libido with making it one's life goal of having lots of babies.


Quote:
Why not? It is something everybody should experience, at least in some way.
Why?

Quote:
How so? She has been sick for the most of her early life, this is the time she would actually be growing up and forming to be a thinking, deeply feeling adult.
She's thirteen, not three. She's quite able to think and feel. She's had opportunity to compare life within hospitals and without. She's not making an uninformed decision, here.


Quote:
My first post said that she should just do it if she wants to,
You also called her a moron for it. And a pussy, if I remember correctly.

Quote:
I believe I am describing why she is not thinking rationally.
You're describing why her choice is inconsistent with your own personal values, your own tastes. But you seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the idea that not everyone shares those, and that doesn't make them - us - wrong, or stupid, or cowardly.

Quote:
Suicide, by your own hand or not, slow or not, is not a happy thing.
Neither, to her, would life after a heart transplant be. Oft times, life is all about picking your poison.

Quote:
This was related to another portion, but since our posts have been sliced up so much, this has been ripped away (by you) from its mother to take its own course.
Oh? Then care to explain why you wrote it in the first place?
Quote:
Do you know what you are? A brick. A brick in the wall of society. You know how they claim that we would die out if we were all gays? That's not possible since again, gays are such a minor portion, and we even are overpopulating the Earth so it would be just better to stop population growth completely.

But the brick. You have a job in the society. Make money, spread money, breed. Continue what your fathers and mothers have done for centuries before you. That is your job. To continue the human race. If you don't want to do that, you don't have to. People have other dreams too, achieving things. Making a note of yourself in the history books. Lemme be honest, I do not fully understand why we even fight so much for dreams. Maybe evolution put such a system to our mind to fight against boredom, since it pretty much nothing else to throw at us. You know Asian MMORPGs tend to rely on grind a lot. People usually dream of the superior moves they are going to get. Dreams, goals and such... People often have them. Maybe this girl doesn't. Maybe you just have to plant a couple. Young people feel so bad so often, when compared to older folks who have absolutely nothing "to do" anymore. Maybe young people feel bad, because they feel they are inadequate.
What you were answering to was relevant. I was trying to explain that the future - or our ideas of it - influenced our present choices, and that more life wasn't always the answer. How does what your brick analogy support your position?

Quote:
Not everybody share my view of helping poor countries, either.
Yes, but can you understand it doesn't make them wrong, or "morons", or "pussies"?


Quote:
But it is, mankind would die if we wouldn't breed.
So? As I said, "I do not believe we have any kind of duty to perpetuate ourselves. We do it because we want to, not out of "duty".". Do I have to reformulate with monosyllables?

So what if mankind dies out? I don't support genocide, but I don't support forcing people to reproduce, either.

Quote:
You are living in a world of freedom and hidden duties and rules.
No, only cause and effect. Freedom, duties, and rules are the products of human imagination.

Quote:
Yours does.
Mine boils down to "it's her life, and therefore her values and her choice are what matters" and "I can accept that she'd find the life of a transplantee unpleasant".


Quote:
Actually not, "stored" mind is as common matter of study as is Artificial Intelligence nowadays.
An actual stored human mind in the next few years? Dream on.

Quote:
Why do you compare it to a normal life? Compare it to her choice of life. She has a failing heart...

How so? We have debated of the quality of both choices and you have yet to prove that her choice of living with her heart WITH A HOLE IN IT, in her early teens which many people complain to have been a difficult time, is somehow better than going into a surgery, being in the hospital for months, getting released, and visiting the hospital constantly.
As I and others have been trying to explain to you - it's her choice, dependent of her values. The question itself is barely more rational than a choice of favorite color. (I always thought people who picked "pink" were brain damaged...)

Just like Achilles chose a short, glorious life over a long, obscure one, she chose a short, comfortable one over a slightly longer, unpleasant one.

Quote:
What are you talking about, first you said the money line, I posted Hugh Hefner, then you start going on about something other.
You tried to argue that no matter what the source of her unhappiness was, as long as she was kept in gigolos and elephants she'd be happy. I admit that my own reply was badly formulated, but I was trying to point out that happiness wasn't that cheap. That, Hefner notwithstanding, plenty of people wouldn't be happy with that lifestyle.


Quote:
You ignore my point and pick an added edit that is just side notification.
What point? That sometimes they have events at hospitals? Parties? Mine is that she doesn't want a daily life of frequent hospital visits.

