Euthenasia

[PierreGringoire]

"Dignity killing"
When someone has a chronical illness or untractable pain that initiates them to request the means from another individual to end their own life.
1) Passive Euthenasia
e.g. When someone is given painkillers with knowledge that the steady increase of dosage will lead to their own death quicker than if they were to live with the pain.
2) Active Euthenasia
e.g. When someone kills another person, with that other person's consent to end suffering with lethal injection or other "humane" means. Suffering caused by paralysis, Lou Gherig's disease, bone cancer, etc...
What is your position?
If you are for Euthenasia which type (1) or (2) are you for? What are your beliefs that support your choice?
If you are against it alltogether. Why is it wrong?

[subterranean]

I wonder why no one respond to this thread/poll...

My option would be: leave it to the individual.

[Therapy?]

I wonder why no one respond to this thread/poll...

My option would be: leave it to the individual.

Hello subterranean,

The debate is whether the individual would be justified in choosng it or not, not whether they should be given the choice. Get me?

I think that it is a false dichotomy of ok/not ok and that it should depend on the situation whether the person is in real pain or discomfort, and a range of other factors e.g. degree of disability, life expectancy etc. Not all situations concerning euthenasia should be treated the same. So I did not vote.

[Therapy?]

Hello subterranean,

The debate is whether the individual would be justified in choosng it or not, not whether they should be given the choice. Get me?


wow how arrogant did I come across as:alien: sorry

I guess this is a topic that not many people have thought about, hence the few posts.

[Virgil]

What you call passive euthenasia, is not really euthenasia. Releaving suffering is always a priority. Active euthenasia by a doctor makes the doctor a killer not a healer.

[alhara]

Whether it is defiened as euthenasia or not, the passive type makes more sense interms of a way of dying due to your own pain, mainly because its slow and it relieves the pain freeing the mind of the restraint pain can give. The active type seems totally wrong to me, though it´s kind of a double edged sword. It doesn´t seem right to with hold freedom from pain on a hunch. I think pain impairs our judgement, If I had been euthenasiaed every time I had been in soo much pain I said I just wanted to die (or even truely felt that) I would be dead like 7 times already. I guess I was lucky there were no doctors poised with needles ready to fulill my every momentary wish. Granted this is constant pain, so go ahead and kill them I guess. BUt ONLY if there is NO chance if giveing them one more Semi-pain free( we are never totally pain free) moment of there life if only to decied if they REAlly want to die. I am not really a doctr or a moralist for that matter so this is just my opinion.

[PierreGringoire]

Subtopic (1)-
In circumstances like the TerryShiavo case, when illness reaches a point where there is no scientific proof of self awareness, and the ill person is not able to give consnt in their death. IS it wrong to kill a person like that? But, then, if you allow someone like that to die or be killed would it not follow that some retarted persons lives would not have value since they (in some cases) lack a substantial amount of self-awareness?
Subtopic (2)-
Some past governments threatened that when one has no use for society or does not function in order to progress a society that individual must be removed from it. In other words, some cripples, elderly, and other people that lack the means to contribute have also (in the society's vantage) no right to live. Therefore, are killed. If one gives the ok to kill people who are not able to measure up to independently carrying out routine everyday tasks. Is one not supporting the past governments mentality above mentioned?

[Virgil]

Subtopic-
In circumstances like the TerryShiloh case, when illness reaches a point where there is no scientific proof of self awareness, and the ill person is not able to give consnt in their death. IS it wrong to kill a person like that? But, then, if you allow someone like that to die or be killed would not it follow that some retarted persons lives would not have value since they (in some cases) lack a substantial amount of self-awareness?

Well Terry Schivo was starved to death essentially and I cann ot understand how that couldbe allowed. Taking someone off life support is one thing. Not providing nutrition was immoral.

As to her incapacity to make a decision, I don't remember exactly the facts but they took the husband's word that she would not want to live this way. Laws vary from place to place. If someone put it in a living will that they did not want to live on life support, then that should be honored. I have an issue with active euthanasia of any kind.

[Redzeppelin]

The larger issues here seem to be about suffering and the definition of "life." I'm not sure I agree with the comment that "relieving suffering is always a priority." Many works of literature and philosophy point to the value suffering is capable to transmitting to an individual (granted, I can say this since I'm not suffering at the moment :)). Character is refined and built not by pleasure and success, but by setback and pain. The questions persist: is all suffering necessarily bad? Are there no positive qualities that are created as a result of personal suffering? Is somebody better off in avoiding all suffering? At what point does suffering cease to shape our character and simply become a form of relentless torture? These are difficult questions.

