Oh.. I Am So Going To Hell Over This
 

VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- Pope John Paul II is being fed through a nasal tube in an effort to boost his calorie intake, the Vatican says.

"To improve his calorific intake and promote an efficient recovery of his strength, nutrition via the positioning of a nasal-gastric tube has begun," Joaquin Navarro-Valls said in a statement released Wednesday.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe...day/index.html


http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/eu...ope.wed.ap.jpg

--------

Since the Pope is a firm believer in the afterlife and God - wouldnt it make sense that he would not want to be on the feeding tube? I know the church has a problem with suicide or a willingness to die - but it only would take a bishop to seal his fate since he cant talk or be understood.

What if the Pope got the the point of not being able to recognize anyone and becomes a vegetable himself - would they still keep him alive?

I say lets see what happens when we starve the Pope how the courts will demand we keep him alive. Im sorry but hearing daily news update as CNN turns into that nasty funeral home director in A Christmas Carol who waited outside of Marley's room.

this Schiavo debate over a persons right to life and death - or for lack of a better term - assisted suicide. At least Dr. Kevorkian has a more humane way of doing it. If we are going to allow people to die - at least give them the dignity of a quick end rather than a painful slow death.

thread title is right,

I think you are going to hell for that comment. Dont worry, strip joints are free down below and all hookers go to hell so you will be having a great time. We can probably sort out some good content deals down there together!

We are all going hell anyway.... dont ever remember pornography being next
to godliness.....

the point as I watched this was that everyone would be demanding the Pope would be kept alive for as long as his body could support him - and even if he wanted to pass on to the next life - I dont think they would allow him to simply starve to death.

The Schiavo case is assisted suicide. The doctors I thought had a oath to maintain life (even if in a vegetative state) - since that is out the window now - why not do away with all vegetables that dont have a living will in place??

There's a hell?

That would imply that there's a god, so I think not.

yupp, I second that :)

You were already going to hell for being gay remember LOL...Atleast we will have good company!!

so lets go nuts and pull everyones feeding tube.. survival of the fittest

If they WANT to die? I'm all for it.

If they want to LIVE? So be it.

It should be their choice. Plain and simple.

Unfortunately, I deal in common sense. Something that's lost on the government and a great many people.

that would hurt.. pulling outa feedingtube you say pulling out, and I see yank. that could cause some damage.

the pope has not had a feeding tube keeping him alive for 15 years. :2 cents:

THREAD CLOSED.

very true

If common sense was common, everybody would have it.

ADG Webmaster

see u there, ill be the one giving satan a BJ

the thread title says it all.

I agree it should be the person choice either live or die...

A lot of time, there's no way to really know what the person wants. I could tell you right now that I want to live, but if suddenly I was strucken ill or in a car accident or something that left me brain dead for the most part, there's no way I could ever convey to you if I wanted to stay alive for longer or if I wanted to die, and there's no way you'd ever know which I wanted.

For the most part, a person doesn't even know if they'd want to be alive through it or not until it's happening. I can say now I'd want to be kept alive but after a year of being unable to think, much less communicate, my choice may change.

good points there


yet the question isnt necessarily if a person wanted assisted suicide or not.. if you did choose death - then would you want to be starved or put down quicker? If she did tell her husband then fine - but dont starve the girl to death

Oh, I'm not talking about any case in particular.. hers or the pope's... I'm just saying, making a general statement about letting the person choose isn't always available. And thus... "common sense" is sometimes not an option.

I hear you - its a difficult situation. I think in a living will that needs to be addressed as much as possible... stating that after 4 months or whatever time line you set up.. plus several doctors agreements that your not pulling out of this.. then pull the plug

This is very true, and I don't have an answer for that.

Unlike everyone else with a definitive opinion on the matter, I don't KNOW what the right answer is, so I can't comment intelligently on it (not that any of THEM are either, but that's a whole other story).

However, more to the Dr.Kevorkian issue...there should be absolutely no question. He offered a service to those that WANTED to die. That's a no-brainer imo.

How can you FORCE someone to do something they don't want to do? Rational thinkers can't and won't.

If you have decided after seeing all the evidence that your not going to last and you have a choice of living the next few months in pain or just end it faster and peacefully - why put yourself through that?? unless you want to be a moral martyr? I have seen some who have used their last few days show others now to live... yet kervorkian did offer a humane solution that should have been used in this situation.

Yep you are going to hell for this.

yes you are

I agree entirely.

Who's benefitting from assisted suicide being illegal?

As always, the lawyers.

The "Victim" is being lost in the whole thing.

People are screaming that this is inhumane, but it's easy to scream that when one of the other options is illegal and the only OTHER option is YOURS.

IF, and I say IF, her husband is being honest, then I think he'd have preferred the Kevorkian treatment as well. As I'm sure would Terry Schiavo. But, unfortunately that's not an option.

The only options are being "Inhumane", or forcing her to live.

and that was the point I was trying to drive at from the beginning - obviously her husband doesnt want the humane treatment.. much less the medical professionals

- yet if this was happening to the Pope and it was decided that he should be allowed to die - Im sure that everyone would be screaming that we are letting him starve to death and if the church had approved of this method - we would be crying that it was torture

Her husband doesn't have the CHOICE of the humane treatment, unless I'm mistaken and assisted suicide is legal.

If he's truly doing what he believes is correct (and her wish was/is to die), then the government, at the behest of those very people who are crying that it's inhumane, are the ones that ultimately denied this woman a humane death.

The Pope's official position:

On March 16 the Vatican released an opinion that feeding tubes are not medical therapy and cannot be withheld from a permanently unconscious person. And for those who hoped it wasn't official, Pope John Paul II confirmed the position a few days later, announcing that artificial food and water is always "morally obligatory" and removing a feeding tube is "true euthanasia by omission," violating God's law.

http://www.religiousconsultation.org...ubes_stuns.htm

I remember the flak Sinead O'Connor got for ripping up his pic on SNL.

It'd be interesting to see the reaction she'd get if she did the same thing today.

No argument here. I'm not sure of the specific legal or medical reasons why they starve people to death but I'd be interested to hear them.

definitely - you would think that if everyone was set on her dying - that they would assist. How can they slowly watch her dying and keep feeding her with drugs for the pain??

Blasphemy...god bless John Paul

LOL cracked me up....