Advertisement

Previous   Next

Should states be able to make their own laws about assisted suicide?

Asked at Borders, 700 N.H. on January 18, 2006

Browse the archives

Photo of Megan Chichester

“Yes they should, just as each state should be able to make their own decisions about teaching intelligent design … . I think it gives people the freedom to move to another state to pursue that option.”

Photo of Gaurav Bashyakarla

“It definitely should be up to the states to make their own laws. It shouldn’t be up to the federal government to decide. It should be up to the patient and their doctor.”

Photo of Richard Dyer

“If you go back and look at the Constitution, it actually does cover that. It says that yes, each state is able to make that decision.”

Photo of Kristin Snyder

“If the person has a painful terminal illness, then they should be able to make their own laws about it.”

Related story

Comments

legolas1996 9 years ago

Not sure. Its a tough issue. The states should probably be able to make their own laws about this issue though it would be nice to have one law handed down from Congress about an issue this big.

classclown 9 years ago

Yes they should. Plain and simple.

acousticcontrol 9 years ago

No, the states should not, and neither should the federal government. Why do we even need a ridiculous law like this? Let the government worry about the roads, utilitys, national defence, etc. I don't need them coming into my house and telling me how many times a week I can poop.

enochville 9 years ago

Anything that the US Constitution is silent about, the states have the right to decide. I believe it is silent about euthinasia. If someone can show how the US Constitution says something on the matter, please point it out.

sweetpeagj 9 years ago

I thought that the state had the right already to make that choice? Hey, I think that if someone wants to die because they have a terminal illness that will kill them slowly and cause them great pain and all why don't they have the right to decide for themselves? I know some people would see it as a sin but if you travel the road with Gods plan who is to say that he didn't plan for it to end that way anyway?

neopolss 9 years ago

If one cannot control what they can and cannot do with their own body, then so much for freedom and democracy. I know we live in a country in which the puritan ideals somehow tainted the waters. Everyone feels a need to make sure that everyone else follows their moral beliefs on everything. It doesn't seem to matter about respecting others. We're a very bossy people - always wanting to have control over another.

I draw the line when government says that I cannot kill myself. What gives them the right?

Bowhunter, that federal money does come from taxpayers within each state. It's not the "government's" money, it's yours.

glockenspiel 9 years ago

Euthanasia is a moral issue and should be decided based on the beliefs at the local level.

I've got a weird senario. How about being able to attend your own funeral, watching your family honor you while you were still alive, knowing that in a few minutes...

ok...I'm tripping myself out...but an interesting thing to think about.

glockenspiel 9 years ago

Oh, my point is that this a typical slippery slope argument. If this is truly left in the state's hands, what's to say an ultraconservative state...

That weakness is a strength...

When states make laws, they can make laws that represent the belief systems of the majority in that state. You have red states and blue states, and everywhere in between, each with laws catering to the interests of its inhabitants. People have the opportunity to move to areas that cater to your own beliefs.

The feds of course have the responsiblity to make sure that constitutional laws are not broken, and of course you always have that gray area...

enochville 9 years ago

Just to be clear, we are talking about assisted suicide, not suicide. Also, we are talking about actively helping people to die, not just letting nature take its course.

badger 9 years ago

I think that because opinions vary so widely about it, it makes more sense to have it under state control. Not that I don't see your concern, TOB, but I worry that it could be the federal scenario as well. If the ultra right wing is to be making the laws, I'd much rather they did it on the state level and give people the choice to locate their homes and businesses elsewhere.

You know, if assisted suicide is allowed on a state-by-state basis, many people will move to permissive states when their treatment starts to go badly.

I wonder how the medical establishment will prepare for that, and how Medicare will.

I wonder, also, what will happen when all the opponents of the right to die gracefully and on one's own terms see the tab for Medicare incurred for those expensive, low-hope, last-ditch treatments, for the months and years of prolonged care for those in persistent vegetative states, for the medications to take the edge off incredible pain. Last-hope treatments are usually expensive, and as the population ages, we'll see more and more people who've exhausted their own insurance and finances applying for and getting Medicare to cover the expense.

