"Right to Life" Letter to the Editor / Times

[Venter]

I am surprised, but glad, that someone had the balls to write this letter to the editor of the Gettysburg Times.
I can't wait for the Responses to his comments - if there are any.

In my own experience, which I believe I've shared before, there needs to be a "Right to Die" clause too.
When Modern Science and Medicine has done all that it can do (and prayers stop working) there needs to be a more humane way to leave this world.
In my case, when my Mom finally succumbed to Cancer, the method used to finalize her "life" was basically Starvation.
When the decision is made to remove the Life Support of Oxygen or Intravenous Feed Tubes, "Life" doesn't just end.
The actual process can take quite some time - as in the case of my mother, about a week.
A slow, lingering death...

We won't allow such cruelty for our Criminals, or our Dogs, yet we accept this for Terminally Ill People.

I think this Letter to the Editor is a bold step to take in this religiously dominating region.
But, as this quote suggests, it is not just a religious issue, but one of control.
"We are a tolerant nation, allowing individuals and groups full opportunity to exercise their rights. But when groups seek to limit the rights of others we should be vigilant and concerned. Those people listed in the announcement may be well intentioned, but they are advocating laws that would be harmful to others."

An elusive concept

Posted: Friday, November 30, 2012 12:07 am | Updated: 7:21 am, Fri Nov 30, 2012.
Editor, Gettysburg Times:

Thousands of names appeared in an announcement printed in the October 27 issue of the Times in support of " protection of human life from the moment of fertilization to the moment of natural death." That is an appealing slogan, bringing to mind a healthy baby conceived in love by a young couple, or at the end of life an elderly parent dying peacefully at home surrounded by a caring family.

But there are other darker situations we face: fetuses badly deformed by prescription drugs (remember Thalidomide) or genetic defects due to atomic radiation or other environmental hazards; or conceived by a brutal rape or despicable actions of a predatory family member. Are fetuses conceived under these terrible situations to be protected at all cost, even at the cost of a mother's life?

Natural death is an elusive concept in the 21st century with many otherwise "natural deaths" from heart attacks, accident trauma and so forth avoided by modern medicine. But these medical miracles can extend life beyond the time of normal life functions. A visit to a nursing home or hospital will find residents suffering from severe physical and mental incapacities where neither meaningful living nor compassionate dying is possible. Their families also suffer under these dire circumstances.

So what should we do when facing these complexities? Should we insist that protecting life in some form should be our only priority, regardless of the suffering and even death that may impose on women, children, the elderly and their families; or should we allow people to exercise choices in these difficult situations?

The people listed in the announcement want to protect life as they define it under all circumstances. They should have that right for themselves, and they do. But they apparently want to go further than that. They want to impose their beliefs on others by laws that would restrict the rights of others. The timing of the announcement shortly before the November elections and sponsorship by the National Right to Life fund and Pennsylvanians for Human Life suggest its political purpose.

We are a tolerant nation, allowing individuals and groups full opportunity to exercise their rights. But when groups seek to limit the rights of others we should be vigilant and concerned. Those people listed in the announcement may be well intentioned, but they are advocating laws that would be harmful to others

I wish I had answers to the ethical and practical issues raised by modern medicine and life in the 21st century. I don't, but I know there must be better answers than a simple "right to life" slogan. My hope is that reasonable and thoughtful people can join in an open and caring discussion of how we can best honor the sanctity of life without imposing needless suffering or death. That is the path to finding a proper balance on these critical life and death issues.

Charles Skopic

[Dexter]

I was a little surprised that someone wrote that as well. The whole pro-choice, pro-life discussion NEVER, EVER, EVER ends well. I wouldn't touch that topic with a ten foot pole. I wonder why Mr. Skopic decided to?

[HoneyBadger]

I admire Mr. Skopic's willingness to broach the subject and I agree with his comments.

The slogan "protection of human life from the moment of fertilization to the moment of natural death" has never been appealing to me.

[Venter]

In my case, I became more vocal about it once I had experienced it.

You may have noticed that I don't keep a lot in.