Quote:
Oh my, what an agony, people poking you.
Just a figure of speech for all the medical procedures she'd have to endure.

Quote:
Way to be a douche.

Maybe you should get a dictionary from somewhere and just look the word "inadequate" up. That would explain a lot, I assume.
And you'd be wrong. Like WK, I know the meaning of every word you've used. What you actually mean, or how it's relevant, though? No idea.

Quote:
Also, pain being described as a thing to evade even by killing yourself, why do masochists love fear and love pain? Why do athletes and body builders push their muscles beyond their limit, causing pain?
In the case of the athletes, because they think the rewards of efforts are worth the costs of pain. In the case of masochists, because they find pleasure in the pain itself. Neither example indicates we should seek out pain for its own sake. Or even that we should all be masochistic body builders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
I'm sorry, but if the girl wants to die, what part of it is related to euthanasia?
To be precise, she wants to avoid the "cure" proposed to her because of its side effects.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 19:45   Link #43
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
WanderingKnight: I'm sorry, but if the girl wants to die, what part of it is related to euthanasia?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
Well, if you see them both as perfectly acceptable, it's pretty natural to not distinguish them, but for a person who does see euthanasia as wrong or unacceptable for some reason to not distinguish between them is to deny the reality of natural death.
"Any death that can be avoided, must be". If you believe that, then there's still no difference between euthanasia and giving up on treatment. They're both unacceptable.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 20:00   Link #44
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Umm, so you would really really force her to live against her will?

I... really can't understand the reasoning behind that (well, actually, I do, but I don't see the fairness of it). If anything, letting her live would do her much much worse--as I said before, if she believes it'll be hell, it will be hell for her.
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 21:46   Link #45
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
I believe I've already stated my stand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
In Hannah's case, what if the heart transplant fails to cure her? More years spent in hospital, instead of living life as normally as she can. Tough luck, huh? What gives me the right to decide for (her)? Or worse, to force (her) to accept my decision?
However, I'm concerned that the "pro-natural death" camp is — ironically — being too close-minded to understand why there are very strong concerns against taking such a stand.

To reiterate what Dr Rosalie Shaw said:
"When people ask to die, what they really mean is, 'Do you know how difficult this is?' As their bodies break down, they hope that they will not linger long, but they don't expect doctors to do anything but listen."


Dr Shaw does not confuse euthanasia with a living will, but she does, on the other hand, highlight some very important concerns:

1) How do caregivers know when they haven't tried hard enough to persuade a terminally-ill patient to continue the fight to stay alive?

2) How do we know for sure when the resignation to death is not, in fact, a cry for help? In other words, are we really sure that the patient fully understands his choice? Have we, the caregivers, truly heard what he was actually asking for?


Signing a living will does not mean condoning assisted suicide. However, it's not very hard to see the potential moral equivalence. For people who fervently believe that life is sacred, letting someone die when you have the means to potentially save him is only one step removed from actually killing him with your own hands.

By all means, we should respect an individual's right to choose death with dignity. For such people, palliative care is vital.

But again, as Dr Shaw noted, different people react to impending death in different ways. For some people, it could well be that they have lost hope because there is no one around to support them through the pain, to make it worthwhile to stay alive, just a little bit longer.

Can we then truly say that we're doing the "right thing" by respecting their wish to refuse extraordinary treatment? What if someone had shown these patients just that little bit more love and care, to make life worth living, to the very painful end?

Would we not then have failed our duty to our fellow human beings?

Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2008-11-17 at 22:07.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-17, 23:14   Link #46
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
Update on the end-of-life debate in Singapore:

A living will is not euthanasia?
Quote:
Singapore (Nov 18, 2008): THE ongoing public debate over end-of-life issues made its way into parliament yesterday when several MPs questioned Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan on the subject.

The minister kicked off the discussion last month by referring to living wills, euthanasia and palliative care to relieve the pain of the terminally ill several times in speeches he made.

He wanted people to be prepared for death by, for example, signing living wills, or Advance Medical Directives (AMDs), so that their families would not be put in the difficult position of deciding when to pull the plug on medical treatment when the time comes.

Much of the discussion in parliament yesterday centred on the confusion over the various terms.

Ms Ellen Lee (MP for Sembawang GRC) said the confusion is greater when the subject is discussed in Chinese. As the Chinese term for euthanasia is "comfortable death" ( 安乐死 : an le si), many think this also refers to AMDs or living wills.

