A bit old, as a news story, but useful I think...as far as moral relativism goes...

[Oswald Bastable]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html


Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

Let's not stop with babies...let's apply it to all the brain-dead and unwanted among those of us who value life.

Let's be sure liberal/progressives feel the full force of their policies.

[LAGC]

That, my friend, is what is called "journal trolling." Them publishing a controversial study just to fire up the wing-nuts. Obviously the only folks who really believe a newborn is equivalent to a fetus are the so-called "right-to-life" folks, and its pretty clear the authors of that study were trying to provoke a reaction, which obviously succeeded.

As for brain-dead people (human vegetables), what's the point of keeping them alive? I never understood the whole brouhaha over Terri Schiavo. When someone is so brain-damaged that they can't even speak or understand what people are saying, why prolong their suffering? Why not just put them out of their misery? Especially keeping people alive with feeding tubes and other artificial devices when they have no hope of ever operating autonomously?

The good news is that science will likely soon be able to diagnose and treat many of those prenatal abnormalities, and prevent many of these maladies. But there's nothing wrong with mercy-killing (euthanasia) when all that is left of life is unnecessary suffering and despair. Why prolong people's misery?

Not all life is pleasant -- there's something to be said for quality of life as well, you know.

[ltorlo64]

Planned Parenthood calls them "post-birth abortions".


Planned Parenthood Rep Gives Chilling Testimony on “Post-Birth” Abortion
Written by Dave Bohon

Is it possible that abortion giant Planned Parenthood condones the killing of babies outside the womb in what is sometimes termed “post-birth” abortion? To some observers, Alisa LaPolt Snow, a lobbyist with the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, appeared to give that impression when she testified March 28 in connection with a Florida bill that would require abortionists to give medical care to babies born alive during a “botched” abortion procedure.

When given her chance to offer Planned Parenthood's position on the common-sense and compassionate measure, Snow told Florida lawmakers in a prepared statement that while “Planned Parenthood condemns any physician who does not follow the law or endangers a woman's or a child's health … we don't believe that politicians should be the ones who decide what constitutes the best, medically appropriate treatment in any given situation.”

Some legislators were shocked at what appeared to be an admission that Planned Parenthood is okay with allowing babies born alive during an abortion to be deprived of life-saving medical care. Fox News reported that one of the lawmakers tried to pin Snow down on the abortion giant's position regarding a baby born alive while an abortionist was attempting to end his or her life. “We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician,” Snow reiterated from her talking points — making it appear that Planned Parenthood's position is that an abortionist hasn't completed his mission until a baby dies, inside or outside the womb.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14987-planned-parenthood-rep-gives-chilling-testimony-on-post-birth-abortion

The argument that it was not a baby/person while in the mother 2 minutes ago and yet now that it is a person outside the mother makes no sense. It also make no sense to convict Gosling of 3 counts of murder for killing babies that he was paid to abort. Our country is confused.

Personally I think Gosling should have been tried for murder for every child he killed, whether the abortion was successful (what a horrid way to put that) or whether he had to finish the job after birth.

[Krupski]

Apparently that 4.0 hasn't afforded our friend LAGC an increased awareness of the definition of life or any measure of compassion towards it.

Same leopard, same spots.

Why do we take terminally ill pets to the veterinarian to be "put to sleep"? To end their suffering and misery.

Why will someone finish off a deer with a headshot if the deer is mortally wounded (hunting, car impact, etc...)? To end their suffering and misery.

Why do we take a terminally ill cancer patient, pump them full of morphine (for pain) to the point that they don't recognize their own family members and use every last bit of medical science to prolong their suffering?

Why are people who WANT to die (and have a legitimate reason for wanting to die) denied a physician assisted death?

Because many humans have this insane idea that a quivering heart or a few random brainwaves indicates "life"... and to hell with the QUALITY of that life. Just keep that heart beating and suffering as long as possible.

People think they are "doing good" by prolonging an empty, suffering "life". In reality, it's torture of the most heinous kind.

[ltorlo64]

Why do we take terminally ill pets to the veterinarian to be "put to sleep"? To end their suffering and misery.

Why will someone finish off a deer with a headshot if the deer is mortally wounded (hunting, car impact, etc...)? To end their suffering and misery.

Why do we take a terminally ill cancer patient, pump them full of morphine (for pain) to the point that they don't recognize their own family members and use every last bit of medical science to prolong their suffering?

