Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-18 Thread Terry Clifton 



Izzy:
 
When you marry, it is for life.  The two of you become 
one. Poor health does not alter that.  Would Jesus dump His 
bride?
 
Terry

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:49 
  PM
  Subject: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
question
  
  
  By the way, I did see this woman 
  on TV tonight, and she is not really comatose, as I assumed.  She seems 
  to be at about the level of an infant, mentally.  So I am undecided about 
  whether it is right to refuse artificial medical treatment in this case, when 
  is unable to feed herself.  I certainly have more of a problem with it. 
  What do you all think?  And (ignoring unproven allegations of her 
  husband’s abuse), do you think the Lord requires someone in such a situation 
  to remain married to a person in a vegetative state for years? 
  Izzy
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  ShieldsFamilySent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:42 
  PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Wickedness 
  waxing more and more
   
  OK. This brings 
  up an interesting subject: Is there a right to die?  Personally, I don’t 
  want anybody forcing my body to live in a vegetative state by artificial means 
  if I’m already departed.  I think it is the cruelest thing to do.  
  It is obviously wrong to KILL someone artificially via drug injection.  
  It is just as bad to artificially FORCE someone’s body to stay alive via 
  feeding tube.  Give the person a decent interval to recover, but 13 
  years???
   
  When your body 
  stops eating, it is saying “Time for me to go.”  It is sickening to see 
  all the 90+ year old gomers in the nursing homes living day after day 
  connected to a feeding tube; like so many wrinkled up old fetuses attached to 
  umbilical cords. The person does not suffer if you allow nature to take its 
  course and die.  I don’t blame her husband for not wanting to be married 
  to a corpse longer than 13 years.  Our society has the perverted idea 
  that we must keep the dead alive and murder the unborn.  She’s already 
  GONE; so get over it. 
   
   Izzy
   
   
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Chris 
  BarrSent: Wednesday, 
  September 17, 2003 7:56 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Wickedness waxing 
  more and more
   
  
  
  
  \o/ 
  !HALALUYah! \o/ 
  
  
  
  Greetings in the Matchless 
  Name of YahShua !!
  
   
  
  OK, this woman collapsed 
  mysteriously in 1990.Her husband sued doctors and won $1.3 million for 
  her care.Husband never spent a nickel on any rehabilitative therapy -- 
  only sustenance care.5 years ago he began trying to have her feeding 
  tube removed and won't allow her to be hand fed. She breathes on her 
  own.Oh, by the way, that is when hubby started shacking up with 
  another whom he subsequently had a child by.Then it is discovered that 
  a bone scan done in 1991 revealed numerous trauma spots as though she had been 
  severly beaten in the past.Oh, by the way, the lawyer the husband has 
  hired is a "right to die" expert ... and he has been paid with part of the 
  $1.3 million originally awarded for the woman's care.Oh, and if the 
  woman is allowed to starve to death (as the court has been ordering but the 
  parents have been fighting) then hubby gets the rest of the money for 
  himself.www.baynews9.com/site/New...ryid=24706www.terrisfight.org/lead.htm
  
  
  
  Ahava b' 
  YahShua
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  (Love in The 
  SAVIOUR)
  
  
  Baruch 
  YHVH,
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
  Bro. Chris 
  Barr
  
  a servant 
  of 
  YHVH

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-18 Thread Bruce Woodford 
Izzy,
You asked:"...do you think the Lord requires someone in such a situation to 
remain married to a person in a vegetative state for years?"

Matthew 19:6 says: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What 
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Mark 10:11,12 says:" And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his 
wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if a woman 
shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth 
adultery."

Romans 7:2,3 says: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law 
to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is 
loosed from the law of her husband.
3  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she 
shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from 
that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another 
man."

I Cor.7:10,11 says:"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, 
Let not the wife depart from her husband:  But and if she depart, let her 
remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband 
put away his wife."

I Cor.10:13 says:"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common 
to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above 
that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, 
that ye may be able to bear it."

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought 
to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-18 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Okay,
Bruce, we all know the pat, standard, rote, expected, programmed answers. 
I was hoping for a little thought
on this subject.  

 

What
if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? Do you think
the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? What if it was a young woman who
desired children, and now can never have them, or experience the joy of a
marriage?  Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else’s
frame of mind? As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God
be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to
have a life?  Does your God come in a pre-programmed box? …Nevermind. 
Izzy

 

PS 
In case you think that I would be so callous as to remove the feeding tube from
someone, let me remind you that I was married to someone in a very vegetative
state for 25 years! Thank the Lord, He had mercy on my situation! ROFL!!! 

 

-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Woodford
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 9:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 

Izzy,

You
asked:"...do you think the Lord requires someone in such a situation to 

remain
married to a person in a vegetative state for years?"

 

Matthew
19:6 says: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What 

therefore
God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 

Mark
10:11,12 says:" And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his 

wife,
and marry another, committeth adultery against her.  And if a woman 

shall
put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth 

adultery."

