The precedent was set: his followers healed people, rather than give up on them, to this day.
This is an excellent point. But perhaps it bears pointing out that we do not have the healing ability which Jesus was said to possess? He could, it was said, raise a man from the dead. If so, he had no cause to "give up" on someone.
Which brings me to my next point -- is it truly "giving up" to allow someone to die? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Which is the point I've made in my comments above -- a sweeping statement in this matter is, on the whole, an injustice.
I too consider human life to be sacred. What does it mean to honor that sacredness? I question whether it is honorable to consign someone, and who is unsuited to live such an existence by the particularity of his or her disposition, to live in a state against his or her will where he or she is entirely dependent on machines and constant nursing care -- an existence which is by all accounts extremely humiliating and undignified.
Some people might be suited to such a life; others are not. Does a sweeping statement asserting that only certain options are acceptable no matter what, honor the sacredness of the lives of those who would be absolutely miserable existing in such a way? Every case is unique; every case deserves to be judged on its own.
You certainly destroyed that poor straw man.
Perhaps it seems callous to consider the financial burden such a situation places on a family. Having been very recently in bankruptcy court, due largely to medical bills, perhaps I am not objetive enough to comment on that issue.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Proverbial mixing of proverbial fruits.
Date: 2004-03-21 06:27 pm (UTC)This is an excellent point. But perhaps it bears pointing out that we do not have the healing ability which Jesus was said to possess? He could, it was said, raise a man from the dead. If so, he had no cause to "give up" on someone.
Which brings me to my next point -- is it truly "giving up" to allow someone to die? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Which is the point I've made in my comments above -- a sweeping statement in this matter is, on the whole, an injustice.
I too consider human life to be sacred. What does it mean to honor that sacredness? I question whether it is honorable to consign someone, and who is unsuited to live such an existence by the particularity of his or her disposition, to live in a state against his or her will where he or she is entirely dependent on machines and constant nursing care -- an existence which is by all accounts extremely humiliating and undignified.
Some people might be suited to such a life; others are not. Does a sweeping statement asserting that only certain options are acceptable no matter what, honor the sacredness of the lives of those who would be absolutely miserable existing in such a way? Every case is unique; every case deserves to be judged on its own.
You certainly destroyed that poor straw man.
Perhaps it seems callous to consider the financial burden such a situation places on a family. Having been very recently in bankruptcy court, due largely to medical bills, perhaps I am not objetive enough to comment on that issue.