Replies

Actually, I am probably a little more on the naturalistic side for what I would bind on others and for what I would want to do for myself.I tend to believe that natural death is not a bad thing, and that sometimes we doctors go to far to intervene in natural death. I've worked with Hospice and try to find our what my patients really want, rather than what I want to do in order to prove how good a doctor I am.

And for myself, my advance directive pretty much says "stand back and do not resuscitate." But that's a personal decision and has nothing to do with abortion, cloning-to-kill-and-canibalize or the death penalty. (And, unlike my pro-life ethics, is probably only justifiable by my religious beliefs, so I wouldn't attempt to force someone else to follow my wishes by passing laws.)

Many ethicists will speak of intention and action. The intention must be a good intention and the action must be good, also. Having the intention to save some people is good, but the action and consequences may end up in more pain and suffering for the patient that allowing to die. Another problem in "saving" the non-implanted embryos or the end stage patient can be enforcing a law that makes inaction a crime.

Action may be bound by the government inaction when there is no contract or duty to act may not be bound by the government. Otherwise we are all slaves to whomever the government says we much rescue or serve or save.

793 - "Actually, I am probably a little more on the naturalistic side for what I would bind on others and for what I would want to do for myself.I tend to believe that natural death is not a bad thing, and that sometimes we doctors go to far to intervene in natural death. I've worked with Hospice and try to find our what my patients really want, rather than what I want to do in order to prove how good a doctor I am. "

Very thoughtful. My wife died from colon cancer at 40, and I had to standby and watch, helplessly, as the doctors tried heroic measures, until she was essentially hollow inside, and in great pain.

She made peace with her god, and she said please, let me go. Helplessly, I had to agree. And for me, it was devistating, here I was the husband, the protector, and I could do nothing, I was powerless to help her live. I was powerless to protect her.

I was left with an empty hollow feeling and an empty bank account (It cost $250,000 for her to die). I have recovered from neither.

Would I trade a few amorphous cells for her life - absolutely, in a New York second. She is irreplacable, and her life and experiences and contributions are also irreplacable. New zygotes are formed every day.

I am dumbfounded that so many religious zealots think that is without value.

I know that there are others who face the same quandries we faced. And I see a bunch of hypocrical fools on this thread who would dictate to us that their god thinks a cure for cancer, which could come from embryonic stem cell research, should be banned because of their religious beliefs.

And so far they (meaning youall on this thread) have been successful, banning this research (headed by president Bush), and condemning millions of sentient people to this horrendous experience. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Youall have a very cruel religion and a very cruel god, which I find no proof exists. And youall blithely discard living 'people' (at least according to your beliefs) nearly every month, while calling me a murder for not believing that an embryo is a 'person' or that it has equal value to my wife.

793 - PS - I am an ex-military man, who has been engaged in war, and sent men to their deaths (I have saved numbers of them too). I know that not all can live, and some casualties must be expected. And generally in a war, those casualties are the youngest and least experienced.

I also know that if we try to save everyone, and not lose a single soldier, we lose the war.