 

Romans
7:2,3 says: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law 

to
her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is 

loosed
from the law of her husband.

3 
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she 

shall
be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from 

that
law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another 

man."

 

I
Cor.7:10,11 says:"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord,


Let
not the wife depart from her husband:  But and if she depart, let her 

remain
unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband 

put
away his wife."

 

I
Cor.10:13 says:"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common 

to
man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above 

that
ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, 

that
ye may be able to bear it."

 

Your
brother in Christ,

Bruce

 

_

MSN
8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

 

--

"Let
your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

 

If
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

 

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-18 Thread Bruce Woodford 
Izzy,
You wrote:"Okay, Bruce, we all know the pat, standard, rote, expected, 
programmed answers.  I was hoping for a little thought on this subject.

What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? Do you 
think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever? 
What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have 
them, or experience the joy of a marriage?  Does anything ever compel you to
get inside someone else's frame of mind? As long as the vegetative person 
was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want 
the spouse to never be able to have a life?  Does your God come in a 
pre-programmed box? .Nevermind.  Izzy

PS  In case you think that I would be so callous as to remove the feeding 
tube from someone, let me remind you that I was married to someone in a very 
vegetative state for 25 years! Thank the Lord, He had mercy on my situation! 
ROFL!!!"

Dear Sister, Please forgive me for communicating that I'd given your 
question no thought! I certainly did, but you asked what God would require, 
and so I thought it best not to express opinions but to the the Holy Spirit 
of God speak to the situation through His own Word.

But now you have asked some other questions:
-"What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord?"
If one has departed, if the soul and spirit are separated from the body, the 
body is dead.  There is no more need to care for such. Bury the body and the 
one who was formerly married to the departed one is free to marry another. 
Romans 7 is clear on that score.

-"Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means 
forever?"

No I do not.

-"What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have 
them, or experience the joy of a marriage?"

It is never God's desire that a young married woman whose husband is 
physically or mentally incapacitated should bear children by any other man 
while her husband is still living. Rather, in the midst of her deep trial, 
it IS his purpose to make Himself known to her in all of His sufficiency for 
her every need.

-"Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else's frame of mind?"

Yes, when people share what is on their mind, I am often compelled to 
consider their perspective. Thank you for doing just that here!

-"As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid 
and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a 
life?"

Dear Sister, If the incapacitated spouse is in need of being well cared for, 
they are still a spouse and their spouse is still married.  God is never 
rigid and unfeeling!!  The Lord Jesus was tempted in all pointas like as we 
are apart from sin and in that he himself suffered bneing tempted, He is 
able to succour (help) them that are tempted.But LIFE is never to be 
found in a spouse, in a happy marriage, in bearing children etc.   If anyone 
enters a marriage relationship thinking that LIFE is found there, they are 
going to be sorely disillusioned!  BUT, if they realize that LIFE is only 
found in Christ (I John 5:11,12), then regardless of their circumstances, 
good relationships or bad, smooth sailing or daily pain and 
aggravation...they can still experience a full, joyful and meaningful life 
by maintaining coomunion with and drawing their sustenance from their Lord!

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce
_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought 
to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread LaurHamm 

I have to finally put my two cents in on this one.  I cared for my former husband for several years after he was disabled.  I wouldn't trade those years for anything.  Now granted, he was able to communicate and take care of his basic needs but he had to use a wheelchair when we went out and could not take care of many of the things men handle like home and vehicle maintanence.  I spent a lot of time having him "teach" me to do things  LOL   My point is that I believed that my marriage vows were in sickness and in health and held to that belief.  I understand this man's dilema but he is not free to divorce and remarry as long as she is alive.  I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.  Izzy compared her with an infant.  Would we stop feeding our baby if it was the same situation?   Just something to consider.  Of course we cannot judge this man's motives but I wonder if he has made his decision based on fleshly desires or on what he truly believes God would have him do.  Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 
Bruce,

Bruce, 

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.  You made some very valid points, which
are quite true.  But, now--what if the wife had a "Living Will" in which she
had written that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means if
she was comatose? Would you then think it was right to keep her alive by
feeding tube?

What if the wife was young, and had not yet written a living will, but had
communicated verbally to her husband the same desire?  Should he not obey
her wishes?

How do you know that the person's soul has not already gone on to be with
the Lord when they are comatose for a long time?

You stated that you do not believe one should be kept alive by artificial
means forever.  So how long do you think they should be?

Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Woodford
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

Izzy,
You wrote:"Okay, Bruce, we all know the pat, standard, rote, expected, 
programmed answers.  I was hoping for a little thought on this subject.

What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord? Do you 
think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means forever?

What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have 
them, or experience the joy of a marriage?  Does anything ever compel you to
get inside someone else's frame of mind? As long as the vegetative person 
was well cared for, would God be so rigid and unfeeling that he would want 
the spouse to never be able to have a life?  Does your God come in a 
pre-programmed box? .Nevermind.  Izzy

PS  In case you think that I would be so callous as to remove the feeding 
tube from someone, let me remind you that I was married to someone in a very

vegetative state for 25 years! Thank the Lord, He had mercy on my situation!