Agreeing that "AMD" is a "mouthful of a name", Mr Khaw said the confusion was obvious in letters published in the Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao in recent weeks. He said: "(It) suggests to me that many of them have totally confused euthanasia with assisted suicide and AMD. These are three very different things."

He added although he had no plans to legalise euthanasia, he welcomed the recent public debate on the issue. "It has raised public awareness about palliative care and the frustrations of some terminally ill (patients) and their caregivers."

He estimated that 60 per cent of people who need palliative care — such as terminally ill cancer patients — receive it. The issue is not cost, as hospice care is highly subsidised, but lack of awareness. He noted that since 1996, when the AMD Act was passed, 10,100 people have signed AMDs. Among them, 19 subsequently revoked theirs. Six have been put into effect.

To make it easier for people to sign AMDs, he plans to remove the need to have a doctor as witness and to allow doctors to talk to patients about the subject, the way Americans can. He also wants to change the law that now makes it a crime for a doctor or nurse to ask a patient if he has signed an AMD.

"I do not know if Singaporeans are ready for these amendments," he said.

- The Straits Times
Interesting point: The confusion of issues arose here because of the inadequate translation of highly technical — and unnecessarily euphemistic — terms.
TinyRedLeaf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 05:58   Link #47
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf View Post
I believe I've already stated my stand:


However, I'm concerned that the "pro-natural death" camp is ironically being too close-minded to understand why there are very strong concerns against taking such a stand.

To reiterate what Dr Rosalie Shaw said:
"When people ask to die, what they really mean is, 'Do you know how difficult this is?' As their bodies break down, they hope that they will not linger long, but they don't expect doctors to do anything but listen."


Dr Shaw does not confuse euthanasia with a living will, but she does, on the other hand, highlight some very important concerns:

1) How do caregivers know when they haven't tried hard enough to persuade a terminally-ill patient to continue the fight to stay alive?

2) How do we know for sure when the resignation to death is not, in fact, a cry for help? In other words, are we really sure that the patient fully understands his choice? Have we, the caregivers, truly heard what he was actually asking for?

If failure there has been, it's unfortunate, but accept it and move on. Try to sell life a little harder next time. That doesn't justify stealing people's choice on how they want to conduct their lives.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 08:37   Link #48
Eggs in a Bottle
Ehh I love suits?
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
So, your defense is that you call them as you don't see them. Wow, you were right. You do suck at making arguments.


No, but if you call me a dick, I'd expect you to think I'm a dick.


Because they believe in an afterlife? It takes more than that to make a zealot.


Or, you know, enough smarts to use modern weapons and tactics.

As Stalin proved, you don't need a religion, let alone a belief in an afterlife (which, by the way, doesn't imply a religion on its own), to bring out the worst in people. If that's what you mean by "perfect war-machine".


So, no heart transplant, then. And no prospect of having to go back regularly for the rest of your life?

I don't have much personal experience with hospitals either, but my mother does. While she's thankfully never needed an actual transplant, I know she balks at her own should-be-regular visits. Not to mention her medication. I imagine it'd be worse for that kid.


That's not the story the declining birth rates in developed countries is telling. Please don't confuse having a libido with making it one's life goal of having lots of babies.



Why?


She's thirteen, not three. She's quite able to think and feel. She's had opportunity to compare life within hospitals and without. She's not making an uninformed decision, here.



You also called her a moron for it. And a pussy, if I remember correctly.


You're describing why her choice is inconsistent with your own personal values, your own tastes. But you seem to have trouble wrapping your head around the idea that not everyone shares those, and that doesn't make them - us - wrong, or stupid, or cowardly.


Neither, to her, would life after a heart transplant be. Oft times, life is all about picking your poison.



Oh? Then care to explain why you wrote it in the first place?

What you were answering to was relevant. I was trying to explain that the future - or our ideas of it - influenced our present choices, and that more life wasn't always the answer. How does what your brick analogy support your position?


Yes, but can you understand it doesn't make them wrong, or "morons", or "pussies"?



So? As I said, "I do not believe we have any kind of duty to perpetuate ourselves. We do it because we want to, not out of "duty".". Do I have to reformulate with monosyllables?

So what if mankind dies out? I don't support genocide, but I don't support forcing people to reproduce, either.


No, only cause and effect. Freedom, duties, and rules are the products of human imagination.


Mine boils down to "it's her life, and therefore her values and her choice are what matters" and "I can accept that she'd find the life of a transplantee unpleasant".



An actual stored human mind in the next few years? Dream on.


