Posted on 06/29/2006 10:14:07 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
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.
I've read that in his last hours Hitler himself tried the power of prayer. When God didn't answer him back the Fuehrer got exasperated and said: "But I was only doing Your will!"
If I do, will you accept it as my conviction, or will you try to convince me that you known my own mind better that I do?
If the latter, I've other things on my plate.
Morphine (or other medication) sufficient to keep a terminally ill patient comfortable and pain-free is justified, even if you can foresee that it causes reduced life-expectancy as a side effect.
As long as the intention is to make the patient comfortable ---and not to kill the patient--- a palliative medication dose is a real blessing. There is certainly NO moral obligation to go to a hospital; to accept drugs, surgery, or intrusive and futile devices such as ventilators; or to prolong the dying process by applying every available technology.
What we owe every dying person is ordinary care (food, water, hygienic measures); comfort care; and accompaniment. It's not very complicated, when you think about it.
Yet another example of twisted thinking. We have our own twisted "thinkers". They are called DemocRATS!
Sure. Simple as pie - as long as that is what they want.
If they want something else - as for example care and accompaniment while they try to keep done the barbs - it's a bit more complicated for some of us.
He went into the bathroom, changed into worn, light-blue pajamas, and got in bed, wasted, sad, sweet and comfortable.
Oh, thesaurus! What adjectives do you have to make death pret-ty, oh so pret-ty?
I went into the kitchen and crushed the pills with a mortar and pestle, then stirred them into applesauce in a tiny Asian bowl.
I am so glad she didn't use a big French milk bowl. I think tiny and Asian hits the right note tonight.
After a while, Mel looked around, half smiled and fell asleep. People got up to stretch, for wine or water, or to change albums.
Pretentious. There are only three other people in the room. People getting up for more wine, as if this were a MFK Fischer party in pre-war Switzerland instead of a slow 21st century assisted suicide.
This woman thinks that if she describes poop properly, it won't stink.
> Is this for real or another piece of fiction?
I hope it's the latter. Even if it is, it's
malevolent propaganda.
Tell you what, M. Dodge. If I'm there and you say you want to kill yourself, I'll talk you down. If that doesn't work, I'll hold you down. Then you can scream and fuss and yell your head off that I'm insensitive to your rights, I'm opinionated, obnoxious, and bigoted, and I'll say, "So sue me."
And if you say,"I will, goddamnit, I'll sue your ass," I'll smile my bigot smile and say, "Good. Now you've got a reason for living."
She also thinks that if she's very sensitive about it --- even showing a little sweet fare-thee-well melancholia --- it shows that she couldn't be wrong because her feelings are so fine.
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.