When is death death?
Quote from Forum Archives on April 2, 2005, 5:26 pmPosted by: jamesholston <jamesholston@...>
Thank you, Steve.You have asked very important and valid questions
concerning life and death, Steve. What if it hadn't
been for the machines 15 years ago? Terri would have
died then and that would have been the end of it.
There was a time in human history when that was the
case; there was no technology for helping to keep
people alive artificially. Is it possible the Bible
doesn't speak to some of the extremes that modern
medicine has taken us?Is this tragic? Yes. Is it sad? Absolutely. But to
demonize her husband (as I have heard my local
Christian radio stations do) and to condemn the
actions of the courts is narrow minded and short
sighted. I respect James Dobson and the people on this
list, but I challenge everyone to think a little bit
more deeply about the matter than just a simple case
of life and death. Life is very sacred, and I believe
that we should work hard to preserve life within our
world, but when does life quit being life?James Holston
>
>
>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? 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?
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?S.D.G.
steve brown______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! personals.yahoo.ca
Posted by: jamesholston <jamesholston@...>
You have asked very important and valid questions
concerning life and death, Steve. What if it hadn't
been for the machines 15 years ago? Terri would have
died then and that would have been the end of it.
There was a time in human history when that was the
case; there was no technology for helping to keep
people alive artificially. Is it possible the Bible
doesn't speak to some of the extremes that modern
medicine has taken us?
Is this tragic? Yes. Is it sad? Absolutely. But to
demonize her husband (as I have heard my local
Christian radio stations do) and to condemn the
actions of the courts is narrow minded and short
sighted. I respect James Dobson and the people on this
list, but I challenge everyone to think a little bit
more deeply about the matter than just a simple case
of life and death. Life is very sacred, and I believe
that we should work hard to preserve life within our
world, but when does life quit being life?
James Holston
>
>
>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? 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?
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?
S.D.G.
steve brown
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! personals.yahoo.ca