Artificial life support should be used as a link to getting back to life on your own. It is agony to lose a child, but this child is gone, so the Mother must let go. I was in the medical field for over 30 years. Sometimes technology is a bad thing. It is not wise to keep a body alive just because you can. My Husband and I both have medical directives that state, no support if we are terminal What would be the point.
2007-04-25 10:57:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
If I was in the place of the person laying in that hospital bed, not able to respond to or notice anything, then I wouldn't want to be on life support. I would not be able to let my parents and everyone that I love come to the hospital everyday and have to worry about me. When it's my time to die, then it's my time, God already has that planned out and I can accept that. I would rather die without the life support and have my family grieve for a short amount of time than have them worry over my seemingly lifeless body that was being kept alive by a machine, that is not natural. As a parent (which I am not, but I can put myself in the place). I would not want my child to lie in a hospital bed, hooked up to machines that were the only thing keeping him/her alive. I don't think that it's the right thing to do.
2007-04-25 11:57:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Think about it this way: is there anything about life that is NOT artificial? The way we're born (generally in hospitals), the pills we take when we're sick, the immunizations we require--god, even glasses are technology/artificial sight. People are now amalgams of technology and "humanity"; everything related to being a human is intervened with artificially at some point in our lives. Why is this a different issue? God's intentions are irrelevant in a society where the very meaning of "human" is debatable--artificial life, cloning, assisted life, medicalization of virtually everything creates an environment in which we have to recognize all of the technologies that go into our very survival as a species. We are all interpollated by technology, so my question to you is, why is this different? Machines are keeping many of us alive, in one way or another.
2007-04-25 09:23:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by teeleecee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
My personal opinion: How could you love your child and see them suffer everyday. If you know that there is no hope, no cure. Aren't you actually putting you child through more than necessary. It's one thing if it was like a coma where there was a chance that my child would wake up and be OK even if not OK wake up at least. I agree that naturally would be without the life support. I know that it would be hard for any parent to know that their child is going to die. But the sooner you face it the better off things will be. I have 3 children of my own and I would not anyone of them to suffer for even a second as long as they live let alone sit around and watch while they are hooked up to a ventilator. Watching the machines breathe for my baby. Knowing what they should be doing at that age and what they are doing. I don't think I could handle it.
2007-04-25 09:50:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well this is a very controversial topic. My opinion is that if a person needs to be on life support more that one week, i would take it off. I think it is a good thing to help people recover and gain physical strength to help them breathe. In the case represented in the story i think the life support should be taken off the child he is quite sick by the sounds of it and i think the mother should realize that her son would be free from pain once he passed on. I know that this would be very hard to accept as a parent, and the choice of taking away the life support from your child would be very hard and would probably leave you feeling guilty. I believe it is the choice of whoever is involved but in this case i would turn off the life support.
2007-04-25 09:29:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Your question reminds me of the idea that the Pope has to travel around behind a bullet-proof glass. Does that mean he's defying God's will by not exposing himself to an assassin's bullet? Or can human intervention, in the form a bullet-proof glass (or artificial life support in your example) be considered 'God's will?"
I guess that why they call it the 'mysteries of the Church of Rome....."
2007-04-25 13:10:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. i may be adversarial. i think of there are way too many guy made issues in existence right now. everybody relies way too plenty on them for convenience. I be apologetic approximately to declare I trust the Christian you spoke with. that's not a human thank you to create existence. each woman has a womb. If she won't be able to hold a baby although, properly, such is existence - not constantly suited. as properly, ever pay attention of overpopulation?
2016-10-30 06:55:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
there are so many facets of God's will and what qualifies. isn't taking pain reliever technically agaisnt God's will? He gave you the pain, who are you to take it away.
personally, i feel we should embrace new technology, particularly in terms of medical advancements. i feel God would want us to relieve eachother's suffering. plus, new medicical treatments are usually the only ones that come under fire with the 'God's will' claims. no one speaks anymore about c-sections to save the mother and baby, but when they first started people raved about "unnatural birth" and how it went against God's will. Plus, if God wants to kill people, how are we going to stop it?
2007-04-25 09:24:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would not go on artificial life support; if it's my time, it's my time, and I accept it...
2007-04-25 09:19:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by holy_see 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If they are needed then its not "natural". Following this logic, "God" also created human beings with the capability of creating and using nuclear warheads & firearms..... "natural" things huh????? LOLOLOL
2007-04-25 10:19:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by Izen G 5
·
1⤊
1⤋