🚀 go-pugleaf

mado@iinet.net.au (Madeleine Croft) writes:

> Peter Merel <pete@zip.com.au> wrote:
> 
> >d-moss@adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:
> 
> >>_Any_ form of education regarding humanity, values and morality helps.
> 
> We have got many more considerations:
> 1-historical: no religion foresaw the financial staking in favor of
> therapeutic onslaught. This now interferes with the normal termination
> of life. Our elders knew that we were all condemned to death. Their
> euthanasia involved accelarating the normal death process. Ours
> involves restraining the insidious versed interests  of  invasive
> therapists.

Hardly relevant.  Human suffering due to disease is not new; the religious
values regarding the sanctity of life did not develope in its absence.
As far as life prolonging treatment is concerned it is not given without
the consent of the patient or next of kin.
 
> 
> >Investigating this distinction, instead of claiming an exclusive
> >on morality, is the only way we're going to move this debate forward.
> 
> 2-contractual:  Delivering on ones`s promise is a moral stand.
> When a patient  enters into a treatment agreement with his therapist
> he expects  results. If, after a given period of time he does not  get
> them,  he has a god given right to  withdraw his  agreement. This is
> voluntary euthanasia. And this is where our argument needs to start. 

This has nothing to do with euthanasia of any sort it is letting
nature take its course.  Euthanasia is the active and deliberate
taking of life. It is a matter of civil rights and has the same
basis which does not allow the police to enter your home and
search it without your permission, or in its absence a warrant
where the police have to give good reason to a JP or magistrate
do so.

The argument does not start there at all.

> .
> Other considerations:
> 
> 3- Sensory perception : treatment induced  prolongation of ailing
> disorientes every body including the therapists and the politicians.

Meaning?

> 
> 4- Economic: we are all condemned to death. what is the cost/benefit
> ratio to all parties for an extra day lived by an imminently dying
> patient?

Where do you draw the line a day, a week, a month, a year or a decade?
When you draw in economic arguments such as this, you suggest a social
obligation or a duty to die.  

[snip] 

> There was agony  on the cross remember. But it was shortened by a
> lance bearing  roman soldier.

Regardless of what you may believe regarding these events and their
meaning.  The description of the execution itself and the subsequent 
removal of the bodies bears great verisimilitude to what is known
about Roman execution methods and socio-political conditions in
Jerusalem at the time.
 
The method of crucifiction by nailing to the cross (through wrists) 
causes excrutiating pain in turn causing heart failure of a type in
which the lungs to fill with water, that is to say the most likely
cause of death is pulmonary edema.  This is consistent with the blood
and water which was reported to have leaked from the body when it was
pierced.  Death from this method of execution comes in a few hours
rather than a week or more as would have been the case for the other
two.

They were being executed.  That the bodies needed to be removed before
the sabbath is because of Jewish religious sensibilities regarding a
"hanged person's" being left out over night let alone the whole of the
following day.  The other two had their legs broken so that they would
be strangled by their own body weight before they could be removed.
The Roman executioners were competent in their trade. They did not break
Jesus' legs because he was already dead, but stuck the spear in to make
sure that the sentence had been carried out (proper procedure), before
permission would be given to remove the body.   

The agony was not ended early by the lance. 
Jan