What will they cut to pay for those treatments? For me, when it comes down to the government, be it federal or state or local, assuming responsibility for people's medical decisions, I always want to know where the money to carry out those decisions will come from. Making it illegal to discontinue treatment for treatable terminal illnesses (which I see as a possible outgrowth of making it illegal to kill yourself if you have no palatable medical options left) but not having the funding for that treatment ready is a recipe for economic catastrophe.

The decision to end your own life is intensely personal, and none of the government's business. Frankly, I think the law on that needs to be limited to ensuring that the people making that decision are of the same mental soundness needed to make any legal decision, like writing a will or consenting to surgery, and no more. There needs to be law governing who can terminate someone else's life support, to ensure that there's a clear chain of decision and that only one person, the person designated by either the patient or (absent patient wishes) the law to make those decisions, does so.

badger 9 years ago

For me, suicide and medically assisted suicide in terminal situations are morally and ethically the same issue, enochville.

If the goal is to let people die with dignity, then allowing them to do so painlessly under medical supervision is the compassionate thing. Killing oneself is very hard and often physically impossible for someone who is bedridden and weakened with a terminal illness, and can be incredibly difficult for loved ones who have to find the body and deal with the aftereffects of the suicide.

Having a chosen time, when family members can say their farewells without getting questions later from the police about, "If you knew he was going to die why didn't you stop him?" and ensuring a peaceful exit is a significantly better option than having one's wife come home to find that one has locked oneself in the garage with the engine running while she was out at her bridge club.

enochville 9 years ago

I think disagreement on this issue comes down to a difference in highest values. For some people, their highest value is on individual freedom, which is perfectly legitimate. There are others with different highest values, which is also perfectly legitimate.

We live in a country whose founding fathers agreed to write their value of individual freedom into constitutional law in the form of specific amendments. Therefore, in this country, no matter what values the majority holds, they cannot write into law their values if the law violates one of the Bill of Rights.

However, if the proposed law does not come into conflict with the Constitution, then states are at liberty to write laws according to the values of the majority even when we find ourselves in the minority. Even if those laws restrain individual liberty.

I think people forget that their values don't have any special status. In other words, you can't judge one value as being more correct than someone else's value. Because ultimately, the judge will simply be comparing the values in question to his or her own values.

Janet Lowther 9 years ago

Actually, no level of government should have authority over the life of the individual: They should no more be able to command a person to live than they should to command them to die.

Yes, of course governments have done both since time immemorial, but that still does not make it right.

enochville 9 years ago

jrlii: I think you are missing my point. You say that "still doesn't make it right". According to your values, and many others share those values. Maybe even me. But, your moral judgment on whether it is right is based on your values. Someone else could have different values.

bankboy119 9 years ago

I agree with Enochville on this one. The Constitution states that whatever powers that are not expressly granted to the federal government are held by the states. In this case, assisted suicide is not discussed in the Constitution, therefore the states should preside over the issue.

Of course if the federal government actually made laws according to the Constitution....a whole other issue.

christie 9 years ago

In countries that do practice this regularly, the incidence is very low, because those countries recognize that a specific drug, Heroin, highly controlled and used effectively, is very effective in controlling pain for the terminally ill.

If this puritan country would allow the use of Heroin in terminally ill patients the request to be put out of misery would drop drastically.

bearded_gnome 9 years ago

I believe that courts shouldn't be deciding this, it should be decided democratically. yes that means different states with different standards, but standards which have been identified through a democratic process through voting, representative democracy, etc.

personally, I have been close to dying, once for a year or two (failing heart). I am personally a little skeptical of medical assessments on what meds and other interventions can or cannot do. one very popular heart med which is good for most people with my condition nearly killed me and i was in the ICU for two days! so, the assessment of what is a "terminal" condition may not be so certain as we would wish to have.


you suppose the same holds for abortion? no courts but a democratic process to determine it too? amazing.