Why are people who WANT to die (and have a legitimate reason for wanting to die) denied a physician assisted death?

Because many humans have this insane idea that a quivering heart or a few random brainwaves indicates "life"... and to hell with the QUALITY of that life. Just keep that heart beating and suffering as long as possible.

People think they are "doing good" by prolonging an empty, suffering "life". In reality, it's torture of the most heinous kind.

I will try not to derail this thread. I do not think that suicide is a good option, and I watched my father die of cancer. I can, however, understand how someone can get to that point. My father was alway in pain at the end. We decided that that we would make him as comfortable as possible but not do anything to extend his life unnaturally. The question of allowing a doctor to help kill the patient is where I have a real problem. People know how to commit suicide and in the case of mercy killings, where a familiy member or friend assists, the law is very lenient. Doctors are for making people well not for killing them. Well, except where abortion is concerned.

[Kadmos]

Why do we take terminally ill pets to the veterinarian to be "put to sleep"? To end their suffering and misery.

Why will someone finish off a deer with a headshot if the deer is mortally wounded (hunting, car impact, etc...)? To end their suffering and misery.

Why do we take a terminally ill cancer patient, pump them full of morphine (for pain) to the point that they don't recognize their own family members and use every last bit of medical science to prolong their suffering?

Why are people who WANT to die (and have a legitimate reason for wanting to die) denied a physician assisted death?

Because many humans have this insane idea that a quivering heart or a few random brainwaves indicates "life"... and to hell with the QUALITY of that life. Just keep that heart beating and suffering as long as possible.

People think they are "doing good" by prolonging an empty, suffering "life". In reality, it's torture of the most heinous kind.

Amen brother!



In reality, it's torture of the most heinous kind.

Re-qouted, bolded, underlined, and enlarged for truth!

Seriously, watch a person or even an animal die a slow painful gasping for air terror in their eyes death....sit with them for every single second, and tell me you didn't feel the powerful nearly overwhelming urge to put them out of their utterly horrific misery.

[ltorlo64]

Seriously, watch a person or even an animal die a slow painful gasping for air terror in their eyes death....sit with them for every single second, and tell me you didn't feel the powerful nearly overwhelming urge to put them out of their utterly horrific misery.

Again I have. I still do not think you should commit suicide. I understand why you would but the doctor should not be a part of it.

[5.56NATO]

There are efforts being made in the country to allow "legal abortion" up to 3yrs of age.

[Kadmos]

Again I have. I still do not think you should commit suicide. I understand why you would but the doctor should not be a part of it.

I'm not just talking suicide, I'm talking about the common decency you give a dog, euthanasia.

[ltorlo64]

I'm not just talking suicide, I'm talking about the common decency you give a dog, euthanasia.

That is suicide. I am against a doctor being involved. Humans are more that "smart" enough to figure out how to kill ourselves in numerous ways without needing a doctor to do it for us.

[Kadmos]

That is suicide. I am against a doctor being involved. Humans are more that "smart" enough to figure out how to kill ourselves in numerous ways without needing a doctor to do it for us.

Suicide is when you kill yourself.

My dog didn't commit suicide, I had him euthanized.

And frankly I would do the same for my father if the circumstances were similar.






































So he best not pee on my good rug!

[Kadmos]

Situational ethics on display by the usual suspects.

What is ethical about watching a person slowly die in pain and doing nothing?


Let me relate to you part of a true story, as told to me by the physical in question.

Working at a field surgery during the Vietnam war a young soldier was brought in with burns over most of his body.

The doctor tended to him for less than 2 minutes, mostly cutting away his remaining clothing to assess the extent of the damage.

The soldier had mostly full thickness burns across his front side starting just below the bridge of his nose and ending at the caps of his knees. His face was burned, his hands were burned, his chest, stomach, genitals, thighs, all badly burned. The doctor presumed the man was on his knees with his head tilted down when hit by some sort of fiery explosion, perhaps he was down there helping another wounded soldier, fixing some sort of equipment, or perhaps praying.

The soldier was awake, alert, and judging by his screams for help his airway was clear and he was obviously in a great deal of pain.

The doctor told his attendant to give him a black tag and that the boy would surely be dead by morning and if not then, certainly 2 days at most. People simply don't recover from those types of severe burns. Even with extraordinary care the most the young man could get was 2 weeks before the infection, swelling, or multiple organ failure would kill him. It was hopeless.

