NoGoodDaddy - 2005-03-22 15:37:33
2 things: When did we start, as a society, doing our mourning on Cable TV? A little disturbing. And, even though it's already in our wills, I seem to find my wife hovering over me with a pillow quite often. "I'M JUST SLEEPING!"
Poolagirl - 2005-03-22 17:28:56
Well said. Bravo!
twobaddogs - 2005-03-22 17:58:22
Well, Daddy, between Star Jones and her tasteless wedding and this, I'm expecting childbirth to be making a prime time appearance soon. And I don't mean that pixillated Lifetime crap either. I mean full-on, bloody, poopy, cooterific birth. Sponsored by Purina.
Incredipete - 2005-03-22 18:24:11
I wrote a living will. It's on my site. And why is "assisting" someone to death any different than what Kevorkian was doing, and which I might add, sent him to jail. If I stopped feeding my sick dog, the cops would take me away. It's just utterly inconceivable that we as a nation think it's ok to starve a human being. That said, the family should have done the right thing in the first place, and I'm as disgusted as anyone that Congress got involved.
twobaddogs - 2005-03-23 10:32:50
I honestly think that everyone in that family feels that they ARE doing the right thing. Kervorkian was willing to go to jail to prove his conviction that he was doing the right thing. I hope that if I'm ever in that sort of position, there is another Kervorkian around to help me. I don't think the dog comparison is really valid for a couple of reasons. One, if your dog were suffering and was never going to be well, you'd be encouraged and applauded by most compassionate people for euthanizing the dog. You wouldn't be forced into starving it, because you'd have a legal, kind, and caring alternative to forcing your dog to suffer or starve. Second, if you did stop feeding your dog, the cops would not take you away. Dogs, cats, and other animals are considered to be property, not sentient beings, in most states. I worked for an agency that enforced the cruelty to animals statute in New York state. We were almost never successful in prosecuting a case, because the law is written to favor the owner of the animal. The best we could do about 90% of the time was to get the animal out of the hands of the owner. But the law allowed the owner to get another animal.
Poolagirl - 2005-03-23 13:37:39
Thanks so much for making me a fave!
Incredipete - 2005-03-23 16:52:44
I think that taking an innocent life is always wrong, but I would have to temper that by saying, if we're going to take an innocent life, we should at least do it in such a way that they are not in pain for days or weeks. We give criminals that kind of consideration, it's the least we can do for someone that's never hurt anybody.
twobaddogs - 2005-03-23 17:48:59
Pete, I agree with 99% of what you said. I don't think taking an innocent life is wrong if it's done to end suffering and pain. But you're right -- if we're going to do it, it should be done painlessly.
Blanketman - 2005-03-24 04:37:59
We have this story running on the top of the news over here in Blighty. However we probably get a longer more thoughtfull and considered commentary on our news stations that are not going to be interupted by adverts for Teenage Ninja Panty Pads.
I say this because of the comments about the lady being in pain. It has been very carefully described over that she has no feeling at all and that no pain will be suffered.
For full and unbiased reporting i would refer you all to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4377939.stm

blah blah blah:

your name:
your email:
your url:

back to the crap - Diaryland