ROFL!!!"

Dear Sister, Please forgive me for communicating that I'd given your 
question no thought! I certainly did, but you asked what God would require, 
and so I thought it best not to express opinions but to the the Holy Spirit 
of God speak to the situation through His own Word.

But now you have asked some other questions:
-"What if someone in a vegetative coma state is already with the Lord?"

If one has departed, if the soul and spirit are separated from the body, the

body is dead.  There is no more need to care for such. Bury the body and the

one who was formerly married to the departed one is free to marry another. 
Romans 7 is clear on that score.

-"Do you think the Lord expects to keep their body alive by artificial means

forever?"

No I do not.

-"What if it was a young woman who desired children, and now can never have 
them, or experience the joy of a marriage?"

It is never God's desire that a young married woman whose husband is 
physically or mentally incapacitated should bear children by any other man 
while her husband is still living. Rather, in the midst of her deep trial, 
it IS his purpose to make Himself known to her in all of His sufficiency for

her every need.

-"Does anything ever compel you to get inside someone else's frame of mind?"

Yes, when people share what is on their mind, I am often compelled to 
consider their perspective. Thank you for doing just that here!

-"As long as the vegetative person was well cared for, would God be so rigid

and unfeeling that he would want the spouse to never be able to have a 
life?"

Dear Sister, If the incapacitated spouse is in need of being well cared for,

they are still a spouse and their spouse is still married.  God is never 
rigid and unfeeling!!  The Lord Jesus was tempted in all pointas like as we 
are apart from sin and in that he himself suffered bneing tempted, He is 
able to succour (help) them that are tempted.But LIFE is never to be 
found in a spouse, in a happy marriage, in bearing children etc.   If anyone

enters a marriage relationship thinking that LIFE is found there, they are 
going to be sorely disillusioned!  BUT, if they realize that LIFE is only 
found in Christ (I John 5:11,12), then regardless of their circumstances, 
good relationships or bad, smooth sailing or daily pain and 
aggravation...they can still experience a full, joyful and meaningful life 
by maintaining coomunion with and drawing their sustenance from their Lord!

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce

_
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you h

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Laura,

 

I agree with you completely.  There is no greater love
than to care for the helpless.  That is why you cared so well for your
disabled husband.  (People who haven’t done what you do have no idea
what a sacrifice and joy it is.)That’s why I am taking my Dad, who has
Alzheimer’s, out for lunch and an outing today—even knowing that he
won’t remember it for 5 minutes afterwards.  But he enjoys it for
the moment.  And he still needs hugs and much love.

 

But you state that, “I also believe that
her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon
her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 

 

As I stated, I would have a problem with denying treatment
to even someone who even has an infant mentality.  However, the issue I
wish to explore here is whether one is obligated to force a person who is
comatose to remain alive by artificial medical intervention.  I think that
is as unethical as euthanasia; and I think the two issues are often blurred. In
all honesty, I have compassion for this man and his wife, and her parents,
too.  But she is not comatose.  So, I think  it would be like
killing an infant to deny treatment.  I think we should all constantly
evaluate the issues that advances in medicine have thrust upon us.  Fifty
years ago she wouldn’t have had a chance to live this long, and we wouldn’t
have to grapple with the implications of it.  

 

Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
8:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 

I have to finally put my two cents in on this one.  I
cared for my former husband for several years after he was disabled.  I
wouldn't trade those years for anything.  Now granted, he was able to
communicate and take care of his basic needs but he had to use a wheelchair
when we went out and could not take care of many of the things men handle like
home and vehicle maintanence.  I spent a lot of time having him
"teach" me to do things  LOL   My point is that I
believed that my marriage vows were in sickness and in health and held to that
belief.  I understand this man's dilema but he is not free to divorce and
remarry as long as she is alive.  I also believe that her fate is in God's
hands and he should not tamper with that.  Izzy compared her with an
infant.  Would we stop feeding our baby if it was the same
situation?   Just something to consider.  Of course we cannot
judge this man's motives but I wonder if he has made his decision based on
fleshly desires or on what he truly believes God would have him do.  Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread LaurHamm 



In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But you state that, “I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 
You may be right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread Chris Barr 





\o/ 
!HALALUYah! 
\o/ 


Greetings in the Matchless 
Name of YahShua !!
 
This would all be funny if it were not so 
tragic.
 
Anyone ever see the movie, "Miller's 
Crossing".  The central theme in the movie is ethics.  One main 
character is constantly troubled by the lack of ethics of others.  Oh, by 
the way, he's a vicious mob chief killer.
 
Forced medical treatment?!?!?  The woman has a feeding tube.  She 
breathes on her own.  She is only receiving nourishment.  The husband 
has denied her therapy ever since he received money for therapy.  He has 
fought against treatment for simple things i.e. bladder infection and been 
overruled by courts.
 