The attendant asked how much morphine to give him, the doctor replied "none", "We probably don't have enough for the boys who might live".

So the soldier was put on a bed in the corner and occasionally given water, no IV fluids because that would only extend his pain.

The doctor worked long into the night on various other patients who had a chance at living.

All the while the burned boy screamed, he screamed for help, he screamed for death, he screamed for anyone to end his pain.

The other patients were upset, occasionally calling out for someone to help him, some calling out "please end his pain".

The only other voices were the doctors asking for various supplies and tools with increasingly irritated voices.

After several hours all the doctor could think was "It would be so easy to end this boys pain", even a quick cut with a scalpel and the boy would be dead within 15 seconds.

The screaming went on through the night, most of the hospital was quietly sobbing, even the bulk of the medical staff.

About 9am a Colonel came in with a minor laceration and asked why that solder was screaming like that and no one was doing anything.

The Doctor explained the situation.




At any rate, what would you have done if you were that doc? Or anyone else at the hospital for that matter? What would you have said if you were the Colonel?
Was it ethical to simply let the boy scream on and on in pain, with everyone knowing full well that he would die?

[ltorlo64]

Suicide is when you kill yourself.

My dog didn't commit suicide, I had him euthanized.

And frankly I would do the same for my father if the circumstances were similar.

If you make the decision it is murder. If he makes the decision it is suicide. I can understand if he makes the decision and asks you for help, but leave the doctor out of it. He is a person, not a pet.


So he best not pee on my good rug!

I guess I won't be coming over for dinner!

[ltorlo64]

What is ethical about watching a person slowly die in pain and doing nothing?


Let me relate to you part of a true story, as told to me by the physical in question.

Working at a field surgery during the Vietnam war a young soldier was brought in with burns over most of his body.

The doctor tended to him for less than 2 minutes, mostly cutting away his remaining clothing to assess the extent of the damage.

The soldier had mostly full thickness burns across his front side starting just below the bridge of his nose and ending at the caps of his knees. His face was burned, his hands were burned, his chest, stomach, genitals, thighs, all badly burned. The doctor presumed the man was on his knees with his head tilted down when hit by some sort of fiery explosion, perhaps he was down there helping another wounded soldier, fixing some sort of equipment, or perhaps praying.

The soldier was awake, alert, and judging by his screams for help his airway was clear and he was obviously in a great deal of pain.

The doctor told his attendant to give him a black tag and that the boy would surely be dead by morning and if not then, certainly 2 days at most. People simply don't recover from those types of severe burns. Even with extraordinary care the most the young man could get was 2 weeks before the infection, swelling, or multiple organ failure would kill him. It was hopeless.

The attendant asked how much morphine to give him, the doctor replied "none", "We probably don't have enough for the boys who might live".

So the soldier was put on a bed in the corner and occasionally given water, no IV fluids because that would only extend his pain.

The doctor worked long into the night on various other patients who had a chance at living.

All the while the burned boy screamed, he screamed for help, he screamed for death, he screamed for anyone to end his pain.

The other patients were upset, occasionally calling out for someone to help him, some calling out "please end his pain".

The only other voices were the doctors asking for various supplies and tools with increasingly irritated voices.

After several hours all the doctor could think was "It would be so easy to end this boys pain", even a quick cut with a scalpel and the boy would be dead within 15 seconds.

The screaming went on through the night, most of the hospital was quietly sobbing, even the bulk of the medical staff.

About 9am a Colonel came in with a minor laceration and asked why that solder was screaming like that and no one was doing anything.

The Doctor explained the situation.




At any rate, what would you have done if you were that doc? Or anyone else at the hospital for that matter? What would you have said if you were the Colonel?
Was it ethical to simply let the boy scream on and on in pain, with everyone knowing full well that he would die?

It is not ethical for the doctor to kill him and for someone else to decide he should die. If he decides it, as I have said I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. In this case he would need someone else to help him, just not a doctor.

[Kadmos]

It is not ethical for the doctor to kill him and for someone else to decide he should die. If he decides it, as I have said I don't agree with it, but I can understand it. In this case he would need someone else to help him, just not a doctor.

It was already decided he was going to die, the burns took care of that. The only questions were when and how.

