I've seen this type of reference (about amputation) several times during the past few days on FR. I'm not flaming you here, nor have I come to a firm conclusion my self. However, where do we draw the line. If a person loses one limb we keep them alive; if two we "let" them die? By this logic shouldn't paralyzed people be "allowed" to die? This is a very slippery slope I think. When quality of life considerations become our criteria we are on dangerous ground imo.
I don't understand the amputation thing. This is the first I've heard it- what exactly has been said? Thanks
You make a point that's been on my mind for days. I've seen a lot of posts on FR from people saying, "I wouldn't want to live like Terri Schiavo! Let her die fergawdsakes!" While I believe each of us has an absolute right to determine our own end of life wishes, I've wondered about this. How many of these same people would say of a quadraplegic, "I wouldn't want to live like that! If that happens to me, someone just shoot me please!" I think we'd find a lot of crossover between the two. If we're to let Terri die because we wouldn't want to live like her, how far are we from saying we should let a quadraplegic die because we wouldn't want to live that way?