A feeding tube ... you know, like the 
breast to an infant who would die without it (or spooned food) ... like an IV 
that is used to keep alive scads of people daily.
 
Oh, by the way, SHE CAN SWALLOW but the judge has DENIED permission for her 
to be fed by mouth by one willing to take the time to do so.  The only 
"artificial" means she needs to be kept alive is someone willing to spoon feed 
her.
 
The biggest problem with this nation and the world today is that those who 
are supposed to know better (professing believers) can't even get their facts 
straight because they are so overwhelmed by fornication (compromising with the 
world).
 


Ahava b' 
YahShua




















(Love in The 
SAVIOUR)

Baruch YHVH,








 
Bro. 
Chris Barr
a servant 
of YHVH

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 









FYI. Chris, a feeding tube is
artificial medical life support treatment.  If the patient has not consented,
it is forced treatment. Izzy,

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Barr
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
9:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 







\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/










Greetings in the Matchless Name of YahShua !!





 











This would all be funny if it were not so tragic.





 





Anyone ever see the movie, "Miller's
Crossing".  The central theme in the movie is ethics.  One main character
is constantly troubled by the lack of ethics of others.  Oh, by the way,
he's a vicious mob chief killer.





 





Forced medical treatment?!?!?  The woman has a
feeding tube.  She breathes on her own.  She is only receiving
nourishment.  The husband has denied her therapy ever since he received
money for therapy.  He has fought against treatment for simple things i.e.
bladder infection and been overruled by courts.





 





A feeding tube ... you know, like the breast to an
infant who would die without it (or spooned food) ... like an IV that is used
to keep alive scads of people daily.





 





Oh, by the way, SHE CAN SWALLOW but the judge has
DENIED permission for her to be fed by mouth by one willing to take the time to
do so.  The only "artificial" means she needs to be kept alive
is someone willing to spoon feed her.





 





The biggest problem with this nation and the world
today is that those who are supposed to know better (professing believers)
can't even get their facts straight because they are so overwhelmed by fornication
(compromising with the world).





 









Ahava b' YahShua













































(Love in The
SAVIOUR)











Baruch YHVH,





















 







Bro. Chris Barr





a servant of YHVH

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread Terry Clifton 






Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before?  Could happen.
 
Terry 
---Original Message---
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But you state that, “I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 
You may be right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you
have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new
medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up
unexpectedly overnight. Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 


 
  
  
  Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if
  you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that
  was never available before?  Could happen.
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
   
  
  
  ---Original Message---
  
  
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Date: Friday,
  September 19, 2003 10:00:19
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Subject: Re:
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  But you state that, “I also
  believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with
  that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that
  people are “tampering”. 
  
  
  
  You may be right.  I am still
  thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

 


 


 

   
  
  
  
 



  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here






<>

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread Bruce Woodford 
Hi Izzy,

You asked:"what if the wife had a "Living Will" in which she had written 
that she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means if she was 
comatose?"

I think "artificial means" would have to be defined more specificly. Feeding 
a person, bathing them, keeping them warm or cool, giving them water are 
"artificial means"!  Would you really want to withhold such basic needs from 
one who was unable to do these things for themselves?  Many people who are 
conscious and aware of their surroundings cannot do these things for 
themselves!  Why should being comatose be a reason to withhold such basic 
care for the helpless?

You asked:"Would you then think it was right to keep her alive by feeding 
tube?"

I would certainly not think that one whose body carries on functions 
necessary for life should be denied food or water!

If someone cannot breathe on their own, and keeping them alive is dependent 
on a machine to breathe for them, I would call that "artificial means" and I 
personally would not want my family to go through the process of keeping me 
alive by such a means.

You asked:"What if the wife was young, and had not yet written a living 
will, but had communicated verbally to her husband the same desire? Should 
he not obey her wishes?"

If I was the husband of one who had expressed such a desire, I would ask a 
lot more questions such as , "What do YOU mean by "artificial means"?  Any 
human assistance whatsoever? OR  Normal body functions which no longer 
function and can only be performed by machines?

You asked:"How do you know that the person's soul has not already gone on to 
be with the Lord when they are comatose for a long time?"

Izzy, I don't.  But I could also ask you, "How could you be sure that the 
person's soul HAD DEPARTED, simply because they were comatose for a long 
time?"

You asked:"You stated that you do not believe one should be kept alive by 
artificial means forever. So how long do you think they should be?"

Izzy, when I think of "artificial means" used to keep a comatose person 
alive I think of necessary bodily functions that can only be done by 
machines. (i.e. there is not sufficient brain activity so a person cannot 
breathe on their own, their heart will not beat on it's own, etc).  How long 
such should be continued would be up to the next of kin.

My daughter was on a missions trip to Ecuador this summer, 4 hours from 
civilization by canoe and another 6 hours by bus from a hospital! She was 
comatose for a number of hours, almost quit breathing a number of times and 
was running an extremely high temperature. She was kept alive by artificial 
means and a lot of prayer by her co-workers!