Christi is right, we fail as a society to properly treat pain for people with intractable pain, and people approaching death. there are good ways to treat pain which are generally not being used.


yesterday was a bloodbath for posts being removed. I actually had my first post removed by the site staff, and even my second! yippeee! would be nice to get an explanation from the staff!


bye for now...the doctor's office is going to check my pacemaker by telephone and see if it still functions properly-speaking of medical issues!

bye, won't be back for some several hours.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Question - does assisted suicide negate any life insurance payoff?

loboda 9 years ago

Excuse me. Have any of you known someone with a living will? Anyone at any age can have a living will, which gives the right to someone who may become terminally ill, to refuse treatments to continue "life" and also they can refuse food or water. My mother had a living will and when she became terminal, it kept the doctors from using her as a human guinea pig with a bunch of expensive treatments that were not going to save her. If a person signs a living will, can that be considered suicide? I don't think so. It's that person's choice not to suffer any longer than is humane. Too many of our rights as human beings are being taken away by our government. I am pro-choice. It is my life and my body and no one else has the right to tell me what I can do with it. My belief is that God gave us brains to decide for ourselves and one of those things we should be able to decide for ourselves is not to die an agonizing death. I don't think God wants anyone to suffer like that.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

OMB you'll never die. You'll just float into a bar and drink beer and eat pickled eggs for eternity!

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Then every time we say, "What's that smell?" we'll know you are nearby and are watching out for us.

staff04 9 years ago

I think enochvile frames this argument very well at 8:42, and I think it was important to get that aspect out there.

As for me personally, I think a person should have the right to die in whatever way they see fit. Do I like the fact that doctors assist? Not really, but these laws are easily skirted. The drugs they are talking about in the Oregon case are dispensed with the INTENTION of inducing death, and I find that to be a little questionable. I can go to just about any psychiatrist, describe the right symptoms, and walk out with a 90 day supply of sleeping pills or valium if I wanted to off myself peacefully. So I guess I'm saying, I lean no, but I'm not quite willing to give up on a persons right to die in a manner they see as appropriate, regardless of what someone else's values system says...

Ceallach 9 years ago

Only just had a chance to check the board. I was about to scold all y'all for having so many posts deleted last night ------ then I saw my name with the post deleted!!!! I believe it was due to my taking someone's name in vain -- and I don't mean the Lord. Well at least not in the Judeo-Christian sense. I have repented of doing so and hopefully will be allowed a place on todays board.

End of confess and repent message

Unlike Richard Dyer, I do not believe this is covered in the constitution and therefore should be decided by the state.

badger 9 years ago

staff04 - the concern is not for those who can walk into that psychiatrist's office and know the right symptoms, or who can heft themselves out into the garage and turn on the engine, or even get hold of some razor blades and a sink or tub of warm water, but rather for the bedridden, terminally ill patients who cannot even walk or lift a five-pound weight unaided but are dying by pieces for weeks or months in incredible pain.

My grandfather had emphysema and lung cancer, and my mom and I blessed the day a pair of strokes (one small enough to signal the end, one large enough to bring it) took him essentially painlessly. We set a pact that day (I was 17, and my opinion hasn't changed since on the matter) that neither of us would ever let the other suffer a long and protracted painful death, even if it meant breaking the law. We are each other's signatories and medical decision-makers, and we both have living wills - which came to popularity and public knowledge some years after I'd promised my mom to sneak into her hospital room with a pillow if I had to.

However, living wills and DNRs are not guarantees. If you collapse in the grocery store and EMTs are called, the ER won't know about the living will or the DNR until after they've revived and identified you and contacted your next of kin, and once you're comatose or in a persistent vegetative state your wishes can be blocked, even if the decisions are made by your legal representative.

I will admit that my feelings on this are fueled by emotion. Within the last two years I have faced the reality of it on a personal level.

It's a decision only the individual can make. bearded_gnome, I'm glad you survived the doctors' predictions. My great-grandmother outlived her 'predicted' lifespan by something like 40 years (she was told at 55 she'd not make it to 60 due to a heart condition, and she lived to see 97). But if someone is in intense pain he can't take anymore, and has lost all hope of getting better, I think that if the mechanism for curing him has failed he should have a painless medical option to end his life.