As well, technology has now enabled us to prolong lives that - in earlier generations - would have naturally expired. This blessing/curse of technology has succeeded in blurring the dividing line between "alive" and "dead" because now people can exist in a sort of suspended "twilight zone" in between. At what point does "life" cease to exist in a body that's still "alive"? How can we determine (as in the Shiavo case) the quality of someone's internal experience of life? Do we dare take it upon ourselves to decide such matters? And, if we do, what have we denied the person by removing them from life? What do we risk in losing in our own experience if our goal is to avoid all suffering?

[PierreGringoire]

If one believes that suffering is instrumental to molding a stronger charachter. One must believe that same "charachter" has a more significant meaning than the limits of a body console. If the infirmity of the body prevents people from expressing their ideas the way they are accustomed to, paralysis and other emotional/physical pain forces the individual to express themselves differently. It all centers around the human mind. Is the human mind capable of looking beyond its present obstacle?
And then...
From the vantage point of one who is of "sound health" onlooking a person who is suffering so severely that they "need" to end their life... and require a second party to bring them to their desired end. If all things were constrained to a mortal scale, then what of "charachter" would one need if they feel they no longer can use themselves the way they see fit? But, if one believes in a power that captures the essence of life and keeps it forever, that can persuade the green light to red, and convice the onlooker that people are better off alive any way possible, just for the very fact that humans can play no part in mishandeling fate.
But how can any of this be answered? It is for us to decide, and unfortunatly I believe the "yellow light" is not an option for this issue.
And I'm not saying that "passive eutanasia" qualifies as a yellow light. Perhaps their is wisdom in it.

[Virgil]

The larger issues here seem to be about suffering and the definition of "life." I'm not sure I agree with the comment that "relieving suffering is always a priority." Many works of literature and philosophy point to the value suffering is capable to transmitting to an individual (granted, I can say this since I'm not suffering at the moment :)). Character is refined and built not by pleasure and success, but by setback and pain. The questions persist: is all suffering necessarily bad? Are there no positive qualities that are created as a result of personal suffering? Is somebody better off in avoiding all suffering? At what point does suffering cease to shape our character and simply become a form of relentless torture? These are difficult questions.

Perhaps all suffering is not bad, but I think this suffering is. Suffering for an end of life person will have occurred prior to where we start minimizing the pain. Plus human compassion dictates that such suffering requires attention. Yes, I agree suffering builds character, but (1) this person will not need this built-up character much longer and (2) the process of reaching this point is enough character building.


As well, technology has now enabled us to prolong lives that - in earlier generations - would have naturally expired. This blessing/curse of technology has succeeded in blurring the dividing line between "alive" and "dead" because now people can exist in a sort of suspended "twilight zone" in between. At what point does "life" cease to exist in a body that's still "alive"? How can we determine (as in the Shiavo case) the quality of someone's internal experience of life? Do we dare take it upon ourselves to decide such matters? And, if we do, what have we denied the person by removing them from life? What do we risk in losing in our own experience if our goal is to avoid all suffering?
Well said. That's why i don't support euthenasia.

[Redzeppelin]

I think the topic of suffering is very relevant to a discussion on the value of life and the inevitable conversation that society must have about the topic of euthanasia (in any form).

You're correct: not all suffering is beneficial; not all suffering ought to be endured; the "building" of character is not a universal given in all forms of suffering. So - now we're left with definitions and discriminations: when is suffering beneficial? When is it unnecessary?

One of the reasons I ask these questions is based in my observations that our society - pleasure-based as it - seems hell-bent (pun intended) on eradicating suffering of any kind. Witness the endless advertisements for drugs of all types. People get the "sniffles" and head for the pharmacy, doctor or emergency room. We've got pills for everything - and the questions persists: are we "deadening" certain forms of suffering that we could benefit from? Personally, I think we as a culture/society have lost touch with the idea that character is built through adversity (as John Donne says "affliction is a treasure" Meditation 17).

Euthanasia may promise an end to suffering, but - like the quality of life - how can we measure such a thing? Isn't the issue also bound up in personality, character and temperament - as well as world-view? Our ability to prolong life artificially has created problems which our metaphysics cannot adequately answer.