[lifesaver]

I've started and stopped this reply so many times today. And I still don't know quite how to respond, because as Mr. Skopic said, there is no right or wrong answer. My only advice to all of you is to make your wishes known, in writing, as to how you want to experience the end of life. Also discuss this with your loved ones and make sure that they understand that you expect them to follow your wishes, whether or not they agree with them. This may make a difficult decision easier, if you are not able to make that decision yourself. One of the hardest things I have to do as a nurse is to keep someone alive and prolong their suffering for someone who has no hope of survival simply because family cannot make or agree on a decision. The decision to institute comfort measures only and forgo futile aggressive treatment can be a way to make someone comfortable in their final minutes, hours or days, whatever that may be, and allow families time to say their goodbyes.

[ballpienhammer]

"Prop me up against the jukebox when I die..."

[davew]

I would vote to change the slogan appropriately "from fertilization to the age of majority.."

I've heard several older folks mention lately (none that I knew from Gettysburg, though) express their opinion that it should be their right to flip the light switch off whenever they want.

Ultimately, it still is, but they would just have to have the mental capacity and physical ability to do it.

I would be curious to find out how many people were pro abortion and anti-RTD. That, to me, would be the most cruel of combinations.

[Venter]

Dec 6, 2012 7:58:02 GMT -5 davew said:

I would vote to change the slogan appropriately "from fertilization to the age of majority.."...

I would be curious to find out how many people were pro abortion and anti-RTD. That, to me, would be the most cruel of combinations.

I think that's basically the same group of people!

To them, Life is Life - regardless of the quality, or lack thereof.
At a certain point it becomes more cruel to allow Life, than to facilitate the Escape from Mostly Dead.

[HoneyBadger]

Dec 6, 2012 10:45:19 GMT -5 Venter said:

Dec 6, 2012 7:58:02 GMT -5 davew said:

I would vote to change the slogan appropriately "from fertilization to the age of majority.."...

I would be curious to find out how many people were pro abortion and anti-RTD. That, to me, would be the most cruel of combinations.

I think that's basically the same group of people!

To them, Life is Life - regardless of the quality, or lack thereof.
At a certain point it becomes more cruel to allow Life, than to facilitate the Escape from Mostly Dead.

I am pro choice and pro Right to Die.

I say pro choice because I may not necessarily believe that abortion is the be all and end all to an unwanted, unsafe or unplanned pregnancy but I believe that women should decide if they want to end their pregnancy.

In regard to the Right to Die, I promised my mother years ago that I will help her end her life if she becomes incapacitated and has little or no quality of life. I will keep that promise even if I am prosecuted for assisting her.

I've always believed that the anti abortion people are the ones who believe in life regardless of quality of life. Once that egg is fertilized it must be kept alive. After the child is born....screw it.

[Venter]

HB,
Here is a Link to just one of many sites that discuss this Issues of Right to Die, and Dying with Dignity.
www.publicagenda.org/articles/right-die

While I realize that many Family Members have a sort of "Pact" with other family Members that relate to their desired Methods of Leaving This World.

Of course, the complications arise when OTHER Family Members are not aware of the individual's wishes.
A "Living Will" will help to alleviate any confusion that may occur when that time actually arises.

My 89 year old Grandfather died in the arms of my Dad, as he was helping him with his jacket, preparing to go to the Hospital because he "... didn't feel so good."
Since he died at home, my parents were still questioned as if they were suspects in his death.
It was routine questioning, and not accusatory, but a difficult process to have to go through - especially after just losing a loved one.

In this litigious world, it would be wise, and easy enough to have the discussion with Parents and Family Members, and Video Tape it so there is Record of the discussion.
Even if it is just you and your Mom having a discussion about it, I would think that the video would be at least some sort of verification of her wishes.
Would it hold up in court?
Who knows, but at least there would be less chance of misinterpretation.
Do it while you, and they, are still in a good, healthy state of mind.

This might even make me do this myself.
I've talked about it many times, but I've never actually gone forward with it.
"I'm only 58, I'm not ready to die yet!"
But if I do, at least there would be plans made, or a full understanding of my wishes.

