Welcome to Gaia! ::

today....people who are in a vegetative state are being kept alive with feeding tubes which is definately not natrual......i think that the people that died are wat God intended to happen.......but people are preventing this by using the feeding tubes etc......so.........feeding tubes and life preservers.........ok..........now here is the scenario........a person gets into a car crash and gets sevre brain damage....cant move, BUT he can talk. so he is kept alive with the feeding tube. the doctor askes if he wishes to remove the life preserver or keep it in so he lives...........he decides to keep it in.........is this a MORAL sin

We keep people alive needlessly and often cruely because we tend to live by "life at all costs".

This isn't automatically a good thing, because when you're meant to die, you should. Not be kept alive for years by tubes despite your inability to live alone.

Obviously if you're in a car crash or whatever, medical science should be used to help you recover but when a person reaches a state where they can't ever live without a life-support machine --why make them live in a hospital?

Just my opinion...

Ok first off why would god Have us go through a Car reck, or something grousome to kill us? It would seem that if he wanted us to join him He would have a much more effective and less painful method of doing so. God dosen't enjoy seeing us in pain. Second, people are the cause of most of the suffering and pain in this world. People just keep hurting each other insted of working out problems. I just refuse to think God would want me to suffer on a feeding tube if he wanted me to join him. I feel he would be more of a humanitarian when something like joining him came up.

If a person is conscious and talking, it is harder to tell them they have to die. It is their decision, but I think they should recieve counseling along with the family members who will have to pay to keep them alive. If everyone decides 'live,' then I suppose they should stay on tubes and whatnot, because nobody really has the authority to tell a conscious person to die because it's more convenient.

However, in cases like Shciavo's, where the victim is not responsive and has no hope of recovering, they should die. It sounds harsh, I know, but I feel that there is no point in keeping a vacated shell alive; the personality that once occupied it is gone irrevocably. There are better uses for the money than keeping a braindead vegetable alive, such as keeping hungry children alive. I see it as a moral wrong that humans in a persistent vegetative state who will never recover are considered more important than the many conscious people who have no means of survival. I know that the families may want to cling to hope for as long as possible, and it is difficult to let someone go, even if they're already gone. But it is selfish.

A separate query: If death is God's will, then why do so many Christians blame it on Satan? Actually, why does death upset them at all? Shouldn't they be accepting of God's will?

i'm a stout atheist, brewed from hopps, but just for arguement's sake, if everything that happens is god's will, wouldn't the invention and use of the feeding tube in the scenario have been part of his plan. on the other side, if we have to count the creation of the feeding tube as against god's will, then wouldn't the creation of the car also be against his will, and therefore the point is moot because the man either shouldn't have been hit by the car, or was suposed to be given a feeding tube? besides, if he can talk, he can swallow, and therefore he'd need an aid or a nurse, not a feeding tube.

i know yall are onliine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! stare i can see you are online!!!!!!!!!
sad o welll
pekinese, 3nodding whee ninja 4laugh pirate

ooh thank you! biggrin so much!
pekinese, 3nodding whee ninja 4laugh pirate