[Virgil]

I think you take this concept of suffering a little too far. Character building is having to work and save so that in ten years one can afford to buy a house or send a child to college. Or have two jobs while you go to college. Physical pain is excruciating. In college I had a part time job in a produce deartment of a supermarket. One day as I was trimming the lettuce, the knife slipped a the sliced the little flesh between the thumb and the index finger. I needed stitches and at the hospital the doctor said it would only take two stitches and asked if I wanted to bother with a pain killing shot since it was only two stitches and a single needle would hurt just as much as a stitch. I agreed not to take the shot and he threaded two stitches without any pain killer. It was excruciating. :flare: I can't describe how much it hurt. And then he said that he needed to put a third stitch. I was in tears with pain. And that was only for a few minutes. People shouldn't have to undergo that sort of thing if it can be avoided. I think compassion dictates we alleviate pain.

[PierreGringoire]

Good insight Virgil. Yet it begs the question is pain and suffering worth anything in a life of any sort, since life is so short? Personally, I feel that if I were to die I'd want it to be slow. It's my last experience. What the hell. I appreciate thoughts in themselves.

[Redzeppelin]

[QUOTE=Virgil;291601]I think you take this concept of suffering a little too far.

Your statement is exactly what I was alluding to in my post:

"You're correct: not all suffering is beneficial; not all suffering ought to be endured; the "building" of character is not a universal given in all forms of suffering. So - now we're left with definitions and discriminations: when is suffering beneficial? When is it unnecessary?"

The idea of taking suffering "too far" is exactly the question I was posing. You have given us an excellent example of needless, pointless suffering. I fully agree with you that the situation you described (and many like it) does not contain any inherent "character building" potential - at least as you described it. I do not believe that all suffering automatically contains a beneficail component for the individual; however, neither will I say that all suffering is inherently meaningless - be it physical or emotional suffering.

Your example definitely points to the validity of avoiding unnecessary suffering. There was nothing gained in the experience - at least in the way you told it. But could the experience have been meaningful to you in a different context? If you, for example, had spent much of your life as some sort of "manly man," one who ridiculed other men for "tears" of any sort and found it rather easy to dismiss the pain and suffering of others - a man essentially without empathy - could the experience with the stitches have been beneficial to your character? Might you have looked at the pain of others a bit differently afterwards (assuming you were capable of self-reflective realization?) Notice I didn't say it had to be beneficial - but could it have been? The point I'm trying to make is that suffering in and of itself may have no intrinsic meaning for the individual; perhaps, instead, it is the context within with the suffering occurs, and the nature of the human heart which endures the suffering - coupled with the individual's biases, beliefs and perceptions - that may allow suffering to become "character building." But - I agree with you. Not all suffering is beneficial and character building; the problem comes with how to quantify/measure whether or not suffering will benefit us, and that is something we often cannot know "ahead of time."

Some suffering we cannot avoid experiencing, but we can avoid having to endure (e.g. numbing for stitches); other types of suffering we can avoid totally (failure to take responsibility for one's actions/choices; backing away from a challenge); and other types of suffering we willingly choose for a higher purpose (the sacrifice of our health, well-being or life for the sake of another). These reasons point to the difficulty I have with a complete denial of the value of suffering in our lives. To be trite, in sports it's said (by whom I don't know - it's one of those things you seem to know) that it is losing, not winning, that builds a player's character; granted, that doesn't really qualify as "suffering," but I think the point is still valid.

Perhaps the final point I would make is that it is not the suffering that builds character, but the self-analysis once the suffering has ended that results in the benefit. There are plenty of people who suffer, survive it and see it as totally meaningless. But, reflective, thoughtful people may examine the nature of their experience, its results and outcomes, and - hopefully - come away with something inside them that is better in some way for the experience - something which may ultimately not benefit them so much, as someone else. Think of it: the most effective addiction therapists/counselors are the ones who have gone through the addiction themselves. That is the only way they could possess the empathy, knowledge and understanding to help others find the way.

[PierreGringoire]

In this post I'm not including people in vegetative states for the sake of clarity. But only people with sound minds. First off, when I say I want a hug, and I get it, I'm happy. I say I'd like a muffin, I get it and it makes me happy. What does helping myself kill myslef give me? Relief? Relief can only be acceptable if you know that your going to be happy afterwards. If suffering is the last page of my book, why abruptly end it like everything I ever did was meaningless? Staying alive, hopeing, saying some nice things to the people that are treating me to change their lives; is the RIGHT attitude to have. Killing myself seems undignified in all cases. Unjustified and immoral. And since I only can base my judgements on the careful self-anylis I have had of myself when I'm trying to figure out the temperament of others, none of my experiences have shown me that a mentality of "give me death" would yield any goodness. And isn't the greatest good what all people want? for themselves and for eachother?

