euthanasia and a better society

Kumar

Salvation, of what? Regarding karma, it is difficult to sustain it if you dont believe in the existence of an ego beyond the brain/body.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Kumar

Salvation, of what? Regarding karma, it is difficult to sustain it if you dont believe in the existence of an ego beyond the brain/body.
Click to expand...

I think you understand "Moksha"(salvation). Also this link.

Some people feel/find socially honourable death is good & so are pro-euthanasia. Whereas it real means "taking Samadhi when Moksha(salvation) is achieved which is true work/duty of humans as per spritual indications.
 
I just like Zen, not the whole Buddhism religion paraphernalia. I just know about a different form of awareness, not about reincarnations or salvations.

Zen is just a way of seeing the world from a different perspective, not acquiring new beliefs.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
I just like Zen, not the whole Buddhism religion paraphernalia. I just know about a different form of awareness, not about reincarnations or salvations.

Zen is just a way of seeing the world from a different perspective, not acquiring new beliefs.
Click to expand...

In every understanding we should also use our in-built understandings. There can be some mistake, pro, unnatural, social understanding which can be in a deviated form of natural understanding.
 
I have applied euthanasia to a number of animals in my time. Some of whom didn't deserve it but their owners insisted, and for some it was a true kindness.

The idea of this being legal for humans makes me distinctly queasy for a number of reasons. Sometimes, it's just too easy an answer.

Oh, note the false dilemma in the opening post. The alternative is that people will make themselves rich by torturing you until you die. Yeah, right.

Rolfe.
 
Kumar said:
When cloning into a healthy body cn be possible just by one cell/DNA--why we need to think negatively till this level is maintained--scientifically.;)
Click to expand...
My Babel Fish just died.
 
Kumar said:
In every understanding we should also use our in-built understandings. There can be some mistake, pro, unnatural, social understanding which can be in a deviated form of natural understanding.
Click to expand...

I don't get the joke?
 
ROTF25.GIF
 
Originally posted by Rolfe: The idea of this being legal for humans makes me distinctly queasy for a number of reasons. Sometimes, it's just too easy an answer.
Click to expand...
Would you be queasy about it in every case? I wish it were legal. It seems preferable to me as an alternative to death by dehydration and starvation for a terminal hospice patient whose will has stated that tube feeding not be used.
 
flume said:
Would you be queasy about it in every case? I wish it were legal. It seems preferable to me as an alternative to death by dehydration and starvation for a terminal hospice patient whose will has stated that tube feeding not be used.
Click to expand...

I think this is really the key point here. You know, I've heard (anecdotally) that some doctors will prescribe a large dose of barbiturates to a terminal patient and say, "Now, you know you should not take this entire bottle, especially after you've had five or six alcoholic drinks." [wink, wink]

Unfortunately, we've given doctors the privilege to save lives, but not help people end them with dignity. This is vastly different than doing everything you can for someone who wants to remain alive, which past the absolute futility of continuing a treatment that will do nothing is always a doctors first mission.

-TT
 
Death is in God's territory. We shouldn't interfere. Our weaknesses & social effects may make us bit sentimental or think otherwise--which may make us to become pro-euthanasia.

In TRS system we have one remedy Nat. Sulph. which is indicated for some sucidal tendancies. It is also related to excess water accumulations, dryness, problems by excess humidity, bitter mouth taste, excess bile, bilous acidity etc. Its related problems are more prominnt near 5 to 7 a.m.
Morning open air seems to be related to it due to low H2S levels in atmosphere.

Can you assess it.
 
Kumar said:
Death is in God's territory. We shouldn't interfere. Our weaknesses & social effects may make us bit sentimental or think otherwise--which may make us to become pro-euthanasia.
Click to expand...
Is this why you support bullsh*t systems? You know they don't interfere with death? You favor letting people die over healing them?
 
There is no god, and death wouldn't be "his" territory if there were. Death is death.

No interference would mean no doctors for anything. NO thank you.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Can you explain it again, I didnt get it.
Click to expand...

We have a natural in-built power to protect ourselves from any adverse effect. But it can be effected due to our exposure to some unnatural practices as modern lifestyle, polluted environment, social initiations, vested interests---means all bads. When these bad are in excesses that in-built power to protect or survive ourselves--being goods is over-powered & then we start thinking alike it. It may also mean that when these bads are in excesses we start loosing this in-built good power & do not fear to die--so think about sucide,euthanasia etc.

Self Death(samadhi) without attaining salvation/Moksha can just be "sucide", weakness, murder, running from the duties, cowardness & so on. It can't be peacefull here or there. If we define it as mercy, honrable, dignity or otherwise, it is just not correct. Peaceful death--here & there, can only be by attaining "salvation, Moksha, Nirvana, Libretion----i.e. freeing yourself & your soul from all bondages.

So one should always think alike it. Things can be true in making/positives not in destruction/negatives. If you have some specific negative feeling, pls try to make it positive. Instead of thinking death think about life & moksha".
 
Eos of the Eons said:
There is no god, and death wouldn't be "his" territory if there were. Death is death.

No interference would mean no doctors for anything. NO thank you.
Click to expand...

"GOD" is a mass existing concept in well distributed public since long & it is thought/noted by these mass....public. He has allowed us & taught us to do "goods". He has initiated all to do good. Doctor's interfearances for goods should be ok but I can't say interfearances for bads.

Is it not indicative here that skepticism is leading to 'pro-euthanasia/sucidal/murder thoughts.
 
flume said:
Would you be queasy about it in every case? I wish it were legal. It seems preferable to me as an alternative to death by dehydration and starvation for a terminal hospice patient whose will has stated that tube feeding not be used.
Click to expand...
Not always. As TT said, providing patients with the means to commit suicide if they so desire is one possibility. And I'm generally in favour of being able to eliminate the last few hours of the inevitable.

It's the legitimising of the whole idea I find problematical, with all the changes in expectations and so on.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom