Posted on 06/29/2006 10:14:07 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
THE MAN I KILLED did not want to die, but he no longer felt he had much of a choice. He had gone from being tall and strapping, full of appetites and a brilliant manner of speech, to a skeleton, weak and full of messy needs.
He and his wife still loved each other very much, but... he was 60 when he was diagnosed with cancer.
...One day over lunch, I told him that if he ever experienced too much pain or diminishment, I would try to help him die on his own terms, if he wanted.
He was amazed, and so was I. I hadn't particularly planned on offering this. ...All of his old friends who were part of his final months said sternly that we must not play God, that nature must be allowed to take its course — and they were all atheists.
...Mel was sort of surprised that as a Christian I so staunchly agreed with him about assisted suicide: I believed that life was a kind of Earth school, so even though assisted suicide meant you were getting out early, before the term ended, you were going to be leaving anyway, so who said it wasn't OK to take an incomplete in the course?
...I went into the kitchen and crushed the pills ... After a while, Mel looked around, half smiled and fell asleep... He breathed so quietly, for so long, that when he finally stopped, we all strained to hear the sound.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Anne Lamott is a novelist and essayist. Her latest book is "Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith," recently released in paperback.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Astounding when a confession to murder in an op-ed has no legal consequences. And just when the California Legislature is debating legislation on physician-assisted suicide.
All that plus she aborted two babies --- wrote of it, talks about it, defends it vehemently, wildly, ferociously --- and believes it ALL to be copacetic with Jesus Christ Our Lord.
I've read her books, attentively. I like --- most of the time --- her mind.
Her mind? Maybe she's already out of her mind, I don't know. Writes well, though, doesn't she, with her compassionate killer mind? I fear for her bodily well-being. I fear very much for her soul.
In your own mind you can justify ANYTHING if you try hard enough, even MURDER!
Sorrowful ping.
Lamott, that is.
It seems that people like this have already been reprobated. They become more and more spiritually disfigured with time.
The original article at LA Times is well worth reading. She has a tender, affectionate, sensitive and apparently lifelong attraction for solving problems via (others') death.
I figured any man in an alley at that time of death was suicidal so I shot him. I took his wallet to compensate myself for the bullet.
Can't stand Lamott as a writer.
I doubt she can be prosecuted because I doubt that this ever happened. If there's an inquiry, she'll admit it was not a confession, but just her opinion.
She is no Christian.
Is this for real or another piece of fiction?
If I should so choose, I hope I'll have one or two friends who will stand by me in the same way.
Her book on writing, "Bird By Bird" is quite good. I skipped her book on her faith because it had the look of one of those buffet-Christian books: I'll take that, but skip this, thanks.
Yet, if my wife were suffering terribly with terminal cancer and I could not get her relief from pain (all big ifs, for sure), I would consider helping her end it. I'd take my chances at the Judgement for that one.
I mean, okay, maybe they are in their 20's... and healthy.... and maybe they may not want to commit assisted suicide... and yeah, maybe I have to handcuff them and gag them to stop them from running or calling for authorities.....
..... but I still like to help.
I stand ready with a chainsaw and a wood chipper!
Comparing the two, no matter what your opinions on assisted suicide is just dumb, especially the statement about taking the wallet.
For me, I believe it is wrong to kill someone, period, but I do not believe it is wrong for a very ill person to take their own life, when all is hopeless. I do not believe anyone should get a pass, including doctors, for helping them however. This will eventually lead to people being killed simply to free up hospital beds or to save money, it is already trending that way in some countries.
And I was glad to serve as your extra eyes (read: Lookout) and extra legs (read: Getaway driver).
Most of the people I kill, don't.
A few actually plead for their lives.
But they are too sick to know they really need to die.
ALL of his friends were atheists?? What are the odds of that?
Who, anyway, would have the responsibility of looking into this? There's no named victim, no body. We wouldn't know what year, what county, what state. Should somebody from the police department in city where Lamott lives, look her up and interview her? I mean, what do you do?
Read Herman Hesse's "Peter Camenizid" sometime. The chapter where his mother dies sums up how I feel about letting nature take its course. My thought were like yours until my mother died from cancer.
Dr. death (dervorkian) is now rotting in a cell....so should she........
Dono' - might be some Hazmat issues there.
Culture of Death Ping.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
At death's window (Anne Lamott kills a good friend)
Killing a person is MURDER it is not merciful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
"How about a ticket of John Kerry and Wesley Clark: Two Vietnam veterans against two chickenhawks," muses author Anne Lamott
Tells me all I need to know about her.
Just another stupid statement to add to the statement of the person I was actually talking to. Trying to equate killing somone out of hand to helping them take their own life is nonsense. They are both murder but are not equal. If you can't see that, well, I understand they will have brain transplants available any day now.
That always puts me in those "more in sorrow than anger" moods.
There's so much wrong in this sentence, it is hard to know where to begin. First, there is no such thing as assisted suicide. That is just a euphemism for "I killed a guy". At best, it is consensual homicide, at worst, outright euthanasia of the unproductive.
Second, who said it wasn't okay? God did. "Thou shalt not kill." Hypocrates did. "First, do no harm."
Third, the "Earth School" course is a pass/fail course. Incompletes are not allowed. Absences are not allowed. Failure to do the required course work will result in failure of the course. The course cannot be retaken.
You could say she heard a cry for help and misread it completely. If some guy comes to a Christian writer and tells her he's scared about his diminishment and death he really wants to be comforted with Christ, not killed.
"One day over lunch, I told him that if he ever experienced too much pain or diminishment, I would try to help him die on his own terms, if he wanted.
"He was amazed, and so was I."
People who are sick, physically weakening, and grieving are highly vulnerable to suggestion. Lamott's friend and his wife were astonished and reluctant again and again, and --- the way she tells the story --- she made it clear that on her own initiative, she persuaded them. Maybe even more than she acknowledges here.
And why do we insist upon multiple layers of protection ---proof beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, due process, appeals, reconsiderations --- before we'll allow a criminal to be killed, but nothing of the sort to reprieve a person who is vulnerable and depressed?
There's no justice here. There wasn't even an outward show of justice.
Wow! Can you even imagine saying such a thing? With friends like this...
That's what they said in Amsterdam. Now, there is no legal difference in assisted suicide and a doctor determining to euthanize a patient without consent. The rationalization of the one has lead to the easy rationalization of the next step.
Of course, the next step after is to simply broaden the qualification for what constitutes a low enough quality of life to kill out of hand. Retarded? Kill them. Paralyzed? Kill them. Mentally disturbed? Kill them. Destitute? Kill them. Not our race or religion? Kill them. Any other way of classing someone as "other than human"? And, no, I am not practicing hyperbole, because it has happened like this more than once in the last century.
"Doctors have voted against any legislation to help terminally-ill patients die. Those attending the British Medical Association (BMA) conference said doctor-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia should not be made legal in the UK. They voted by 65% against 35% on the issue - overturning the BMA's neutral stance, decided last year."
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA1324311151584127A0?source=PA%20Feed
Calling all "pajamahadins"(?)
I can't help but sense a Jayson Blair moment.
Sick woman. If anyone is dating her, move away and change your name. Serial killers seldom stop.
Mel was sort of surprised that as a Christian I so staunchly agreed with him about assisted suicide: I believed that life was a kind of Earth school, so even though assisted suicide meant you were getting out early, before the term ended, you were going to be leaving anyway, so who said it wasn't OK to take an incomplete in the course?
___________________________________________________________
She needs to rethink her faith, no christian should ever choose to play GOD and that is exactly what she has doing.
I love SOME of her writing. Plan B, even, was good, about her time with an adolescent son. I laughed hard and long. She is an excellent writer.
However, it was interspersed with rants about Bush -- tired old stuff, hardly worth the paper it is printed on; and a confession, "If I stay angry at him, then he hasn't won." What kind of sick thinking is that? But I believe it is a clue to the leftie-lib way of thinking which the Bay Area is rife with.
This, too, is sick -- that she helped her friend die!! That there are no consequences!! That she is proud of that and the abortions. That stuff is SICK.
Could be a demonic influence, ya know? Kinda kewl!
.
From the article, he didn't ask her to kill him, she offered to do it without prompting.
If you put something on the auction block enough times, you might be lucky enough to find a buyer.
Each beneficiary category a bit larger than the previous one, and each batch justified by the previous one. My goodness, they just got more and more merciful as they went along!
Even now in the Netherlands, the "right to die" is being exercised "on the behalf of" people who cannot ask for it for themselves: little children with disabilities, and so forth. Because why should the mere fact that you're unable to express yourself clearly, bar you from the enjoyment of your full complement of rights?
Or perhaps, you do not see how smart it really is!
I agree, she should be rotting in a cell.
Her writing is superficially impressive, but gets cloying real fast.
The one child Lamott didn't destroy --the preciously named Sam-- probably hates her now. She practically admits that she cynically created the fatherless Sam as a self-fulfillment project (emphasis on self); and exploited his childhood with the aim of literary success.
Lamott should've gone the route of the liberal author of "Life with Marley: The World's Worst Dog."
Then she could've made a bundle while only exploiting a dog; the difference being...the dog wouldn't have minded.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lamott10feb10,0,6836804.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
And I want to add:
If you can EVER justify murder,
then you can ALWAYS justify murder.
Thou Shalt Not Murder doesn't have a list of exceptions after it.
-------------
One thing I have learned in this life is that people I consider to be both thoughtful and responsible have can very different convections about end-of-life choices, and they these “convections” can alter dramatically when they are faced with such a choice.
And the conclusion I've reached is the the time and circumstances of dying, for the terminally ill, should be within wide latitude a matter of their choice. I know people who have elected to hang on to the bitter end, I've known people (CHF) who have have said “I'm not going back into that damn hospital again”, knowing they would be dead in twelve hours if they didn't, and knowing that they might live weeks, months or even years, if the did, and I've known people who have elected to end their lives at the time of their own choosing, and before the final indignities of terminally illness. And as long as it's a decision made by a competent individual, I feel that neither I nor the state have a right to interfere with any of them, nor to either sanction or compel other's participation in them.
What I think is immoral is to coerce other's participation is such decisions even by omission, or to request of others what they they have made clear they cannot in conscience do.
Before my father's death from cancer, and despite our best efforts, he was never clear as to his wishes.
In the end, I found myself in his bedroom, holding bottles of liquid morphine, tranquilizers and anti-convalescents supplied by hospice, and hourly administering the ever increasing qualities required to prevent him from rising up clawing the air in agony as they wore off.
I knew the moment was approaching when the required dosage would suppress respiration.
And had he not died first, I would have administered a lethal dose if required for his comfort, and with a clear conscience.
But after that experience I now understand that if a friend asked it of me, I would be unable to participate in keeping them alive whatever their apparent agony - that I cannot accept that duty – it's contrary to the dictates of my conscience, just as some others here would not be able to accept the charge of deciding when assist in ending, another's life, no mater how short or painful the remaining time.
So my advice is to clearly know your own mind, make sure your wishes are clearly understood by those you trust and who can be trusted to follow those wishes if possible, and ask of your friends only what their nature and convictions allow.
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.