[Redzeppelin]

That begs the question that we all agree on what "good" is. For some, the "greatest good" is what suits my desires, my wants, my needs. If those desires, wants, and needs are based solely on selfish foundations, then does the phrase "greatest good" mean anything beyond "my good"?

But I liked what you said very much about "suffering being the last page of life" - that was beautiful (and a good argument).

[cuppajoe_9]

If you are a physician, first you do no harm. I am therefore against active euthenasia in the case mentioned, and somewhat lukewarm on passive euthenasia.

[Redzeppelin]

I agree with you about "active" euthanasia. In terms of "passive" I probably echo you as well - but this idea of ending life prematurely (which is complicated by technology - at what point has technology extended life beyond when it would have "naturally" ended?) is so tricky. "Do no harm" is correct - but is it "harmful" to allow human life to continue in great suffering? And I still can't get past the idea of the subjective nature of pain and suffering and our inability to sometimes see its function in our lives. Of course there are situations that could be proffered where euthanasia seems appropriate and the most compassionate thing to do - and others where it smacks of personal weakness or even an influencial condition (like severe clinical depression). How do we decide - not necessarily for others, but for ourselves?

[Nightshade]

Im not sure where I stand actually, in some ways I think people should have a choice but then that begs the question what is a DNR but a form of euthenasia. I support DNR and I support someone refusing medication I think everyone should make a will and say from the get go what thier stand is and say riht I DO not want to be left hanging on or if they want to. But acctual 'mercy killings' Im not so sure about although I dont think people who commit them as in thier was a case were A 80 year old man killed his wife of over 50 years because she asked him to Or it could have been the wife that killed the husband Idont think that aperson like that should be tried for murder 1 if the vic was slowly and painfully dying of stomach cancer as this person was.

[Bookworm Cris]

Difficult question... At a first thought I´m against euthanasia, because I´m against killing another person. But is that all that is? Passive euthanasia seems acceptable, giving pain killers to someone who´s dying is merciful, the person is dying already, why does he have to suffer more?
But I absolutely don`t agree with active euthanasia. My beliefs are that, even if the illness has no cure, the person may have, at his last moment of life, an "insight", an "epiphany", and realize what has his life been worth for. That´s not a thing to despise, and an experience like that could change the after-life of that soul (I believe in life after life and reincarnation, by the way). So, if you allow someone to kill himself in a moment of excruciating pain, you could be denying such an experience to that person. No one can really tell for sure if it´s gonna happen, but what if?

When my mother was dying she took all the pain killers that the doctors gave her, but she died at her own time. And I prayed to God that she would not suffer more than necessary. I think He heared our prayers (my mom had the same beliefs I have). But it really breaks our heart to see someone beloved suffering. And she had time to tell us what she wanted to.

Anyway, it´s a tough decision, and I think it depends solely on the person´s beliefs.

[ghideon]

The right to live is the first human right mentioned in the historic words:
"We consider these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration of Independence by History Documents.

Notice that our discussion has been very much rooted in questions of what are "unalienable Rights" and the oft time conflict between freedoms and "Liberty".

It is certainly no suprise that any issue that involves the ending of a person's life arouses such passionate debate(war,the death penalty,abortion and euthenasia.)
Ofcourse, in each of the above examples there is fierce, sometimes violent, disagreement about the morality of killing. We, as a society, can not agree on when it is justified to kill(should we execute some convicted of crime, when is war justified and what rules of combat should be followed in the killing of battle) nor can we agree on what is considered life(are abortions murder or not, and how do we define life...breathing,awareness...?)

When someone wrote that active euthenasia "turns doctor's into a killer and not a healer" I think that is too absolute. If someone is not actually "alive" then what does it mean to "kill". The word killer brings up images of sociopaths and murderers and I do not think that is the role a doctor plays even in the event of active "dignity killing." Technically it may be a correct word but its emotional connotations trouble me. In addition, there is certainly an argument that could be made that ending a person's suffering is, in a deeper,perhaps spiritual sense, an act of healing.
I took a look at a dictionary and discovered 1) next to the verb "to heal" was the adjective "healable" and that does raise the question: What is the role of a "healer" when the patient is not "healable". And healing means recovery.

There are other words that describe less complete acts and states of being such as "to alleviate" which means to temporarily decrease distress, suffering or pain. I think those who strongly condemn active euthenasia believe that even if healing is not possible then we are obliged to do all we can to help alleviate constant pain and suffering.

