Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Hi, guys. Yvonne here, in the United States. I have a question I hope guys might be able to answer: At what point does the soul move on from a dying person to the next life? Is is when the heart stops beating? Or when the person is brain- dead? Or when? I ask because there is a big controversy about this right now here in the US. There is a woman in Florida who suffered serious brain damage 15 years ago. She is not quite brain-dead but almost. She can breathe on her own but not much more. She has been kept alive for 15 years by a feeding tube in her arm. Her husband wants to let her die. He says that she is essentially already dead for any practical purposes, and that they should remove the feeding tube. The woman's parents disagree. They say that removing the tube would be murder. They are Roman Catholics and believe in keeping people alive regardless of how brain-dead they are. This grew into a huge battle in the courts. The courts agreed with the husband, but politicians including President Bush have been trying to intervene on the side of the parents. Big nasty political fight over this poor woman, and she can't express any opinion on the matter. Anyhow, what is a Hindu perspective? Is this woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on? My Auntie Usha suggested a horrifying answer, that maybe her soul is trapped between this world and the next, unable to leave this one completely, but partly already in the next. I hope that's not true. Poor woman deserves better than that. But what do you guys think? Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 This is an information, IMHO, that can be given only by a person who has died. Since I am not dead I am not in a position to answer yet. Yvonne <aw621 wrote: Hi, guys. Yvonne here, in the United States. I have a question I hope guys might be able to answer: At what point does the soul move on from a dying person to the next life? Is is when the heart stops beating? Or when the person is brain-dead? Or when? I ask because there is a big controversy about this right now here in the US. There is a woman in Florida who suffered serious brain damage 15 years ago. She is not quite brain-dead but almost. She can breathe on her own but not much more. She has been kept alive for 15 years by a feeding tube in her arm. ******************************************************* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 These questions are going on all over the net. Someone pointed out that a few rat brain neurons have been isolated and held in a petri dish and trained to respond to stimulus. Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where does it end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 I guess in this case, it would end if they dumped out the contents of the petri dish and quit paying attention to it. Like in the other case, pulling the feeding tube. Leastways, I think it's about time the US started another move to amend the constitution over this feeding tube thing. I'm sure it was just an oversight that our forefathers didn't think to include a provision about this in there. , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote: > > These questions are going on all over the net. Someone pointed out that a few rat brain neurons have been isolated and held in a petri dish and trained to respond to stimulus. Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where does it end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Hi Eve_69: You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?" I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if I'm off target. The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a single entity that science would call the universal quantum field, and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by Love. Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike" or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate. Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms, steadily increases our level of sentience. SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that of a human being. But she is as alive as ever. In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest to you! *lol* I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in the window, if you will. So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it, and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?); an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?). But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate her to death. DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Here is a link to an article in Hinduism Today that addresses some of the Hindu perspectives on the afterlife. If you magnify the font size, it will enable you to read the article: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/sample_pages/death.pdf Jai Ma! Mark Johns >"devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta > > > Re: soul moving on >Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:28:22 -0000 > > >Hi Eve_69: > >You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where >does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this >woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?" > >I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I >trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if >I'm off target. > >The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In >fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a >single entity that science would call the universal quantum field, >and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of >creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by >Love. > >Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike" >or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate. >Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of >Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is >simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level >of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The >object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a >systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure >Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms, >steadily increases our level of sentience. > >SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is >discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her >soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The >term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her >sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that >of a human being. But she is as alive as ever. > >In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed >that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need >a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that >supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she >cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not >this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at >whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to >any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief >system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief >system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel >free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest >to you! *lol* > >I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity >ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of >half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply >existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in >the window, if you will. > >So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it >smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only >being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it, >and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and >feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? > >I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are >obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a >conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?); >an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the >hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being >used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better >chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds >she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal >right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?). > >But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. >My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a >fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a >being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost >better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, >kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal >injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are >being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive >action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate >her to death. > >DB > > > Here is a link to an article in Hinduism Today that addresses some of the Hindu perspective on the afterlife. If you magnify the font size, it will enable you to read the article: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/sample_pages/death.pdf Jai Ma! Mark Johns >"devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta > > > Re: soul moving on >Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:28:22 -0000 > > >Hi Eve_69: > >You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where >does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this >woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?" > >I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I >trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if >I'm off target. > >The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In >fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a >single entity that science would call the universal quantum field, >and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of >creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by >Love. > >Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike" >or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate. >Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of >Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is >simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level >of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The >object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a >systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure >Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms, >steadily increases our level of sentience. > >SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is >discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her >soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The >term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her >sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that >of a human being. But she is as alive as ever. > >In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed >that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need >a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that >supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she >cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not >this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at >whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to >any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief >system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief >system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel >free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest >to you! *lol* > >I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity >ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of >half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply >existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in >the window, if you will. > >So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it >smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only >being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it, >and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and >feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? > >I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are >obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a >conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?); >an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the >hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being >used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better >chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds >she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal >right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?). > >But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. >My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a >fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a >being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost >better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, >kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal >injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are >being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive >action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate >her to death. > >DB > > > Here is a link to an article in Hinduism Today that addresses some of the Hindu perspective on the afterlife. If you magnify the font size, it will enable you to read the article: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/sample_pages/death.pdf Jai Ma! Mark Johns >"devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta > > > Re: soul moving on >Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:28:22 -0000 > > >Hi Eve_69: > >You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where >does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this >woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?" > >I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I >trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if >I'm off target. > >The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In >fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a >single entity that science would call the universal quantum field, >and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of >creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by >Love. > >Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike" >or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate. >Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of >Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is >simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level >of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The >object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a >systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure >Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms, >steadily increases our level of sentience. > >SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is >discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her >soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The >term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her >sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that >of a human being. But she is as alive as ever. > >In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed >that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need >a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that >supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she >cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not >this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at >whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to >any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief >system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief >system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel >free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest >to you! *lol* > >I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity >ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of >half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply >existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in >the window, if you will. > >So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it >smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only >being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it, >and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and >feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? > >I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are >obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a >conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?); >an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the >hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being >used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better >chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds >she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal >right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?). > >But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. >My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a >fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a >being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost >better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, >kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal >injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are >being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive >action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate >her to death. > >DB > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Hi, Very true.. I am transgressing from the main point in discussion here. This is the decision from the land which claims to espouse Human Rights to slowly starve and dehydrate a woman..the same land which denied Mr. Narendra Modi visa on charges of human rights violations.. Does this starving not amount to human rights violation? Why is the rest of the world keeping quiet and not protesting enough? Rama On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:28:22 -0000, devi_bhakta <devi_bhakta wrote: > > Hi Eve_69: > > You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where > does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this > woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?" > > I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I > trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if > I'm off target. > > The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In > fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a > single entity that science would call the universal quantum field, > and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of > creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by > Love. > > Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike" > or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate. > Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of > Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is > simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level > of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The > object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a > systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure > Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms, > steadily increases our level of sentience. > > SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is > discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her > soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The > term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her > sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that > of a human being. But she is as alive as ever. > > In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed > that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need > a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that > supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she > cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not > this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at > whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to > any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief > system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief > system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel > free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest > to you! *lol* > > I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity > ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of > half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply > existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in > the window, if you will. > > So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it > smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only > being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it, > and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and > feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? > > I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are > obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a > conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?); > an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the > hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being > used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better > chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds > she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal > right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?). > > But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. > My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a > fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a > being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost > better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, > kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal > injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are > being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive > action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate > her to death. > > DB > > > > > Sponsor > > > ________________________________ > Links > > > / > > > > > -- Rama R.Iyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 , "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > [....] > So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the > window and let it smash on the sidewalk below >(assuming the plant would be the only > being harmed), killing it immediately? > Stop watering and feeding it, > and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and > feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? > [....] > But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. > My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. > Maybe I'm a fool, but my mind says, > "You are removing food and water from a > being who can not eat and drink by herself!" [....] > Why let her starve slowly? [....] Food for thought: not all deaths are pleasant, although they may be "natural." Your plant on the windowsill will eventually expire quietly and peacefully, but a human might not. Here's a news article on what Ms. Schiavo's death from dehydration and/or starvation might be like. http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/11182931.htm BTW, Linda Johnsen's (dreadfully titled) _The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism_ gives a rather technical description of a phased model of the death process. Having watched someone die (recently), the phases made a quite a bit of sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Hi