Why not the doctor if he is willing? Likely he would know how to make it most quick and painless.

What do you do for the patient who is in pain but cannot physically ask for help dying?

How moral is it to sit there and listen to these people scream?

[Krupski]

Roger...You have a lot of questions there and some reasonable assumptions, but I would ask upon what do you base your standard or truth about life? If it is your own truth or that of popular opinion, then you have set yourself up as a sort of god deciding what is right or wrong. If your standard is based upon the standard of God (which you appear to profess at times) then I suggest looking to His standard and then sharing that.

Well, I wouldn't dare to claim to know what God's standard is, but I can assume that God does not desire any of His life that He created to suffer and have no "quality of life".

We universally feel sorry for a suffering animal, but we use every last ounce of modern medicine to keep HUMANS suffering as long as possible.

I can't imagine that is what God wants. Besides, He gave us free will. We can choose to end our own suffering (i.e. the "S" word - suicide) if necessary.

[Krupski]

Again I have. I still do not think you should commit suicide. I understand why you would but the doctor should not be a part of it.

A doctor's oath, overly simplified, is that they promise to do their patient "no harm".

Assisting a suffering, terminally ill person to painlessly and cleanly end their own life and suffering is less "harm" than letting them rot away in agony or in a drug induced stupor.

[Krupski]

There are efforts being made in the country to allow "legal abortion" up to 3yrs of age.

THAT is sick.

[Krupski]

That is suicide. I am against a doctor being involved. Humans are more that "smart" enough to figure out how to kill ourselves in numerous ways without needing a doctor to do it for us.

I would much rather come to grips with "Uncle Joe" deciding on a physician assisted suicide and let his whole family be there to say goodbye then for someone to find his body, his head and a 12 ga shotgun in three different places...

[Krupski]

So he best not pee on my good rug!:yeah:

[Oswald Bastable]

What is ethical about watching a person slowly die in pain and doing nothing?


Let me relate to you part of a true story, as told to me by the physical in question.

Working at a field surgery during the Vietnam war a young soldier was brought in with burns over most of his body.

The doctor tended to him for less than 2 minutes, mostly cutting away his remaining clothing to assess the extent of the damage.

The soldier had mostly full thickness burns across his front side starting just below the bridge of his nose and ending at the caps of his knees. His face was burned, his hands were burned, his chest, stomach, genitals, thighs, all badly burned. The doctor presumed the man was on his knees with his head tilted down when hit by some sort of fiery explosion, perhaps he was down there helping another wounded soldier, fixing some sort of equipment, or perhaps praying.

The soldier was awake, alert, and judging by his screams for help his airway was clear and he was obviously in a great deal of pain.

The doctor told his attendant to give him a black tag and that the boy would surely be dead by morning and if not then, certainly 2 days at most. People simply don't recover from those types of severe burns. Even with extraordinary care the most the young man could get was 2 weeks before the infection, swelling, or multiple organ failure would kill him. It was hopeless.

The attendant asked how much morphine to give him, the doctor replied "none", "We probably don't have enough for the boys who might live".

So the soldier was put on a bed in the corner and occasionally given water, no IV fluids because that would only extend his pain.

The doctor worked long into the night on various other patients who had a chance at living.

All the while the burned boy screamed, he screamed for help, he screamed for death, he screamed for anyone to end his pain.

The other patients were upset, occasionally calling out for someone to help him, some calling out "please end his pain".

The only other voices were the doctors asking for various supplies and tools with increasingly irritated voices.

After several hours all the doctor could think was "It would be so easy to end this boys pain", even a quick cut with a scalpel and the boy would be dead within 15 seconds.

The screaming went on through the night, most of the hospital was quietly sobbing, even the bulk of the medical staff.

About 9am a Colonel came in with a minor laceration and asked why that solder was screaming like that and no one was doing anything.

The Doctor explained the situation.




At any rate, what would you have done if you were that doc? Or anyone else at the hospital for that matter? What would you have said if you were the Colonel?
Was it ethical to simply let the boy scream on and on in pain, with everyone knowing full well that he would die?

A doctor's charge, per the Hippocratic Oath, is to do no harm.

Would you say this doctor's actions lived up to that standard?

Would ending the patient's suffering and life have lived up to that standard?

And who are you (or that doctor) to say with absolute surety the patient wouldn't have lived if treated? Patients destined to die (by their doctor's diagnosis) fail to do so and live every day, across the world...