Your brother in Christ,
Bruce
_
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought 
to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread Terry Clifton 



Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if 
you snuffed your hubby a day too early?
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 
  PM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
  question
  
  
  Terry, You can only make decisions 
  upon the information you have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. 
  Besides that, new medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just 
  pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 
  PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
  question
   
  


  

Just something to muddy the 
thought process.  What if you pull the plug on your patient today, 
and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before?  
Could happen.

 

Terry 

---Original 
Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: 
Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: 
    [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 


In a message dated 9/19/2003 
9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  But you state that, 
  “I also believe that her 
  fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  
  By 
  forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that 
  people are “tampering”. 


You may be 
right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come 
to a conclusion.  Laura

 

  

  
  

   

   

   

    IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - 
  Click 
  Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 









Terry,

 

I am not talking about “snuffing” anyone.  I’m talking about
ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take
its course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 

 

Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 



Then I take it that your conscience would
not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early?





 





- Original Message - 







From: ShieldsFamily






To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 





Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question





 



Terry, You can only make decisions upon
the information you have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow.
Besides that, new medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just
pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 


 
  
  
  Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if
  you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that
  was never available before?  Could happen.
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
   
  
  
  ---Original Message---
  
  
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Date: Friday,
  September 19, 2003 10:00:19
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Subject: Re:
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  But you state that, “I also believe
  that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon
  her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 
  
  
  
  You may be right.  I am still
  thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

 


 


 

   
  
  
  
 



  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 








 

See comments in bold below….

-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Woodford
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 5:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 

Hi
Izzy,

 

You
asked:"what if the wife had a "Living Will" in which she had
written 

that
she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means if she was 

comatose?"

 

I
think "artificial means" would have to be defined more specificly.
Feeding 

a
person, bathing them, keeping them warm or cool, giving them water are 

"artificial
means"!  Would you really want to withhold such basic needs from 

one
who was unable to do these things for themselves?  Many people who are 

conscious
and aware of their surroundings cannot do these things for 

themselves! 
Why should being comatose be a reason to withhold such basic 

care
for the helpless?

 

You
asked:"Would you then think it was right to keep her alive by feeding 

tube?"

 

I
would certainly not think that one whose body carries on functions 

necessary
for life should be denied food or water!

 

If
someone cannot breathe on their own, and keeping them alive is dependent 

on
a machine to breathe for them, I would call that "artificial means"
and I 

personally
would not want my family to go through the process of keeping me 

alive
by such a means.

 

Bruce, by “artificial
means” I mean medical intervention—not keeping a person clean,
turning every two hours, talking to and touching them, etc.  A tube
feeding is administered by artificial means via an electronic food pump through
a surgically implanted tube that has to be kept clean and patent.  When I
worked in the Intensive Care Unit we often “let the patient go” by
slowly turning down the respirator—giving them a chance to start
breathing if they could, but letting them die if they couldn’t. 
This is done every day in hospitals all over the country.  It only becomes
a public issue if there is legal disagreement about it, and the media gets a
hold of the story. Also, commonly very congenitally ill newborns are allowed to
die without heroic intervention, rather than putting them through the pain of
hopelessly trying to “save” their lives.  Letting someone die
comfortably and naturally is the kindest thing to do in many situations; rather
than tormenting them to death with measures that are demeaning, painful, and
hopeless.  I remember once being VERY tempted to kidnap an elderly woman
out of the ICU by rolling her bed down the halls, out the door, and into the
lovely sunshine—I just wanted to let her breathe her final breath by
being held outside on a lovely day, instead of in a sterile room full of
blinking lights and beeping noises, etc.  It seemed so cruel and
unnatural. She was OLD, and she was DYING; so let it happen, already!

 

You
asked:"What if the wife was young, and had not yet written a living 

will,
but had communicated verbally to her husband the same desire? Should 

he
not obey her wishes?"

 

If
I was the husband of one who had expressed such a desire, I would ask a 

lot
more questions such as , "What do YOU mean by "artificial
means"?  Any 

human
assistance whatsoever? OR  Normal body functions which no longer 

function
and can only be performed by machines? The
term usually used is “heroic measures”, and of course does not mean
denying comfort measures—just letting nature take its course without
medical intervention.

 

You
asked:"How do you know that the person's soul has not already gone on to 

be
with the Lord when they are comatose for a long time?"

 

Izzy,
I don't.  But I could also ask you, "How could you be sure that the 

person's
soul HAD DEPARTED, simply because they were comatose for a long 

time?"

 

I’d be even MORE
upset if the person’s spirit were kept locked inside that comatose body
for years and years—wouldn’t you?  Heaven forbid that anyone
should do that to me when the Lord is trying to call me home!

 

You
asked:"You stated that you do not believe one should be kept alive by 

artificial
means forever. So how long do you think they should be?"