Just for the hell of it, here it is in a nutshell:
· When I die, I will be cremated.
· I may be put on ice for awhile only if my immediate family members care to have one last look - which I strongly discourage
"Immediate Family" refers to my wife, kids, and grandkids (if ever), and just one of my sisters.
· There will be no "viewing", but there could be a party to celebrate that I'm gone!
· If I am Physically Incapacitated to the extent that I cannot be revived to live a normal/near normal life, then I wish to be terminated in some manner, or allowed to die with minimal pain - no feed tubes.
· If I am Mentally Incapacitated, unable to communicate in a conscious manner - then to me, since I am not aware of my existence - I wish to have my body die along with me.
· Once I no longer recognize those who are near and dear to me, then My Life, as I know it, is over.
· Don't read into it, you'll know when I don't recognize you any more.
· If I'm in a Coma, or other Vegetative State, and I am able to respond by "Squeezing Your Hand", then take that Squeeze as a MESSAGE from me to "LET ME GO... NOW!"
· I am annoying enough NOW, if I become an intolerable body to my family, then I want to be gone.

My Mom died of Cancer, my Dad died after years of Dementia.
I don't want to be a Shell of Myself that just lives because the Body is too stubborn to give up - or someone else is too selfish to let me go.

Gene Golden 12/08/2012


Yeah, I know this wouldn't be legally binding, but it is a start.

BTW,
If anyone puts me in a suit after I die, you have my permission to smack them with a 2x4 upside the head ;D

[lifesaver]

Good advice Venter. Can I tell you though that it doesn't always go that way. Your living will may give your express wishes, however, those wishes can be open to interpretation, and there is no legal teeth in the legislation in PA to require anyone to follow your living will. Hypothetically speaking, if Deb decides that she just can't let you go she can override your wishes, if she thinks you are the most miserable SOB in the world and wants to make you suffer she can override your wishes, your doctor can decide that it just isn't quite time to throw the towel in yet and he/she will try ONE MORE THING and override your wishes. Unless you have the conscious will to say NO fruitless interventions can continue. I don't see it often, but I have seen it.

On the other hand I've also seen a great weight lifted off families shoulders when they know that difficult decision has already been made. When we institute "comfort measures" for a patient we allow as much time for the family that they desire, and the focus on their loved one is their comfort, nothing else.

By the way, an advance directive, or living will, can also state that you WANT everything done, or you can pick and choose the measures that you want or don't want (i.e. a feeding tube) My dad has a living will, is in a nursing home, and suffers from dementia. His mind is gone and a man that was active less than ten years ago spends his days in a wheelchair doing nothing. No quality of life. But there he sits. And we can do nothing. Because, at this time, his condition is not considered terminal. It sucks, because I know that he would not have chosen this outcome in his right mind.

[Venter]

Thanks Lifesaver.

My Dad's Dementia was a slow process too.
It's a horrible existence for others to watch, but the person is not aware that he is "gone" - just living minute-to-minute, day-to-day.
It was like someone else had possessed his otherwise, relatively healthy body.
Should anyone have been allowed to "terminate" the life in this body, even if it were his wishes?
Probably NOT, and I probably would have never followed through with his wishes, if he had made them known even.
Technically, his body remained healthy enough to exist in that manner until he was nearly 89.
Maybe this is the true Zombie Apocalypse that everyone is concerned about.

Funny how the mind and body work separately.
Dad always said he would take his own life if he should end up in a poor state.
By the time that occurred though, his Mind had already erased his abilities to act on those words.

I did not see my Dad except for once in the past 8 or so years.
I had a great life with him during my first 50 or so years.
Once my sisters took over, I didn't go through the efforts to see the "Man that was once my Father".
I know it may sound harsh, but if I had gone to see "him", it would have been a visit with one of them instead - so I chose to pass.
When I did see him, he had no idea who I was, didn't know that he was living at my sister's house (thought it was a hotel or something where "they took real good care of him".)

But he could still play the organ, and he could rattle off the names of his 11 or so siblings - Theron, Harvey, Otis, Cephus, Reavan, Troy, Doyle, Jack, Virginia, and one or two others!
Not an easy task with all of your faculties
What a strange disease.