Ceallach 9 years ago

I agree with the above posters -- a living will settles the matter. It should also make people less fearsome of their relatives pulling the plug prematurely :)

neopolss 9 years ago

There are essentially two groups of people in this country. The first group understands the principals of government and its ideals, and trys to ensure that they are applied equally. These individuals may posess very strong morals, but understand the difference between legislating morality and law. The second group cares nothing about rights or principals, and seeks to provide their own brand of thinking as law. These individuals often are not content to bath in their own morals, but feel compelled to enforce them on everyone else.

This is not an issue of left or right, as people from both groups belong in both categories. The number two group should be consistantly ignored, no matter which side of the political fence they must sit. The puritans may have been seeking religious freedom, but they certainly did not have tolerance on their minds.

DuQuesne 9 years ago

"Should states be able to make their own laws about assisted suicide?" Short answer: Yes. Longer answer: I see no compelling State interest in my end-of-life decisions, so I choose not to be bound by any such laws anyway.

Question in rebuttal: How much of the rhetoric surrounding this issue actually reflects fear on the part of those who are (or would be) in charge that their own world view and value system would not be validated without the demonstrable ability to impose their view and values on the rest of us? I suspect a close inspection of the events leading up to this Supreme Court decision may reveal that John Ashcroft brought the suit at the behest of George W. Bush as part of a political payback to the religious right for delivering so many votes in the last "election;" Bush had made an implicit deal with the fundies that he would strike a blow against the godless lefties if he got into the White House.

Ever notice who refers to "the administration," and who refers to, "our leader" or "our President?" You can almost hear the trumpets in the background. -Schuyler DuQuesne

Liberty 9 years ago

God word says: No (practicing) murderer has any place in the Kingdom of God. This one is a no-brainer. Don't think that I would want to go against God on this one...

The elderly also will have a hard time in the "persuit of life and liberty" (according to the Constitution) if this evil form of legalized murder is started. Legal drugs like morphine are available to ease any pain during a terminal illness.

Perhaps everyone out there is young and thinks that this assisted suicide business does not threaten their life (yet) by those who would abuse and use it for extermination of the elderly like what happened in Germany...? And in such a case when this pandora's box is opened, who would dare to stand up and try to stop the injustice once this evil is started, knowing that intervention would most likely cost you your life?

avhjmlk 9 years ago

Another thing that lots of people don't know is that (and this is coming from having immediate family members with actual medical knowledge) drugs like morphine, etc., have to be constantly (though very gradually) imcreased in dose to maintain effectiveness. It's sort of like alcohol--you may start out a "lightweight," but you can gradually increase your "tolerance" with regular exposure. In the case of intractable pain and using medication to reduce that pain, doctors are limited by fear (really, fear of liability/lawsuit, etc) because, at some point, the amount of morphine it takes to ease the pain becomes equal to a lethal dose of morphine.

I am NOT saying that we should legalize doctor-assisted suicide nationally to protect doctors, but I AM saying that people need to realize the true suffering of these patients. At some point, doctors cannot continue to increase morphine doses because the increased dose WILL kill the patient. So, a patient who is slowly dying and also overwhelmingly suffering is left to suffer because doctors become unable to ease their pain.

Linda Aikins 9 years ago

Maybe call it a very pale Golden Ore?

BunE 9 years ago

The 10th amendment is "but a truism" as it it expressly gives those rights not taken by the Feds back to the states. The trick here is that the Feds takes what they want via Congress. You can argue state's rights, you can argue Federalism, heck you can argue anything that you want, but state's rights are fleeting and are subject to the whim of Congress.

There is also that embarrassing time in our past when the State's had their "rights" taken because they refused to treat all people equal under the law. They created poll taxes, Jim Crow Laws, they enforced sodomy laws and restricted abortion and the courts and Congress stepped in, told them what for and made the change.

Now, I won't argue that local control is a much more logical way to govern, but...