 

Izzy,
when I think of "artificial means" used to keep a comatose person 

alive
I think of necessary bodily functions that can only be done by 

machines.
(i.e. there is not sufficient brain activity so a person cannot 

breathe
on their own, their heart will not beat on it's own, etc).  How long 

such
should be continued would be up to the next of kin.  Exactly my point—thank you for agreeing!

 

My
daughter was on a missions trip to Ecuador this summer, 4 hours from 

civilization
by canoe and another 6 hours by bus from a hospital! She was 

comatose
for a number of hours, almost quit breathing a number of times and 

was
running an extremely high temperature. She was kept alive by artificial

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 









PS If I were married to a certain someone who’s name I will
not mention (but you can guess!),
I would happily “snuff him out a day early”.  One must consider each situation
on its own merits.  ROFL!    Oh, dear, I think I feel another one of those cat
frenzies coming on….or maybe it’s just the atmospheric effect of Hurricane Izzy?


 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of ShieldsFamily
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
9:04 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 

Terry,

 

I am not talking about “snuffing” anyone.  I’m talking
about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature
take its course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 

 

Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
6:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 



Then I take it that your conscience would
not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early?





 





- Original Message - 







From: ShieldsFamily






To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 





Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question





 



Terry, You can only make decisions upon
the information you have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides
that, new medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up
unexpectedly overnight. Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 


 
  
  
  Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if
  you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that
  was never available before?  Could happen.
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
   
  
  
  ---Original Message---
  
  
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Date: Friday,
  September 19, 2003 10:00:19
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Subject: Re:
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
  In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  But you state that, “I also believe
  that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon
  her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 
  
  
  
  You may be right.  I am still
  thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

 


 


 

   
  
  
  
 



  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread LaurHamm 

Is there another baseball game on tonight?   LOL   Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-19 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Yes1  I’m cracking up!  Iz

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
9:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 

Is there another baseball game on tonight?  
LOL   Laura

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-20 Thread Terry Clifton 






There are sins of commission, and sins of omission.  Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. 
 
 Nature does not take it's course.  God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out.  He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority.  You play God. 
 
 When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never  be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self is not what it is all about.  When you do it for the least of His, you do it for Him.
 
Think about those things.
 
Terry 
---Original Message---
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Terry,
 
I am not talking about “snuffing” anyone.  I’m talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 
 
Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early?

 

- Original Message - 


From: ShieldsFamily 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 
Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 





Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before?  Could happen.

 

Terry 

---Original Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 


In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But you state that, “I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 

You may be right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura

 






 

 

 

  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-20 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Terry,  It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to
cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own
expense.  (In certain situations.)  I’ve probably taken care of more ill
people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue.  Playing
God can work both ways. I don’t think we should judge people who want to
stop that game. Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003
7:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 


 
  
  
  There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. 
  Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. 
  
  
   
  
  
   Nature does not take it's course.  God put you
  here and it should be God who decides when to take you out.  He will
  take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you
  usurp His authority.  You play God. 
  
  
   
  
  
   When you start considering how unfair it would be to
  spend your life caring for someone who will never  be able to thank you
  or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self is
  not what it is all about.  When you do it for the least of His, you
  do it for Him.
  
  
   
  
  
  Think about those things.
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
   
  
  
  ---Original Message---
  
  
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Date: Friday,
  September 19, 2003 21:04:44
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Subject: RE:
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry,
   
  I am not talking about “snuffing”
  anyone.  I’m talking about ceasing from medical
  intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course. 
  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 
   
  Izzy
   
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Terry Clifton
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
  6:11 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
  question
   
  
  Then I take it that
  your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too
  early?
  
  
   
  
  
  - Original Message
  - 
  
  
  
  From: ShieldsFamily
  
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM
  
  
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
   
  
  Terry, You can only
  make decisions upon the information you have available today. 
  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical
  developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly
  overnight. Izzy
   
  -Original
  Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Terry Clifton
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
  3:59 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
  question
   
  
   


Just something to muddy the thought process.  What
if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure
that was never available before?  Could happen.


 


Terry
 


---Original Message---


 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Date: Friday,
September 19, 2003 10:00:19


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Ethics question



 



In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


But you state that, “I also
believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with
that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could
certainly say that people are “tampering”. 



You may be
right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to
a conclusion.  Laura


 


   
   


 
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
 



   
  
    IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

 


 


 

   
  
  
  
 



  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here






<>

Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-20 Thread Terry Clifton 



Discernment Izzy, Discernment.
 
Terry

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
  question
  
  
  Terry,  It seems to me that 
  the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing 
  their death at their own expense.  (In certain situations.)  I’ve 
  probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that 
  means, and that is not the issue.  Playing God can work both ways. I 
  don’t think we should judge people who want to stop that game. 
  Izzy
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Terry 
  CliftonSent: Saturday, 
  September 20, 2003 7:06 AMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
  question
   
  


  

There are sins of 
commission, and sins of omission.  Failing to care for another as 
yourself is a sin of omission. 