To play God is a dangerous occupation.


But, we've gotten a bit off track from the original post...

Soon, Gosnell will be exonerated...as all he did was perform post birth abortions...no harm, no foul, right?

Because in a world of moral relativism, it's only murder when the state says it is. And in a world where moral relativism rules, what the state doesn't know the state can't control...and all liberal/progressives can be eliminated at will...as long as it's done discreetly.

[Kadmos]

A doctor's charge, per the Hippocratic Oath, is to do no harm.

Would you say this doctor's actions lived up to that standard?

Yes he did no harm to the patient. Didn't do him a bit of good either though.


Would ending the patient's suffering and life have lived up to that standard?


It depends on the oath he took.

The original oath was quite clear on the subject

"I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."

Modern oaths vary, many don't even include the phrase "do no harm", several allow for euthanasia, but mostly by not forbidding it....the absence of the phrase is notable.


And who are you (or that doctor) to say with absolute surety the patient wouldn't have lived if treated?

I'm only the person he told the story to.

He was the doctor who could do nothing to save that life, in the then and there. He possibly could have prolonged it slightly, maybe even long enough for the boy to survive to get evac to an actual hospital. But to do that other patients who had a much better chance at living may have died.

Either way, he was certain the boy would die.


Patients destined to die (by their doctor's diagnosis) fail to do so and live every day, across the world...

Generally those patients are of the "you have a year to live, due to cancer" types, not burned beyond all possible hope types.



To play God is a dangerous occupation.

It is. But the doctor had to do that either way, no choice, it is his job, triage...some get helped, some don't.

But knowing the soldier would die...screaming for death... not 25 feet away. To me it's a hard man who doesn't have enough compassion to at least very seriously want to help him die.

[Oswald Bastable]

Yes he did no harm to the patient. Didn't do him a bit of good either though.

Are you fucking serious?

Letting a patient suffer in enormous pain, knowing he could have at least administered some kind of pain killer...doing something for him,..amounts to doing no harm?


Generally those patients are of the "you have a year to live, due to cancer" types, not burned beyond all possible hope types.

Bullshit...now you claim some superlative knowledge of what the human spirit is capable of. There are stories every day of people who should have died, yet survived, people in comas for a decade or more, who revive, people with enormous injuries who, somehow, survive...you're just trying to justify your myopic position.


But knowing the soldier would die...screaming for death... not 25 feet away. To me it's a hard man who doesn't have enough compassion to at least very seriously want to help him die.

And thusly you admit, this doctor did do him harm, by doing nothing...

Please don't forget...in a morally relativistic world, anyone...Jews...whoever, can be held responsible for all the ills the world suffers, and sentenced accordingly...

And don't forget, there were always many available Jews, more than willing to do what was necessary to survive, for one more day...even to herding their brethren into the chambers.

I find your moral relativism equal to that of the kapos who bought a few more days, all while watching others die before them.

That position is reprehensible...and it's disgusting.

[Kadmos]

Are you fucking serious?

Letting a patient suffer in enormous pain, knowing he could have at least administered some kind of pain killer...doing something for him,..amounts to doing no harm?

Yes, absolutely. In what way did he harm the man? He didn't add to the mans pain. Had he given IV fluids and perhaps kept him alive a few more hours that could be considered more harm than doing nothing.

How many other men should have suffered and possibly died as one man took dose after dose necessary to easy his final pain? Is it right to deprive those who may yet live?





Bullshit...now you claim some superlative knowledge of what the human spirit is capable of. There are stories every day of people who should have died, yet survived, people in comas for a decade or more, who revive, people with enormous injuries who, somehow, survive...you're just trying to justify your myopic position.

You're talking about the human spirit, I'm talking of the human body. There is only so much punishment it can take. A person in a coma may be brain dead and WILL never recover, or they may be suffering from some damage and MAY recover.

Generally doctors can tell the difference. Occasionally they are wrong. But this boys death was not in doubt for the doctor.

And he was left to die, extremely painfully and slowly, while his doctor worked on people who could be saved.

As was common medical protocol in that situation.




And thusly you admit, this doctor did do him harm, by doing nothing...