But are we actually morally obliged to grant such alleviation in all situations? Who is due the resources of alleviation and who is not? Do we, as a nation, have enough money to offer equal resources for alleviation to all patients who are close to death? If not then will those with more money gain greater alleviation then those with less?

I would feel more comfortable discussing this issue if this was a society willing to end its preoccupation with comfort,pleasure and, denial. We are so deeply conditioned to run from painfull emotions and run towards pleasurable ones that our ability to think rationally about this issue is, I would argue, severely compromised.

In all of this discussion who are we really thinking about? If my mother is dying then there are at least two people(usually more)who are going to have strong emotions, me and my mother. How able am I to think about my mother's feelings, thoughts, desires absolutely independent of my own emotions and thoughts? Certainly my mother deserves no less. My pain at seeing her feeding tubes pulled out is not the issue. My relief if she is kept conscious by keeping those tubes in is also not the issue. Now trying to be a reasoned, objective, thoughtful person is a tall order in any event, nevermind the possible death of a beloved.
Afterall, funerals are for the living and have little to do with the dead. Perhaps the same is true for much of the debate in this society about death.
Two last thoughts. Next to my computer is a copy of "On Death And Dying" by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, arguably one of the most important books of the 20th century. It ought to be required reading in every high school. It is bad enough that we run to Starbucks or Blockbuster to avoid pain...we will do just about anything to avoid dealing with death.
Finally, I have read serveral studies about violent offenders and there is a great deal of evidence that many of the most violent criminals did what they did for one fundamental reason: to gain a greater feeling of respect and to lessen deep feelings of shame. In many many situations people will do just about anything to get out from under, even if just for a day or a week, a feeling of profound shame (why? because shame is the indictment of ones very being-ness, ones fundamental nature is seen as worthy of contempt) This is why you hear people demanding "respect" so often in many poor communities. It is because the poverty creates profound feelings of shame and getting out from under that is a matter of psychological survival.
There may be nothing more important to a person in death's dark shadow then having, if only for a moment, some small but blessed light of dignity. Better, perhaps, to have ones last breath come from ones last act, ones last expression of what is most human, volition then to die in the night of powerlesness and incapacity.

"A Million Dollar Baby"by Clint Eastwood is a brilliant cinematic examination of much we have been discussing.
Also, "For Whom The Bell Tolls"by Hemmingway is an important novel that explores themes of war, violence, suicide and justice.

[Pendragon]

When one has seen the suffering I have witnessed, as a Minister visiting sick people in hospitals, and have someone beg you to help them, that the pain is just too great, and you walk down to the chapel in tears of helplessness so many times, it becomes part of you. If you cannot feel for people, you cannot help them. Something inside you has died. I would hope someone would up my dose of medication just enough to send me into a sleep from which I would never awaken. The death is certain. The medicine cannot stave off the Reaper forever, and eventually will cause death in and of itself. We hypocritically talk about cruelty to animals and not letting them suffer. But we let humans go through horrible pain and even stop their medication knowing they are going to die on a pretext of "They'll become addicted." Really. I'm sure they will be around long enough to care. Stop the pain!

[Bookworm Cris]

Ghideon said:

We are so deeply conditioned to run from painfull emotions and run towards pleasurable ones that our ability to think rationally about this issue is, I would argue, severely compromised.

I agree; nobody wants to suffer; but our culture allows NO suffering; people do anything to have their (deserved) pleasures, and don`t even think in unpleasant issues (won´t it ruin my day). Acting this way over and over again makes us selfish and cold. Not a good sign.


In all of this discussion who are we really thinking about? If my mother is dying then there are at least two people(usually more)who are going to have strong emotions, me and my mother. How able am I to think about my mother's feelings, thoughts, desires absolutely independent of my own emotions and thoughts? Certainly my mother deserves no less. My pain at seeing her feeding tubes pulled out is not the issue. My relief if she is kept conscious by keeping those tubes in is also not the issue. Now trying to be a reasoned, objective, thoughtful person is a tall order in any event, nevermind the possible death of a beloved.
Afterall, funerals are for the living and have little to do with the dead. Perhaps the same is true for much of the debate in this society about death.

The love for somebody who´s suffering makes us think in her well being. My mother is suffering, so I don`t want it to happen. The issue is not if I'M suffering with her pain. Of course I do, but thinking objectively, my aim is to relief her, not avoid her death. Death is not a problem, it will happen anyway to every on of us, but allowing someone to die with dignity, with a minimum pain and (if possible) mantaining consciousness, is a right that should be pursued.