 

 Nature does not take 
it's course.  God put you here and it should be God who decides 
when to take you out.  He will take you when He is ready, tube or 
no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority.  You 
play God. 

 

 When you start 
considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone 
who will never  be able to thank you or even acknowledge your 
presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self is not what it is all 
about.  When you do it for the least of His, you do 
it for Him.

 

Think about those 
things.

 

Terry 

---Original 
Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: 
Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Ethics question

 

Terry,
 
I am not talking about 
“snuffing” anyone.  I’m talking about ceasing from medical 
intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its 
course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 

 
Izzy
 
-Original 
Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry 
CliftonSent: Friday, 
September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
    question
 

Then I take 
it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a 
day too early?

 

- Original 
Message - 

  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  Sent: Friday, 
  September 19, 2003 4:35 PM
  
  Subject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
   
  Terry, You 
  can only make decisions upon the information you have available 
  today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical 
  developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up 
  unexpectedly overnight. Izzy
   
  -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry 
  CliftonSent: Friday, 
  September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics 
  question
   
  


  

Just something to 
muddy the thought process.  What if you pull the plug on 
your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was 
never available before?  Could 
happen.

 

Terry 

---Original 
Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Friday, September 
19, 2003 10:00:19

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
        Ethics question

 


In a message dated 
9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  But you state 
  that, “I also believe 
  that her fate is in Go

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-20 Thread ShieldsFamily 









Terry,  Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions,
that you decide that I am
the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wondering…..J Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003
12:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 



Discernment Izzy, Discernment.





 





Terry







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]






Sent: Saturday,
September 20, 2003 8:34 AM





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Ethics question





 



Terry,  It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is
to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own
expense.  (In certain situations.)  I’ve probably taken care of more
ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the
issue.  Playing God can work both ways. I don’t think we should judge
people who want to stop that game. Izzy

 

-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003
7:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 


 
  
  
  There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. 
  Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. 
  
  
   
  
  
   Nature does not take it's course.  God put you
  here and it should be God who decides when to take you out.  He will
  take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you
  usurp His authority.  You play God. 
  
  
   
  
  
   When you start considering how unfair it would be to
  spend your life caring for someone who will never  be able to thank you
  or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self is
  not what it is all about.  When you do it for the least of His, you
  do it for Him.
  
  
   
  
  
  Think about those things.
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
   
  
  
  ---Original Message---
  
  
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Date: Friday,
  September 19, 2003 21:04:44
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Subject: RE:
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry,
   
  I am not talking about “snuffing” anyone.  I’m
  talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and
  letting nature take its course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing
  out”. 
   
  Izzy
   
  -Original Message-
  From:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
  6:11 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
  question
   
  
  Then I take it that
  your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too
  early?
  
  
   
  
  
  - Original Message
  - 
  
  
  
  From: ShieldsFamily
  
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM
  
  
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
   
  
  Terry, You can only
  make decisions upon the information you have available today.  Can’t
  look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of
  R&D, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy
   
  -Original
  Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
  Behalf Of Terry Clifton
  Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003
  3:59 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
  question
   
  
   


Just something to muddy the thought process.  What
if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure
that was never available before?  Could happen.


 


Terry
 


---Original Message---


 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Date: Friday,
September 19, 2003 10:00:19


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Ethics question



 



In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


But you state that, “I also believe
that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.” 
By forcing
medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are
“tampering”. 



You may be
right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to
a conclusion.  Laura


 


   
   


 
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
 



   
  
    IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
   

 


 


 

   
  
  
  
 



  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-20 Thread Terry Clifton 






Bite your tomgue! 
---Original Message---
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 16:01:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Terry,  Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wondering…..J Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Discernment Izzy, Discernment.

 

Terry


- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 
Terry,  It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense.  (In certain situations.)  I’ve probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue.  Playing God can work both ways. I don’t think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 





There are sins of commission, and sins of omission.  Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. 

 

 Nature does not take it's course.  God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out.  He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority.  You play God. 

 

 When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never  be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self is not what it is all about.  When you do it for the least of His, you do it for Him.

 

Think about those things.

 

Terry 

---Original Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 

Terry,
 
I am not talking about “snuffing” anyone.  I’m talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 
 
Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early?

 

- Original Message - 


From: ShieldsFamily 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 
Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 





Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before?  Could happen.

 

Terry 

---Original Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 


In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But you state that, “I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 

You may be right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura

 






 

 

 

  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

 






 

 

 

  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-20 Thread Terry Clifton 






Just a thought.  If the comatose person is unsaved and bound
 for Hell, would you send him there, or would he be more 
comfortable in a coma?  If there was less than one tenth of one
 percent of a chance that he would ever regain consciousness
 and be able to repent, would it be worth waiting?  Or have you
 already taken all that into account in your previous responses?
 
Terry
 
 
---Original Message---
 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Saturday, September 20, 2003 16:01:09
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Terry,  Why is it that whenever we have differing opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it ever be you? Just wondering…..J Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 12:41 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Discernment Izzy, Discernment.