As I and others have been trying to explain to you - it's her choice, dependent of her values. The question itself is barely more rational than a choice of favorite color. (I always thought people who picked "pink" were brain damaged...)

Just like Achilles chose a short, glorious life over a long, obscure one, she chose a short, comfortable one over a slightly longer, unpleasant one.


You tried to argue that no matter what the source of her unhappiness was, as long as she was kept in gigolos and elephants she'd be happy. I admit that my own reply was badly formulated, but I was trying to point out that happiness wasn't that cheap. That, Hefner notwithstanding, plenty of people wouldn't be happy with that lifestyle.



What point? That sometimes they have events at hospitals? Parties? Mine is that she doesn't want a daily life of frequent hospital visits.


Just a figure of speech for all the medical procedures she'd have to endure.


And you'd be wrong. Like WK, I know the meaning of every word you've used. What you actually mean, or how it's relevant, though? No idea.


In the case of the athletes, because they think the rewards of efforts are worth the costs of pain. In the case of masochists, because they find pleasure in the pain itself. Neither example indicates we should seek out pain for its own sake. Or even that we should all be masochistic body builders.


To be precise, she wants to avoid the "cure" proposed to her because of its side effects.
Okay I tried to read this while thinking arguments, but then I got to parts where you just try to push it to personals. You've been trying this through the couples pages now, aiming at me rather than at the argument I'm trying to make. You may mistook the word douche of my last post too, since it was aimed at your behaviour of answering like that, I was not implifying that you are in fact a complete douche bag (I mean that's how you saw it). Since you feel like this is a personal fight, you obviously somehow mistook the part where I say "if your name was Dick", as pointing to YOU, you were mistaken, I didn't even thought of the possibility of you thinking it like that.

Also I apologized for the word pussy when talking of suicides, and I said that it was the wrong word.

For what I am gonna respond of your hateful comments, a perfect biological war machine means a juggernaut rather than an intelligent super species that would "create" and use their own weapons.

And you asking why somebody "should" experience climax at least once in their life is like asking why should you give an orange to a poor concentration camp kid who has never even tasted an apple before?

Then you start going to the personals again.

After this you post more stuff like "happiness isn't that cheap" comments, which I could again respond with more proof, and to which you could answer that "not all want those things" to which I'd respond with "yes they do" and you'd respond with "what makes you believe so" and I'd respond with facts, and then you'd completely ignore this portion. Note this is also my fault, because I tend to add a lot of stuff to the base arguments, and you tend to pick the added stuff rather than the base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle
Also, pain being described as a thing to evade even by killing yourself, why do masochists love fear and love pain? Why do athletes and body builders push their muscles beyond their limit, causing pain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
In the case of the athletes, because they think the rewards of efforts are worth the costs of pain. In the case of masochists, because they find pleasure in the pain itself. Neither example indicates we should seek out pain for its own sake. Or even that we should all be masochistic body builders.
Note, I only linked those side questions with the main portion which is a hidden question. It asks, is pain that bad then? Pain can be removed, sadness can be removed, but eternal death cannot. Note, this is just more added stuff. If I didn't add these last sentences, you'd ask "how is this related to the girl"? Obviously, you started this whole thing of splitting each other's posts, and it completely nullifies the whole effect of an organized essay, since if you pick lone sentences and ask why so, without looking at the stuff around it.

You'd most likely notify me that her pain and sadness can't be removed. Pain? Sadness? She is not in pain, and would not be in pain. Sadness, she does have. If her heart would magically regenerate the flesh in the hole again, will she still be sad a couple years after the regeneration? Probably. Would she still be sad if after the magical regeneration she got laid and won an elephant from a circus lottery? Nope. BUT she would be if she was one of those rare chronicly depressed people.

Quote:
A boy in his early teens was diagnosed with a fatal disease of the heart muscle but the condition then inexplicably went into remission. The condition reappeared when he was 17 which symptoms such as migraines, chest pains, difficulty breathing at night, stiff jaw and arm pains. Over the next three days he was misdiagnosed three times – he was told he had a cold, hernia and then anxiety attacks. Eventually they realized that his heart disorder had returned. When his heart started to race uncontrollably, he rushed to the hospital where he lost consciousness after his heart stopped. He became very ill and lost a lot of weight. 6 weeks later, he received heart transplant. Heart transplants were still relatively primitive then and immune-suppressant drugs were just starting to be used. Doctors unknowingly gave him 4 times the required dose. As a result, 7 years later the anti-rejection drugs had worn away tissue and caused polyps to form. He experienced pain and bleeding from his stomach and surgery was required to remove some of his small intestine. A year later kidney failure meant he required a kidney transplant. Now at the age of 42 he is a modern miracle and the 7th longest survivor of a heart transplant and he is able to work and lead a normal life. He has had the new heart for 24 years.
This man got the diseases from the drugs. Those risks. Compare this to her probable life.

