Posted on 06/08/2005 1:34:37 PM PDT by MsGail61
viable: a : capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately
is not the same definition as value. Look it up.
One point to make here: The government is not keeping my grandmother housed; What benefits she gets isn't enough to keep her in a decent home.
Hope you guys don't ever have to experience it.
Time to rescurrect an old tagline...
Thank you for that. Your grandmother was a caregiver for most of her life and would have stolen to feed and care for her children. She earned and deserves life no matter what she looks or acts like. I can see you understand the value of a human being.
Who's judging? I just think people should look at the root question and be guided accordingly. That question can be answered a variety of different ways.
Soylent Green 2025
And when the money ran out, who would pay for it? Forget Schiavo, for that was an unusual case, but there are many being kept alive and it's being paid for my Medicaid. Putting all your emotions aside, what do you think of that?
Many here react with the naive and obnoxious ignorance that can only come with having never given long term care for a dwindling or terminal loved one.
You have my respect.
I think if we can send funds to Africa, Tsunami victims, nine eleven family, on and on--we can pay to care for our grandparents, mothers and fathers.
I think you misunderstand our comments. We understand it, we sympathize with it, and we appreciate it but we do not believe we should kill these people that once spent their time caring for the mothers and fathers and grandchildren of this dying grandmother.
Want to see what people live like without a loving family member? Take a trip to one. They lay there in diapers yelling to be changed, staring at a TV that isn't on. That's just the tip of the ice-berg. Great existence.
So yes, money helps..only it will be the relatives who pay when you run out..IF you are lucky.
sw
Richard Lamm - Born - 1935 - Madison, WI. Methinks it's about time for the good Governor to start loading his own pistol and do his duty...
Cheers,
CSG
You are exactly correct, probably the majority of people in a situation like Schiavo's are paid for by tax dollars. However, there are a lot more objectionable uses of tax dollars than keeping someone alive who is helpless. I personally object a lot more when they go to someone who is physically capable of working.
BTW, the author of the article is not proposing that the elderly be disposed of. It's hard to figure out what exactly she is objecting to, but it's clear that, whatever it is, the fault is GWB's.
Shades of "Soylent Green". Remember: Tuesday is Soylent Green day.
infact, it is our duty to eventually die, just like it was our duty as unborn babies to come out reaching, screaming, demanding LIFE...
and in that vein, yes, I do think there should be a time when we all become "NO CODEs" ....there should be a time when you don't get transplants, you do't get tube feedings and you don't get TPN.....
now, that time is debatable, but I would think that perhaps at age 85 people should not be resuscitated.....no ifs, ands, or buts.....
What you have just said, is nothing short of evil.
And who would decide that?
I wouldn't go out on the "we" limb too far. There are many on these threads who neither understand nor sympathize with real people who try to engage in ~any~ substantial conversation about ethical dilemmas involved in situations of extraordinary care requirements and diminishing returns. The fact is we have reached a point where we can delay death... but not necessarily prolong life. And the cost to families in terms of emotional and financial burdons to prolong this delay is very high.
sw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.