On to the act itself. This is not a gateway to johnny blowing his head off in the square. To those that think GOD is going to smite someone down for this sort of thing, I am at a loss, GOD wants people to live in pain and suffering? Is this some sort of penance? How is this hurting you? Do you REALY care if some meets you in heaven? At any rate, it is a difficult question akin to turning off the feeding tube. Everybody has their own opinion, but until it is you looking at 5 years of pain, lets hold off on our judgement.

benm024 9 years ago

This one is easy, it should not even be an issue due to:

litmus test for laws - is the law being proposed only on the basis of religious values?

No: continue debate Yes: kill the law, as it has overstepped separation of church/state and our freedom from religion.

badger 9 years ago

With regard to living wills as guarantees:

If I name my mother my medical decision-maker in my living will and give her that authority, get married, and am in a terrible car accident three days after the wedding, my spouse could challenge the living will by saying, "Badger said I was to become the medical decision-maker (even if I'd said no such thing), and communicated to me that the doctors shouldn't stop heroic efforts, and should not turn off life support for at least a year. We just hadn't had a chance to get the paperwork changed, because we were going to do all of it, the insurance and the name change and everything, at once."

In that case, there would likely be an injunction to keep my mother from carrying out my wishes until a costly court proceeding resolved it. It could take months, and there's no guarantee that the claim of the mother of an adult child would win out over the claim of a distraught spouse. Or, for example, if my father challenged it on the basis that my mother had exercised undue influence over me in the matter of having herself named the legal representative - because the date the living will was formalized happens to coincide with the tragic loss of a young friend after a battle with cancer. He could say that I wasn't 'of sane mind' to be making decisions about long term care at that point.

Never underestimate the ability of distraught family members to complicate even simple legal matters.

It is a legally binding document, and a doctor or hospital must follow it as soon as they are aware of it. However, if you haven't tattooed the text of your living will on your chest, doctors won't know you have one until you've been identified, and then they are not allowed to just disconnect all the monitors, breathing machines, and feeding tubes you were connected to upon your arrival in the ER. They won't get that DNR or living will info if you're in another state from the one where it was filed, until hours or maybe days later. It all depends on how quickly you're identified by the medical staff.

Finally, a living will doesn't actually have anything to do with assisted suicide. Sure, it'll let your family unplug the power to you when you're a vegetable, but it won't allow you to take a soft death when the chemo fails. Your only recourse is to suffer while the cancer kills you, and it can take an eternity. Morphine only goes so far, and then you need more of it. There are caps on the dosages, so it's fully possible to hit the max legal dose after years of use and still have pain. Why are the dosage caps there? To prevent fatal overdose.

Is that ironic to anyone else?

staff04 9 years ago

Wow. I got so deep in thought earlier thinking about this brain-beater that I completely overlooked the fact that Megan is SMOKIN'!

Confrontation 9 years ago

If you don't want the doctors to be involved in "assisted" suicide, then why not just wheel the sick person's bed to the streets of KC, MO, with a dollar bill or a bottle of whiskey on his/her lap? The person would be taken care of within minutes. I'm totally kidding on this one :)

badger 9 years ago

Uh oh, as the person who provided that irony to you, will I be charged under Kansas law, prospector?

I just get a little sad when I see people who say, "I have a living will, so it's covered," and haven't talked to their entire family to find out that Dad is likely to challenge a living will and head that off, haven't designated second and third tier decision-makers in case they're in an accident with their primary decision-maker, haven't asked their hospital or doctor about how the process works and when the living will comes into play.

Richard Heckler 9 years ago

Here it is in writing:

If I am terminally/painfully ill let me go quick. No life support systems. Then just dig a hole drop me down, cover me up and allow natural decomposition into the earth. No I do not want a casket however if it is a must legally a pine box will get the job done. Graveside services only please. Cremation will also suffice and let the ashes blow where they may.

Thank you.

My answer to the question is government stay out of the way. Life is too short to waste away on life support.

classclown 9 years ago

TOB said "People get Schiavo mixed up. It was not about keeping her alive or letting her go... It was about who had the right to make that decision because she didn't do it or didn't effectively communicate her decision to her family."