Last edited by Eggs in a Bottle; 2008-11-18 at 09:19.
Eggs in a Bottle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 09:25   Link #49
WanderingKnight
Gregory House
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Age: 25
Send a message via MSN to WanderingKnight
Quote:
Okay I tried to read this while thinking arguments, but then I got to parts where you just try to push it to personals. You've been trying this through the couples pages now, aiming at me rather than at the argument I'm trying to make.
Wow, you DO suck at making arguments. I haven't really seen him doing anything of the sort (if anything, you were the one calling people names). What you just did there, in the context of an argument, is to cover your ears and sing "La la la la I can't hear you~". That's a great way of discussing, right there.

Quote:
For what I am gonna respond of your hateful comments
lol hateful.

Quote:
And you asking why somebody "should" experience climax at least once in their life is like asking why should you give an orange to a poor concentration camp kid who has never even tasted an apple before?
Stupid and irrelevant drawn-out relationship. She's neither poor nor in a concentration camp, and I'm sure there's people who never eat apples in their life. It's these comments, completely unrelated to the matter at hand, the ones that make your arguments fall to pieces.

Ahn_Mihn's point (and mine) is: She doesn't want to live a life of constant hospital visits, which would mean pain and torture to her. Why prevent her from dying peacefully?
__________________


Place them in a box until a quieter time | Lights down, you up and die.
WanderingKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 09:35   Link #50
Eggs in a Bottle
Ehh I love suits?
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Ahn_Mihn's point (and mine) is: She doesn't want to live a life of constant hospital visits, which would mean pain and torture to her. Why prevent her from dying peacefully?
That's not her point, I thought this would happen when the Singapore dude got in with his euthanasia talk.

We were talking of which life would be better, not of should somebody prevent her from doing anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Euthanasia and suicide. It's a free world, you can do what you want, just if it doesn't annoy other people. Like the hell I care.
--

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Wow, you DO suck at making arguments. I haven't really seen him doing anything of the sort (if anything, you were the one calling people names). What you just did there, in the context of an argument, is to cover your ears and sing "La la la la I can't hear you~". That's a great way of discussing, right there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
So, your defense is that you call them as you don't see them. You do suck at making arguments.
(I let Anh answer Knight)

And notice, Knight also targetted his post at me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Stupid and irrelevant drawn-out relationship. She's neither poor nor in a concentration camp, and I'm sure there's people who never eat apples in their life. It's these comments, completely unrelated to the matter at hand, the ones that make your arguments fall to pieces.
And Knight, how would Indiana Jones respond when somebody was falling off a cliff and Indiana shouted "grab my hand" and the person in trouble would shout back "why".

Indeed I was gonna shout "because you are f***** falling", but rather, I just placed that example.

Last edited by Eggs in a Bottle; 2008-11-18 at 09:57.
Eggs in a Bottle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 10:51   Link #51
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
That's not her point, I thought this would happen when the Singapore dude got in with his euthanasia talk.

We were talking of which life would be better, not of should somebody prevent her from doing anything.
I'm not talking about which life is better in an absolute referential. My point is that there's no absolute. Only personal preferences. Which gives you little ground to call her a moron just because, in her own referential, life without a heart transplant is better than with one. You have other preferences? That's your prerogative. But how about respecting others'?

Quote:
--





(I let Anh answer Knight)

And notice, Knight also targetted his post at me.
What we're doing is acknowledging that you were right when you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
I don't really like to argue mainly because I'm not too good at it,
As evidenced by all the times you've had to say "that's not what I meant!", the amount of irrelevant content in your posts, the times I, WK, or Ledgem (and we're probably not alone) didn't understand you, or that time you, yourself, lost track of what you meant:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Quote:
I feel you've gone off on a tangent. I can't claim to understand what you're talking about, though.
Okay I don't get it either.
And after posting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
I did no say so, I said I call them zealots, but I did not say they are zealots.
Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Quote:
And Knight, how would Indiana Jones respond when somebody was falling off a cliff and Indiana shouted "grab my hand" and the person in trouble would shout back "why".