He didn't burn the boy. The only thing he could have responsibly done was put the soldier out of his misery using as few medical supplies necessary. But tlets be clear and not bandy words, he could have killed the boy or let him suffer, or he could have used medicine to slightly dull his pain which would not only increase the suffering of others but also mean the likely death of others.


Please don't forget...in a morally relativistic world, anyone...Jews...whoever, can be held responsible for all the ills the world suffers, and sentenced accordingly...


I agree. But would god punish a mercy killing? I don't think so.


And don't forget, there were always many available Jews, more than willing to do what was necessary to survive, for one more day...even to herding their brethren into the chambers.

Life is precious. It is most precious to the owner and those who love them. Those people had choices, many did horrible things to survive, many did noble things to help others survive.

However it's not analogous. With simply enough food, and no one actively trying to murder them then nearly all would have lived.


I find your moral relativism equal to that of the kapos who bought a few more days, all while watching others die before them.

Why? I'm not talking about stepping on others to save my own ass, I'm talking about ending the pain of someone who has either no quality of life, or is at the end of life and not passing well.


That position is reprehensible...and it's disgusting.

Better to deprive others who will likely live if given treatment? Or even those who have some better chance?

Is it best to simply do nothing when that's all one can do? Or give the kindness of mercy and end their suffering though a quick death?


Frankly I find the idea of doing nothing for the young soldier and letting him die a slow agonizing but natural death to be the truly reprehensible and disgusting option.

[Schuetzenman]

Apparently that 4.0 hasn't afforded our friend LAGC an increased awareness of the definition of life or any measure of compassion towards it.

Same leopard, same spots.

Which is why I said he'd still be a dumbass even after he gets a degree.

[ltorlo64]

A doctor's oath, overly simplified, is that they promise to do their patient "no harm".

Assisting a suffering, terminally ill person to painlessly and cleanly end their own life and suffering is less "harm" than letting them rot away in agony or in a drug induced stupor.

My concern is that I want doctors figuring out how to save me that the easiest, least painful way for me to die. People can come up with efficient, painless ways for people to die without having to get doctors involved. We have been doing this sense the world began.

[ltorlo64]

I would much rather come to grips with "Uncle Joe" deciding on a physician assisted suicide and let his whole family be there to say goodbye then for someone to find his body, his head and a 12 ga shotgun in three different places...

I don't see much difference. Sorry, I just don't.

[Krupski]

I don't see much difference. Sorry, I just don't.

This is just like the "gun control" debate. Each side believes it's right and neither side will budge.

We are all free to have our own opinion, so I'll leave it at that and end my participation in this thread.

[ltorlo64]

This is just like the "gun control" debate. Each side believes it's right and neither side will budge.

We are all free to have our own opinion, so I'll leave it at that and end my participation in this thread.

At least we didn't come to blows (or name calling or whatever it is people do when they get offended on the internet!).

[Krupski]

At least we didn't come to blows (or name calling or whatever it is people do when they get offended on the internet!).

I don't do name calling. It's quite childish. Whenever I start getting pissed off at something online, I tell myself "dude! It's only a keyboard and a TV set - get a grip!" :)

[TEN-32]

We lost my father to esophageal cancer in 1997. It wasn't pretty. He suffered. He requested help. I was unable to help him. I still cry when I think about it. This is a very complex topic and I really can't fault either school of thought. Both views have merit. In the end I think it is an individual choice that needs to be clearly articulated beforehand in a living will or other durable medical power of attorney document. I cannot judge my father as I have not had to endure that level of suffering.

[Krupski]

We lost my father to esophageal cancer in 1997. It wasn't pretty. He suffered. He requested help. I was unable to help him. I still cry when I think about it. This is a very complex topic and I really can't fault either school of thought. Both views have merit. In the end I think it is an individual choice that needs to be clearly articulated beforehand in a living will or other durable medical power of attorney document. I cannot judge my father as I have not had to endure that level of suffering.

My father-in-law had lung cancer (thanks, Joe Camel). Radiation and chemo seemed to work, but then a tumor appeared at the base of his brain. It was inoperable.

Near the end, he was in a lot of pain and the hospital had him on such heavy doses of morphine that he needed a respiration monitor because he would stop breathing. He was so doped up that he didn't recognize his wife or his kids. Every time we came in, he asked who we were.

He never asked to die, but if he did I would probably have tried to do something to help him.

I'm glad, though, that I never had to make that choice. He died on his own a few days later.