I believe you're right... to a point. That was the issue originally. However after losing every single time in every court they went to, her parents started making phony allegations and whining about their loss to anyone that would listen. Then every buttinsky that saw an opportunity to score brownie points with their party's backers decided to well... butt in. Their agenda was strictly about making it so that her proper court sanctioned guardian could not end her life. Then it became a life versus death issue. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And DuQuesne... Ashcroft didn't sue Oregon. The state sued him after he decided to do an end around their law that the citizens of Oregon voted for twice. Just like they are doing with Califonia and their medicinal marijuana law.

classclown 9 years ago

Another issue about the right to die as I see it is that if I find myself in that situation, I don't want to be a burden on my family physically, emotionally, or financially.

My children would be required to care for me? Why? Because I raised them? That's a BS argument if there ever was one as it was my choice to have them and raise them. They weren't born with the "understanding" that it was conditioned on the precept that they would have to care for me in return. They have their own families to care for.

And I top of that they have to get strapped with huge medical bills that they will be legally responsible for? All that for the "priveledge" of watching me die slowly and painfully?

To me there is a big difference between living and merely being alive. And I intend to live rather than merely exist. I'm in it for the ride, and when the ride is over it's time to get out of the car. Not stay in it and waste away.

sweetpeagj 9 years ago

I have cared for those that are terminally ill for a few years now. I can only say if they had their ways they would never have wanted to burden their families in this way. They would rather just pass on and let them be remembered for the good experiences and not the final one. I don't think that anyone has ther right to say that this is wrong because the person going through it wants it..who cares what the hell the neighbors, politicians, the Church or anyone else. We all live our lives according to how we see fit so why can't we have the right to decide to end it. I would rather it be planned and helped than for family to find them after they blew their brains out. My aunt had to go through that and that ended her life. She was devastated. They escaped Hitler just to have my uncle shoot himself because people feel he didn't have the right to go peacefully? They had to bury their own child at 18 from cancer and he wasn't going to stick around and let my aunt watch him suffer. I have a living will and carry one with me in my purse so that my needs and thoughts are known. My son has the final say in it all and we have spent hours and hours discussing my wishes and his thoughts. Let other people worry about how they want to go and not stick their noses into how others choose to go.

inabookbind 9 years ago

I am a strong proponent of a central & strong Federal government (a result of living in the South & seeing Fundamentalist in charge), so I prefer the Feds & the Supreme Court have the final say in such cases. I much prefer this to someone who bases decisions on the belief that humanity started with Adam & Eve - you know, Eve, the riblet of Adam in a garden with talking snakes.

badger 9 years ago

inabookbind, have you listened to the President?

Seriously?

I'm just sayin', that if you want strong Federal Government to avoid handing control to the Fundamentalists and Christian Coalition, perhaps you might reacquaint yourself with the one we've got.

sweetpeajg, thousands of blessings upon you for the care you provide and the compassion with which you do it.

Personally, I have looked around for those 'MedicAlert' style bracelets for people with living wills and DNR orders, but haven't been able to find them. I think, honestly, that it would be a really good idea.

sunflower_sue 9 years ago

Hi all. Just got back in town...again!

Assisted suicide: I think everyone should have the right to choose for themselves concerning their own life. Many times, death is a blessing. For religious reasons, I hope I would not do it. However, many people do not want to put their families through months or even years of "waiting" for them to die. Not to mention how expensive a prolonged illness can be. So, I guess my answer is yes (if the state has to be involved at all).

In the case of my hubby's dear grannie (God rest her soul): At the ripe old age of 99 she was put into the hospital. She was in pain and knew she was never going to get to go home again. We all said our goodbyes, she put herself on DNR, and she stopped eating and drinking. Her mind was made up. In this case, I don't think it was suicide. She was a very strong and proper lady and she was merely doing the only proper thing she could still do. If she had wanted assisted suicide, I would not have judged her. I would also not have allowed myself to believe that what she did was an unforgivable sin. I also don't think that anyone would have been qualified to tell a 99 year old woman that still had a very sharp mind what she could and couldn't do! I think it's an age thing, also. Not even the Dr's tried to "prolong" her illness.