Indeed I was gonna shout "because you are f***** falling", but rather, I just placed that example.
Did that person throw itself off the cliff and exhibited no desire to get back up?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 12:56   Link #52
Eggs in a Bottle
Ehh I love suits?
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Anh, how did I make a mistake when things like these happen, and notice, it was late and I was intoxicated when I wrote this post and that is why it is a little harsh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Euthanasia and suicide. It's a free world, you can do what you want, just if it doesn't annoy other people. Like the hell I care. Sure I've never understand them and will mock them as pussies, because that's what they are. They lose at life, they end their own body, no matter how many warning pop-ups and alarms evolution put in man not to do stupid things and kill himself, people still find that the best thing to do after you stepped into poo after getting fired from your job and finding your partner doing another person in home. How about selling all your property and moving to Middle-Eastern deserts (in the middle of nowhere) if you feel so bad at your situation and location? I mean empty deserts could be pretty fun!

Suicides are Darwin's examples. Their brains fail.

For christ's sake little girl, hire a gigolo, rent an elephant, paint the hospital walls in yellow without telling the officials... You have money. People who live in the woods trying to find something to eat to survive don't have money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Minato View Post
You see. The problem here is not tying euthanasia with suicide. The issue is totally unrelated. Maybe, you didn't read the original article and here is the link to it:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...858427,00.html

Apparently, a 13 year old British girl is going to die unless she get a heart transplant. A heart transplant generally means that they will be opening up her chest, yanking out her heart, and replacing it with someone else's heart. If the blood type and organ is compatible, it will be considered a successful surgery and she will live. Otherwise, it may cause side-effects and she might die even after doing the heart transplant. And so, not wanting to suffer all these pain and surgery, she chose not to do so and refused the heart transplant. It is not the same as suicide under these circumstances.
He was mistaken, and it is in no way my fault that he misunderstood that post. Plus notice how I do not mention the girl until the last paragraph. I was not talking of people with deadly diseases. Since I was a little confused back then, I decided to place my random thoughts out there like everybody else seemed to do.

I posted a reply here commenting on how these posts were originally in an other thread and I am not discussing euthanasia here and how he (suit man) should just delete them all instead of placing them here, but he deleted that post.

I also had another stupid reply to Anh's post in the original thread, but he deleted that one too.
Eggs in a Bottle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 16:19   Link #53
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Anh, how did I make a mistake when things like these happen,
Yes, of course, it's all our fault. How could it possibly be tied to your writing?

Quote:
and notice, it was late and I was intoxicated when I wrote this post and that is why it is a little harsh:
Protip: it's not your reader's job to determine whether you're drunk or not. It's yours to write words you can stand by later.



Quote:
He was mistaken, and it is in no way my fault that he misunderstood that post.
Sure. What was he thinking, assuming you were at least attempting to stay on topic?

Quote:
Plus notice how I do not mention the girl until the last paragraph. I was not talking of people with deadly diseases. Since I was a little confused back then, I decided to place my random thoughts out there like everybody else seemed to do.
So you're bad at writing and at reading.

By the way, that was just one instance.

What about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Next you mention my use of moron like I did not intend it and then complain how I misuse it. Okay, ehh I ment a person, who uhm has malfunctioning brains. And deducting that your life is worth nothing? What?
Or:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Did I say so? How did you come to that conclusion? I said she is something else.
Or:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Okay I don't get it either.
(About your own post!)

Or:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
Ledge that is COMPLETELY against my point,
Or:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eggs in a Bottle View Post
I did no say so, I said I call them zealots, but I did not say they are zealots.
Or:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WanderingKnight View Post
Maybe you should learn how to formulate phrases coherently. I know perfectly what the word "inadequate" means but I can't for the life of me understand that sentence you posted there.
?

And hey, further evidence of your bad writing:

Quote:
I posted a reply here commenting on how these posts were originally in an other thread and I am not discussing euthanasia here and how he (suit man) should just delete them all instead of placing them here, but he deleted that post.
Who the hell is suit man? Some guy who was bitten by a radioactive suit? Normally, when one uses a pronoun like "he". There are other uses, to be sure, but the natural assumption here would be to think you were talking about Shadow Minato. Which the rest of your post indicates is false. Maybe you should make an effort to be clearer. And post your actual position once you're sober.


