A Conflict Between Faith and Medicine

Quote:

I'll never understand this topic.

Keep alive people attempting suicide, don't let terminally ill patients in pain end their life, don't let people who lose quality of life to the point that they are broken end their lives, but hey, pull the plug on the help less when they are so old that it is the doctors opinion they are a lost cause.

Funnily enough, I'm on the doctors side in this one.

0 Replies

The patient in question isn't being kept alive, as his kidneys are failing. And as his kidneys fail he is dying.

Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

So much compassion for nonpayers and gang-bangers but none for an elderly, paying gentleman?

Why?

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

Dangerous assumption.

My grandmother was on life support for 6 months before she died. The was littl e that was peaceful about her experience.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

au1929 wrote:
There is nothing in the religion that asks that one be kept alive by artificial means.

Which religion are you referring to? The children of the patient are Jewish and according to their beliefs and probably also their Rabbi's they're doing the moral thing by letting their father die while on the respirator and while his kidneys fail.

In my opinion they're dong the correct thing.

Would it be better that the patient die, off the respirator while his kidney's fail and he's suffering in pain?

Miller I happen to be Jewish as well and I have never heard of Jewish law that restricts people from being allowed to die naturally. The sin in my mind is to allow someone to suffer needlessly.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

The patient in question isn't being kept alive, as his kidneys are failing. And as his kidneys fail he is dying.

Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

So much compassion for nonpayers and gang-bangers but none for an elderly, paying gentleman?

Why?

Miller, If as you say he would die if taken off the respirator it is obvious he is being kept alive by artificial means. The question is why let him suffer.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Miller wrote:
Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

Dangerous assumption.

My grandmother was on life support for 6 months before she died. The was littl e that was peaceful about her experience.

T
K
O

Your grandmother didn't have kidney failure like the patient in question.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Miller wrote:
The patient in question isn't being kept alive, as his kidneys are failing. And as his kidneys fail he is dying.

Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

So much compassion for nonpayers and gang-bangers but none for an elderly, paying gentleman?

Why?

Miller, If as you say he would die if taken off the respirator it is obvious he is being kept alive by artificial means. The question is why let him suffer.

The patient was dying of kidney failure and the respirator allowed him a more peaceful death, in my opinion.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Miller wrote:
au1929 wrote:
There is nothing in the religion that asks that one be kept alive by artificial means.

Which religion are you referring to? The children of the patient are Jewish and according to their beliefs and probably also their Rabbi's they're doing the moral thing by letting their father die while on the respirator and while his kidneys fail.

In my opinion they're dong the correct thing.

Would it be better that the patient die, off the respirator while his kidney's fail and he's suffering in pain?

Miller I happen to be Jewish as well and I have never heard of Jewish law that restricts people from being allowed to die naturally. The sin in my mind is to allow someone to suffer needlessly.

The patient died of kidney failure ( among other things ) and the respirator allowed his death to be less painful, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Miller wrote:
Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

Dangerous assumption.

My grandmother was on life support for 6 months before she died. The was littl e that was peaceful about her experience.

T
K
O

Your grandmother didn't have kidney failure like the patient in question.

A broken hip, a ruptured speen, and two strokes, but whose counting. Your distinction means nothing.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Before I address your statements, could you clarify the above post. I am having difficulty with understanding some of your points. The wording is confusing. please repost.

There's the set of things you can, as a society, do and profit from, and the set of things you can do as a society and lose your **** on (I'm sorry to use the vernacular, but I can't think of a better way to put it). As you go back in our nation's history you get a clearer correlation between action and profit/loss, but hindsight is 20/20 and those people were nuts.

My point is, socialized education and socialized hydroelectric power have got nothing to do with socialized medicine, unless you've also got socialized wealth in mind.

Now go ahead come back at me with how great our deal would be with universal health care, and statistics on how many baby-deaths I'm asking for - but it ain't me that's saying pay for my arthritis but pull the plug on his grandpa. Let it be my way and there will be no squabbling over anything that important. If it's that big of a deal let it be decided by nature and the best effort mankind can put forth rather than bureaucrats.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Miller wrote:
The patient in question isn't being kept alive, as his kidneys are failing. And as his kidneys fail he is dying.

Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

So much compassion for nonpayers and gang-bangers but none for an elderly, paying gentleman?

Why?

Miller, If as you say he would die if taken off the respirator it is obvious he is being kept alive by artificial means. The question is why let him suffer.

The patient is dying from kidney disease. The respirator merely eases his passage to eternal life.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Miller wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Miller wrote:
Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

Dangerous assumption.

My grandmother was on life support for 6 months before she died. The was littl e that was peaceful about her experience.

T
K
O

Your grandmother didn't have kidney failure like the patient in question.

A broken hip, a ruptured speen, and two strokes, but whose counting. Your distinction means nothing.

T
K
O

Your words are those of a non-medical professional.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Miller wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Miller wrote:
Why not let the patient die in peace on the respirator?

Dangerous assumption.

My grandmother was on life support for 6 months before she died. The was littl e that was peaceful about her experience.

T
K
O

Your grandmother didn't have kidney failure like the patient in question.

A broken hip, a ruptured speen, and two strokes, but whose counting. Your distinction means nothing.

T
K
O

Your words are those of a non-medical professional.

Invalidating them how exactly? Did I say I was a medical professional? Do I need to be to have a seat at the table?

It doesnt. No. No.

T
K
O

0 Replies

A Conflict Between Faith and Medicine

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know