 

Terry


- Original Message - 

From: ShieldsFamily 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 8:34 AM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 
Terry,  It seems to me that the selfish thing to do is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own expense.  (In certain situations.)  I’ve probably taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and that is not the issue.  Playing God can work both ways. I don’t think we should judge people who want to stop that game. Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 7:06 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 





There are sins of commission, and sins of omission.  Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of omission. 

 

 Nature does not take it's course.  God put you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out.  He will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that decision, you usurp His authority.  You play God. 

 

 When you start considering how unfair it would be to spend your life caring for someone who will never  be able to thank you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self is not what it is all about.  When you do it for the least of His, you do it for Him.

 

Think about those things.

 

Terry 

---Original Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 21:04:44

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 

Terry,
 
I am not talking about “snuffing” anyone.  I’m talking about ceasing from medical intervention to keep them alive, and letting nature take its course.  Quite the opposite of “snuffing out”. 
 
Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 6:11 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 

Then I take it that your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too early?

 

- Original Message - 


From: ShieldsFamily 

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 
Terry, You can only make decisions upon the information you have available today.  Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly overnight. Izzy
 
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question
 





Just something to muddy the thought process.  What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomorrow they find the cure that was never available before?  Could happen.

 

Terry 

---Original Message---

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Date: Friday, September 19, 2003 10:00:19

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

 


In a message dated 9/19/2003 9:51:21 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

But you state that, “I also believe that her fate is in God's hands and he should not tamper with that.”  By forcing medical treatment upon her, you could certainly say that people are “tampering”. 

You may be right.  I am still thinking it through.  I really haven't come to a conclusion.  Laura

 






 

 

 

  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

 






 

 

 

  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - Click Here

RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question

2003-09-21 Thread ShieldsFamily 








Yes. J Iz

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003
4:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics
question

 


 
  
  
  Just a thought.  If the comatose person is unsaved
  and bound
  
  
   for Hell, would you send him there, or would he be
  more 
  
  
  comfortable in a coma?  If there was less than one
  tenth of one
  
  
   percent of a chance that he would ever regain
  consciousness
  
  
   and be able to repent, would it be worth
  waiting?  Or have you
  
  
   already taken all that into account in your previous
  responses?
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
  
  ---Original Message---
  
  
   
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Date: Saturday,
  September 20, 2003 16:01:09
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  Subject: RE:
  [TruthTalk] Ethics question
  
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry,  Why is it that whenever we have differing
  opinions, that you decide that I am the one with no discernment? Could it
  ever be you? Just wondering…..J Izzy
   
  -Original Message-
  From:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
  Sent: Saturday, September 20,
  2003 12:41 PM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Ethics
  question
   
  
  Discernment Izzy, Discernment.
  
  
   
  
  
  Terry
  
  
  
  - Original Message - 
  
  
  From: ShieldsFamily
  
  
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  
  
  Sent: Saturday,
  September 20, 2003 8:34 AM
  
  
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
  Ethics question
  
  
   
  
  Terry,  It seems to me that the selfish thing to do
  is to cling to someone by interfering in postponing their death at their own
  expense.  (In certain situations.)  I’ve probably
  taken care of more ill people than you have, and I know what that means, and
  that is not the issue.  Playing God can work both ways. I
  don’t think we should judge people who want to stop that game.
  Izzy
   
  -Original Message-
  From:
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
  Sent: Saturday, September 20,
  2003 7:06 AM
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics
  question
   
  
   


There are sins of commission, and sins of
omission.  Failing to care for another as yourself is a sin of
omission. 


 


 Nature does not take it's course.  God put
you here and it should be God who decides when to take you out.  He
will take you when He is ready, tube or no tube. When you make that
decision, you usurp His authority.  You play God. 


 


 When you start considering how unfair it would be
to spend your life caring for someone who will never  be able to thank
you or even acknowledge your presence, you are dwelling on self.  Self
is not what it is all about.  When you do it for the least of
His, you do it for Him.


 


Think about those things.


 


Terry
 


---Original Message---


 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Date: Friday,
September 19, 2003 21:04:44


To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Ethics question



 


Terry,
 
I am not talking about
“snuffing” anyone. 
I’m talking about ceasing from medical intervention to
keep them alive, and letting nature take its course.  Quite
the opposite of “snuffing out”. 
 
Izzy
 
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19,
2003 6:11 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Ethics question
 

Then I take it that
your conscience would not bother you if you snuffed your hubby a day too
early?


 


- Original
Message - 



From: ShieldsFamily



To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 4:35 PM


Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ethics question


 

Terry, You can only
make decisions upon the information you have available today. 
Can’t look back tomorrow. Besides that, new medical
developments take years of R&D, and nothing just pops up unexpectedly
overnight. Izzy
 
-Original
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton
Sent: Friday, September 19,
2003 3:59 PM
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
    Ethics question
 

 
  
  
  Just something to muddy the thought process. 
  What if you pull the plug on your patient today, and tomo