Anyway, for the sake of on-topicness: do you guys think there's a moral difference between unplugging someone and giving him or her poison? Or cutting their throat? I don't. Killing is killing, regardless of the means employed. However, if the person itself is sincerely asking for it, there is no "victim". I just can't understand why some would make that distinction. Treating one as a right of the patient, and the other as some horrible crime.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 16:46   Link #54
GuidoHunter_Toki
Wiggle Your Big Toe
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Anyway, for the sake of on-topicness: do you guys think there's a moral difference between unplugging someone and giving him or her poison? Or cutting their throat? I don't. Killing is killing, regardless of the means employed. However, if the person itself is sincerely asking for it, there is no "victim". I just can't understand why some would make that distinction. Treating one as a right of the patient, and the other as some horrible crime.
I really don't see a moral difference if its what the person is asking for.

I think part of the morality that comes into peoples minds is that its painful/cruel to slit someones throat or poisoning them. Another moral argument thats often brought in regards are religious beliefs stating that individuals have no right to terminate their god-given lives. If a person is very ill and sick of living death should be a choice for them. If a person is very ill and sick of living death should be a choice for them.
__________________
GuidoHunter_Toki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 16:54   Link #55
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoHunter_Toki View Post
I really don't see a moral difference if its what the person is asking for.

I think part of the morality that comes into peoples minds is that its painful/cruel to slit someones throat or poisoning them. Another moral argument thats often brought in regards are religious beliefs stating that individuals have no right to terminate their god-given lives.
Eh. Let them practice faith healing. And, while we're at it, faith feeding. See how it works out for them.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 17:04   Link #56
james0246
Senior Member
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: East Cupcake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
If failure there has been, it's unfortunate, but accept it and move on. Try to sell life a little harder next time. That doesn't justify stealing people's choice on how they want to conduct their lives.
I am all for choice (as anyone who has entered the Abortion thread can attest to), but only choice backed by sufficient understanding of the situation. I do believe that her constant pain could have driven Hannah a little crazy, or at least impair her basic decision making abilities, thus making her decision not based on an understanding of the situation, so much as a physical reaction to make the pain disappear (I was accidentally shot in the foot once many years ago, and for a few brief moments I felt such great pain that I wished for Death to come to relieve me of the pain, thankfully it was a momentary reaction ). (This is not to say that I in anyway can understand the pain that young Hannah faces every moment of her life.) If this is true, then she cannot adequately make an informed decision of her current or future prognosis, and consequently cannot go against her parents desires for a heart transplant. If after the transplant she gets worse, then a proper discussion of the uselessness of medicine in her situation can be started and if there is no possible answer for her betterment, then she can be aided in her desire to not be cared for (to let the inevitable come).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Anyway, for the sake of on-topicness: do you guys think there's a moral difference between unplugging someone and giving him or her poison? Or cutting their throat? I don't. Killing is killing, regardless of the means employed. However, if the person itself is sincerely asking for it, there is no "victim". I just can't understand why some would make that distinction. Treating one as a right of the patient, and the other as some horrible crime.
How do you classify a situation like Terri Schiavo, a comatose patient with severe brain damage that was allowed to die? Such a person cannot make a conscious choice (unless they were smart enough to write a living will), so the choice has to made for them. Are the parents/loved ones/doctors then killers if they let the comatose patient die? Or does a such a patient stop being "human" and consequently loses their rights?

In other words, to conclude both my comment, if a personal decision is the most relevant means of determining an outcome for a situation, then what happens when a personal decision cannot be made or the individual attmepting to make the decision is too impared to properly understand the situation? When does an outsiders choice matter more than an individual choice?

Last edited by james0246; 2008-11-18 at 17:23.
james0246 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 17:17   Link #57
Aoie_Emesai
♪♫ Maya Iincho ♩♬
*Artist
 
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Unnecessary
Age: 28
Send a message via Yahoo to Aoie_Emesai
I'm gonna not read the previous 3 pages and post my remark before I go and read it so I won't quote anyone just yet.

(humm... tinyleaf's post was dated back at the 13th? Hum... I must have missed it[been playing the new wow since the 14th, lol ^^.)

This issue is nothing more than a matter of personal opinion. No law has ever been created or is even known to prevent such a cause.

~~

The only huge issue I can see here is that right now, Hannah has no rights on how she choose to die. If she were the legal age in England, there would be no issue once so ever. Though I do entirely agree with her words.