It is bad enough that we run to Starbucks or Blockbuster to avoid pain...we will do just about anything to avoid dealing with death.

The same I said above... people don´t even like to think in death (an issue brought in Stephen King´s Pet Sematary); but the Reaper comes to everybody, and to those who believe in an immortal soul and an after-death life, it should not be a problem, but a hope. Death is nothing but a passage, and it should not be feared. What we discuss here is if it´s good or not to abbreviate life through euthanasia. But it brought some good reflections on the issue.;)

Very good debate here...

[ghideon]

The issue is not if I'M suffering with her pain. Of course I do, but thinking objectively, my aim is to relief her, not avoid her death. Death is not a problem, it will happen anyway to every on of us, but allowing someone to die with dignity, with a minimum pain and (if possible) mantaining consciousness, is a right that should be pursued.

Bookworm,

I too think this is quite a good discussion going on here. I do want to respond to your words above. For those who are able to look at death with a calm reasoned acceptance then there is less difficulty in sorting out all of the conflicting feelings when a loved one is about to move on. If my brother is close to the end and I am able to let go, say goodbye and, if he so wishes, stop the life support then that is a relatively positive situation--taking everything into account.
But I worry about the times when one person is gravely ill and another person, who has some legal power over the decision to pull the plug or not, is very upset, can not accept the end, does not want to say goodbye and will find it difficult to actually act on the dying persons true desire. I bet that those types of scenarios are common. In fact, if you look at the media there seem to be many instances where the conflicts over a persons death can tear up an entire family and make father hate son, daughter hate aunt, husband hate wife and so on...
Those situations are more demonstrative of the challenges people face emotionally when dealing with death.
ps
at a workshop a long time ago the leaders said "there is no such thing as a 'bad' feeling. There are simply feelings that we are able to share with others and not feel isolated with or feelings that we can not or do not share."
In other words, anger, envy, hatred are not 'bad' they simply are what they are. Nobody would claim that they are pleasent emotions but it seems important that we stop judging feelings as if they were objects to be tested, evaluated and then purchased. By saying an emotion is 'bad' the implication is that it should be avoided. It also gives strength to those who will tell an angry person to shut up, a sad person to stop crying, a jealous person to just get over it. Afterall, if the emotion is, at core, fundamentally bad then its expression, and even the person expressing it can be seen as being bad or acting badly.
I also recall a passage in one of Natalie Goldberg's books about writing in which her Zen teacher says "anytime one does something deeply they will also face deep loneliness." Goldberg had been discussing her struggles with feeling very alone when she writes. And then her teacher says "But it is only loneliness. No big deal.";)

[jon1jt]

I support #2 brand of euthanasia, which corresponds with my civil libertarian view: hands off the human body Gov!

[Bookworm Cris]

Ghideon,

Thank you for your opinion. Yes, there are times when a person in the family (usually the one who decides) doesn´t accept other´s wishes in life, and usually not in death. For example: one wishes to donate his organs after his life. He dies, and other person (the father, for example) doesn´t respect his wishes and doesn´t do it. To me it´s a lack of respect, and abuse of "power". When it deals with money, it´s far worse. Unfortunately, it´s very common...
And there are people that, in theory, believe that death is natural, only a passage, we will be better in the other side, etc.., but when it comes to face death personally or with someone beloved, things change. That´s the time to prove our beliefs and our faith, and it´s very hard for most people.

About bad and good feelings, I think it´s good to express our feelings, especially with those we love. I know it´s not always possible, for there are families that don´t have "room" for this kind of expression, and don´t allow "disrespect" with the elders. It happens, and it´s sad.
An avoided feeling and emotion tends to dig deep inside the person, and if it´s a "bad" one it may turn against the person (stomach and head aches, anxiety, and even cancer, I believe).


I also recall a passage in one of Natalie Goldberg's books about writing in which her Zen teacher says "anytime one does something deeply they will also face deep loneliness."

That´s it. We came to this world alone and, even interacting, learning, helping and sharing feelings with other people, in the end we are alone and we can only change ourselves; we can only improve ourselves as human beings. We experience deep loneliness, and that´s nothing wrong with that.

What a good debate....;)

[Poetess]

I have always said "you cannot kill whom you didn`t create".. but in this case, yea it`s painful! like I put myself instead of the ill person, and i`m being hurt and in contiuous pain.. I will definitely be afraid of asking anyone to kill me, or I kill myself..

so i`m really lost