Re: An honest question
Posted by: joerevesz <joerevesz@...>
> Greetings, all.
> The tragady surrounding Terry Shievo's death has got
> me thinking...
> Note: This question is NOT meant to directly apply
> to Terry S's situation, but to be a general discussion
> question.
> I believe life is sacred, from the moment of
> conception to the moment of death. I believe that
> both moments are to be wholly in God's hands. What if
> someone is being kept alive solely by machines? With
> are current state of medicine, is it possible to keep
> a person alive by machine indefinately?
I am not a doctor, nor do I play one in an RPG, but, I think that the
moment of brain death is the current dividing line between life and
death. What they let us is that one who is brain dead has no hope of
recovery. If machines are keeping such a person alive, then it is an
artificial situation, and maybe we are playing God.
Indefinately? If that means a long period of time, extending "natural"
life, yes. But forever? No, the body eventually wears out. I would
think that eventually there would be more machine than human and that it
would not be economically feasible nor technically possible.
> If so, is it
> theoretically possible for someone in this condition
> to be kept alive literally forever? Is it right to
> keep someone alive by outside devices forever?
I would say "no" to both. But, for a limited amount of time in hopes
that the person recovers, I would think it a great option that we would
be fortunate to have.
> Where's the line where someone is alive and someones
> body is functioning, but not alive? Is there a line?
> I guess it all comes down to this: How is death defined?
Only God knows for sure. As limited human beings, we are operating in
the dark, so we have to do our best at defining snd understanding each
situation and reacting accordingly in a humane way.
Joe