"No one can be forced to have a heart transplant," she said."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archbishop Nicholas Chia
Such are 'immoral' acts he said. Furthermore, he said that under no circumstances can the taking of one's life be condoned.
What is immoral is not allowing one person choose how they wish to die. From my point of view, they are trying to suggest that we force ourselves to believe in "fate" rather than personal freedom.
__________________

How to Give / Receive Criticism on your work / Like to draw? Come join Artists Alike
Visit my Deviantart Or Blog ~A Child should always surpass his/her parent, Remember.
Aoie_Emesai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 17:36   Link #58
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
I am all for choice (as anyone who has entered the Abortion thread can attest to), but only choice backed by sufficient understanding of the situation. I do believe that her constant pain could have driven Hannah a little crazy, or at least impair her basic decision making abilities, thus making her decision not based on an understanding of the situation, so much as a physical reaction to make the pain disappear (I was accidentally shot in the foot once many years ago, and for a few brief moments I felt such great pain that I wished for Death to come to relieve me of the pain, thankfully it was a momentary reaction ). (This is not to say that I in anyway can understand the pain that young Hannah faces every moment of her life.) If this is true, then she cannot adequately make an informed decision of her current or future prognosis, and consequently cannot go against her parents desires for a heart transplant. If after the transplant she gets worse, then a proper discussion of the uselessness of medicine in her situation can be started and if there is no possible answer for her betterment, then she can be aided in her desire to not be cared for (to let the inevitable come).
What the hell are you talking about? While legally, the decision may indeed lie with her parents, she managed to convince them.

And who are you to judge she's not qualified? Or how much pain she was in when she made her decision?

And I'd like to point out, the decision she made is reversible: she can change her mind and agree to the transplant after all. (There's still the problem of finding a compatible donor, of course. From that point of view, she's wasting time.) But if she has a heart transplant, well, that's irreversible. What she sacrificed won't come back.

And it's not just a matter of "getting worse after the transplant". The problem is that, even if it goes perfectly, well, she'll have to put up with medical procedures and hospital stays she otherwise wouldn't have to endure.

And of course, it can, indeed, go wrong. Who are you to decide it's a gamble she has to take? You're acting like she has nothing to lose. But that's wrong. She still has her life, and is presently spending it out of hospitals. She doesn't want to lose that, and that's what created the polemic in the first place. Not some actual death wish.


Quote:
How do you classify a situation like Terri Schiavo, a comatose patient with severe brain damage that was allowed to die? Such a person cannot make a conscious choice (unless they were smart enough to write a living will), so the choice has to made for them. Are the parents/loved ones/doctors then killers if they let the comatose patient die? Or does a such a patient stop being "human" and consequently loses their rights?

In other words, to conclude both my comment, if a personal decision is the most relevant means of determining an outcome for a situation, then what happens when a personal decision cannot be made or the individual attmepting to make the decision is too impared to properly understand the situation? When does an outsiders choice matter more than an individual choice?
That's another, much hairier question. In Schiavo's case, considering the extent of her brain damage, I'd be all for killing her and being done with it. Other cases are more problematic, though.
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 17:42   Link #59
GuidoHunter_Toki
Wiggle Your Big Toe
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post

In other words, to conclude both my comment, if a personal decision is the most relevant means of determining an outcome for a situation, then what happens when a personal decision cannot be made or the individual attmepting to make the decision is too impared to properly understand the situation? When does an outsiders choice matter more than an individual choice?
Those who are in chronic un-relievable pain or suffering from a terminal illness should have the right to end their lives after discussing their options with a trained medical doctor and a licensed psychiatrist.

Now about the pain altering their understanding of the situation. Chronic pain is classified as a general medical condition. A terminal illness brings with it a sense of bereavement. You have lost your life, you have lost time with the ones you love. That is a sense of loss and a cause of bereavement.

In both cases(un-relieved chronic pain and terminal illness) you lose your sense of control. You worry about becoming a burden on your loved ones and fear ending up not being able to care for yourself and perhaps that more suffering will come from trying to fight this pyhsical infliction. These are not treatable disorders. This is not simply an escape from temporary problems that get blown out of proportion. These people are not suffering from a delusional illness. They are in their right frame of mind.

If cleared by a psychiatrist as not having a mental illness precipitating the feeling of wanting to die, I see no reason why, in those circumstances, their decision can not be respected.
__________________
GuidoHunter_Toki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2008-11-18, 17:45   Link #60
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Why is it right to force someone who's mentally ill to live? How do you even define "mentally ill"? How "mentally healthy" can you be, if you're suicidal?
Anh_Minh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.