Ceallach 9 years ago

Although I am pro-life regarding both abortion and euthanasia, as a citizen of a pluralistic society I do think there are some good points in favor of medically assisted suicide. (I make the medical distinction because I would not be in favor of allowing non-medical staff to assist someone's suicide.)

Too often when a person has made the choice that they do not want to be in constant pain and/or put their families through an extended period of caregiving with no hope of recovering any degree quality in their lives, they have no option other than a death that will add more stress and trauma to the family member or loved one who discovers their body. Even worse some use vehicles for their attempt and end up injuring or killing others as well. A determined person will use whatever means are available to them. There are few forms of self-inflicted suicide that allows a person to die with some shred of dignity.

I do not believe that such a law will have a noticable impact on citizens who are morally against suicide, such as myself. I realize that we do not life in a theocracy nor in the State of Ceallach, so I can see some positive aspects of such a law, should the people of the state determine that they want that option written into our state law.

State of Ceallach -- has a nice ring to it, eh? If people would just let me be in charge of things there would be --No More Deleted Comments. Oh, yeah, and I would replace roundabouts with octagabouts, I think they would be much more attractive and shouldn't be any more difficult to figure out :) Maybe Marion will let me campaign on one of his sites. But not the gnomes -- he's already admitted that they are fakes :)

btw, gnome: how did things go at the docs today, with your test? I'll check back in the morning to see if you leave a report.

bearded_gnome 9 years ago

Ceallach, I say, ban calendars!
I was one day off! the telephonic test is tomorrow. it's usually very routine, except I always have chest pain afterwards which baffles the medicos!


Ceallachia, or the united states of Ceallach? can I be the secretary of State, and of Humor?


some above have written that God wouldn't choose suffering for them. I believe in Christ as my Savior, and because of what the Bible says, i know that sometimes, apart from sinful cause, God simply chooses a path of pain, or disability for some one (RE John chapter #9).

I know, because I am one whom God has chosen for that. it is comforting to know that my creator has a plan and that my weakness, along with what else you know of me Ceallach, was His divine choice. it completely changes the meaning of weakness, pain, and disability.

bearded_gnome 9 years ago

my instructions at possible, possible terminal time: I want the intense life preserving measures, because I do not trust the assessment of what terminal is, what persistent vegitative state is.
often , apersistent vegitative persons actually regain function if some rehab measures are tried. neurology is far less certain than it is believed.
.
ve

Ceallach 9 years ago

Hey there gnome-- you've certainly got the job :) I only just finished my home work and wanted to see if you had checked in before I checked out

You'll have to let us know your results tomorrow. Sorry to hear about your discomfort upon testing, bummer!!

I totally agree with you about not wanting others to determine when I am terminal and no longer have a quality of life worth saving. My previous remarks were concerning those of our citizenry who do not hold my beliefs and are determined to commit suicide. As I said above, I don't believe those of us who hold the conviction that suicide is not the answer will be "moved" to suicide by a new law. The law I obey first and foremost would not allow for suicide. However, we certainly must maintain our freedom to continue or discontinue medical services as we so desire.

My grandmother opted to forego kemo when she was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer that was already established in her body. The few extra months the doctors offered as incentive was not appealing to her when balanced against what she would go through in treatment. She lived 3 months and only required strong medication for the last two weeks. She decided to remain "herself" and spend quality time with her family until she went to be with the Lord. We all honored her decision but it was very difficult.

You just hang in there, you are young and medical science is making so many extraordinary advances. My prayers are with you and mrs. gnome, that you will be given many more years to be your witty, encouraging, and productive self.

Manana

bearded_gnome 9 years ago

Thanks Ceallach, you are certainly too kind! [blushing gnome]


yes, that's a brave decision your grandmother made. one each must make alone but with the consultation with one's God, and I hope one has one then!

Thanks and good night.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.