MSBauju: You wrote: "Food for thought: not all deaths are pleasant, although they may be 'natural.' Your plant on the windowsill will eventually expire quietly and peacefully, but a human might not." I agree. You get whatever death you get. We hope our own deaths and those of our loved ones will be as pleasant and peaceful as possible, but the evidence is abundant that many deaths (natural and otherwise) are just rife with suffering. So it goes. So yeah, the avoidance of suffering or not is not an issue in death per se, but it arguably IS an issue when we take it upon ourselves to somehow induce that death (in this case, the death would not occur as soon unless the act of witholding water and nutrition took place). And of course I have heard the various talking-head experts all over the media these days, opining on how unpleasant starvation/ dehydration might be for a person in this state. Some say it would barely register; some say she would definitely "suffer" at some level. Who knows? Some people say lab animals suffer less than humans. Maybe. And what does a plant "feel" when it dies from lack of water? I dunno. Nothing? Something? Whatever. My point is, if we are qualified enough to decide that this particular person must die now, don't we also take on some responsibility for specifying how that death will happen? That's my only comment here: If you have control over this person's life or death, and you have control over the means, why wouldn't you choose the swiftest, most efficient, most painless means? Just witholding food and water and saying "let nature take its course" seems like an abdication of that responsibility. I don't know. That's just what comes to my mind. DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate her to death. -------It's the Roman way of putting damaged goods on the hilltop for the wolves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 Thanx for the interesting answers, guys. Everybody I knew says she is already dead so let her finish the process and end her misery, but I had not seen it from the flowerpot example. My own opinion is that my own opinion is irrelevant. The woman and her husband should make the decision in consultation with the doctors. Everybody else should shut up and accept their decisions. But a philosophical discussion is useful in helping the rest of us make a decision like that if we need to. I'll have to think about this. Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 I read that both the husband and the parents may have financial motivations for what they are doing, so that kind of skews things a bit in terms of where they are coming from in their respective positions. I think people don't believe the husband is being honest about what his wife said, or would want, necessarily, and that he stands to gain $$ if she dies. And I think the parents stand to gain $$ if she lives. Does anyone else know the facts on this issue? I think DB's point of choosing a less painful way is well-taken. I hadn't thought of that before. , "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote: > > Thanx for the interesting answers, guys. Everybody I knew says she is > already dead so let her finish the process and end her misery, but I > had not seen it from the flowerpot example. > My own opinion is that my own opinion is irrelevant. The woman > and her husband should make the decision in consultation with the > doctors. Everybody else should shut up and accept their decisions. > But a philosophical discussion is useful in helping the rest of us > make a decision like that if we need to. I'll have to think about > this. > > > Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 > I read that both the husband and the parents may have financial > motivations for what they are doing, Rather cynical. They are both watching a loved one suffering in an inhuman state, for 15 years. > the husband ..... > stands to gain $$ if she dies. Remember that here in the US the government does not pay for health care. Private insurance companies pay part, and the families pay the rest. So he probably owes truckloads of money to the hospital, money he can never possibly pay. >And I think the parents stand to gain > $$ if she lives. I don't see how that is possible at all. How could they get money if she dies? Makes no sense to me. Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 , "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > [....] > My point is, if we are qualified enough to decide that > this particular person must die now, don't we also take on some > responsibility for specifying how that death will happen? That's my > only comment here: If you have control over this person's life or > death, and you have control over the means, why wouldn't you choose > the swiftest, most efficient, most painless means? Hmmm. That might be exactly Mr. Schiavo's [the husband's] reasoning. Note that in the article I mentioned earlier, the hospice nurses rated this kind of death (from starvation/dehydration in a vegetative state) as "quite good", as far as such things go. Quicker (and possibly less traumatic) methods are not legally available to him. Well, maybe we can drag this topic back to Hinduism. Here's another quote from Hinduism today: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2002/1-3/06-09_Mahasamadhi.shtml [....] In the course of his years of ministry, Gurudeva [satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami] had often counseled devotees faced with their own or a loved one's pending death. He formalized his advice in his Nandinatha Sutras, stating that devotees "in their last days avoid heroic, artificial perpetuation of life and prefer not to die in a hospital but at home with loved ones, who keep prayerful vigil;" and "in cases of terminal illness, under strict community regulation, tradition does allow fasting as a means of "mors voluntaria religiosaself-willed religious death," prayopavesha in Sanskrit. On October 12, Gurudeva decided to stop taking nourishment. A few days later he declined medication as well, except to relieve pain. So there it was the Diagnosis, cancer; the Prognosis, terminal; and his Decision, neither treatment nor nourishment. It would be 32 days until Gurudeva passed away near midnight hours before Deepavali [....] The cases certainly aren't quite parallel, but I thought it an interesting quote anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 I don't really know how or why money is connected, but I saw something in one of the many online articles recently about both sides possibly having financial interests in the outcome. I have as my homepage, and it was in a story featured under one of the headlines in the past week. Here'a link that discusses something in connection with this case and money that I just located if you're interested: http://www.sweetliberty.org/bulletins/euda.htm Otherwise, I don't know. I was asking for input from more knowledgeable group members than I. Also, despite the interesting questions about life, there's money behind this entire issue. It costs money for life support, for government involvement, etc. etc. That's just fact, not cynicism. , "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote: > > > I read that both the husband and the parents may have financial > > motivations for what they are doing, > > Rather cynical. They are both watching a loved one suffering in an > inhuman state, for 15 years. > > > the husband ..... > > stands to gain $$ if she dies. > > Remember that here in the US the government does not pay for health > care. Private insurance companies pay part, and the families pay the > rest. So he probably owes truckloads of money to the hospital, money > he can never possibly pay. > > >And I think the parents stand to gain > > $$ if she lives. > > I don't see how that is possible at all. How could they get money if > she dies? Makes no sense to me. > > Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 I just learned some new information about this from the television. Yes, her husband did get some money some time ago by suing the doctors, but that money is almost all gone now, spent mostly on 15 years of medical bills for Terry. The husband, though, is living with another woman and has two children with her. Hmmmmmm. So I think he just wants the old wife out of the way. >Also, despite the interesting > questions about life, there's money behind this entire issue. It > costs money for life support, for government involvement, etc. etc. > That's just fact, not cynicism. Well, it is cynicism if you think that's the only factor involved. Very emotional thing with many aspects. Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 23, 2005 Report Share Posted March 23, 2005 What is it if people only think it's only love or honor involved? , "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote: > > I just learned some new information about this from the television. > Yes, her husband did get some money some time ago by suing the > doctors, but that money is almost all gone now, spent mostly on 15 > years of medical bills for Terry. The husband, though, is living with > another woman and has two children with her. Hmmmmmm. So I think he > just wants the old wife out of the way. > > >Also, despite the interesting > > questions about life, there's money behind this entire issue. It > > costs money for life support, for government involvement, etc. etc. > > That's just fact, not cynicism. > > Well, it is cynicism if you think that's the only factor involved. > Very emotional thing with many aspects. > > Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 > What is it if people only think it's only love or honor involved? Oh, that would be naive, sure. But I would rather be naive and try to appeal to the good side of human nature instead of being cynical and assuming that everybody has evil motives. Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Akin to Gandhi's "Be the change you want to see in the world," there is a book you might find interesting called The Dark Side of the Light Chasers by Debbie Ford, who has worked with Deepak Chopra at his center in La Jolla, CA. The book discusses the tendency people have to project various qualities that some call "evil" or "dark" onto other people in ways that prevent individual acceptance of the full range of humanity within. It explains that if we can recognize the seeds of all human potential within ourselves, we do not make others into monsters, but rather, we can deal with our own stuff. , "Yvonne" <aw621@o...> wrote: > > > What is it if people only think it's only love or honor involved? > > Oh, that would be naive, sure. But I would rather be naive and try to > appeal to the good side of human nature instead of being cynical and > assuming that everybody has evil motives. > > Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Thanx. I have read Gandhi's stuff and I am glad we agree on it. News just in from Washington: The US Supreme Court just refused to intervene to have the feeding tube reinserted. Thus the battle appears to be over, and the woman will die. Yvonne Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 24, 2005 Report Share Posted March 24, 2005 Namaste, Actually, I've gone ahead and let plants die by witholding water, sometimes consciously, sometimes unconsciously but generally there comes a time when the relationship, which may have been shaky already, comes to an end and plants really don't just move on by themselves. Oh sometimes you can pawn them off on someone else, but really, if you don't want it there's usually a reason and no one else will either. Most of the time. These days I may compost them if I'm ready to move on. It's better that way. The truth is I once just got out of hand making new philodendrons from the clippings of old ones because I couldn't bear to just throw away the long viney branches and they needed to be pruned back. I ended up with, like, two dozen philodendrons. Maybe more. It was overwhelming. It wasn't their fault, but something had to be done. I still have a few, like 3 or something. It's about life and life can really get away from you. Life is a force unto itself, and if it finds a place it will happen there. But I don't think that the Schaivo case is about life. I think it's about control. I think it's ironic that she got herself into this state by way of Bulimia and anyone that studies eating disorders will tell you that control is a big part of it. Struggling for absolute control. And rejecting forcefully the sustenance that keeps you really here. Now everybody is fighting for control over her...because she can't speak for herself. Completely helpless and in the process of starving to death, finally. Just bizarre. We can't pass a health care bill that guarantees access to basic medical services for the citizens of this country but we can make the machinery of government itself stand still to fight for control of one woman's fate. I don't know what she feels, I can only imagine. But I imagine I'd be ready to move on and start over. Of course, I'm someone who starves plants to death. Maybe not the best judge. Is there a Hindu Goddess in charge of body image? prainbow , "devi_bhakta" <devi_bhakta> wrote: > > Hi Eve_69: > > You asked, "Is there no life there? Where does life begin and where > does it end?" Yvonne asked, "What is a Hindu perspective? Is this > woman already dead or not? Has her soul moved on?" > > I will briefly explain the Hindu perspective as I understand it. I > trust that those with more or better knowledge will correct me if > I'm off target. > > The thing is (in answer to Eve's questions), There *is* life. In > fact, there is nothing else anywhere in the Cosmos. The Cosmos is a > single entity that science would call the universal quantum field, > and that we call Devi. As Devi, its nature is a constant state of > creation and destruction, amimated by Conciousness and motivated by > Love. > > Every object in the Universe may be understood as a kind of "spike" > or peak in this Cosmic field. Nothing is dead. Nothing is inanimate. > Gas, rocks, plants, animals, people -- all are manifestations of > Devi, and are therefore very much "made of" life. Everything is > simply existing at its own level of sentience -- i.e its own level > of more (or less) obstructed access to Pure Consciousness. (The > object of sadhana is ultimately, in fact, nothing more than a > systematic attempt to fully access and expand into this Pure > Consciousness. The process of sadhana, in its various forms, > steadily increases our level of sentience. > > SO: What has happened to this poor woman whom everyone is > discussing? But accidental injury, the physical container of her > soul has become a less effective vehicle of sentience. The > term "persistent vegetative state" is accurate in that sense: Her > sentience level is more like that of a plant now, rather than that > of a human being. But she is as alive as ever. > > In this case the devil is in the details, isn't it? It's undisputed > that this woman could go on living for many years. She does not need > a machine to keep her heart and brain working at a level that > supports existence. However at her impaired level of sentience, she > cannot eat or drink without help. The question is whether or not > this help should be withheld. As Shaktas, we value all life at > whatever level. It seems to me we should not purposely deny help to > any life that needs help. But here we cross from the broad belief > system to the way an individual human mind applies that belief > system -- so the rest of this is just my opinion, and you can feel > free to stop reading now if my opinion is of no particular interest > to you! *lol* > > I think this woman will be "dead" only when all brain activity > ceases. In the meantime, she is not suffering in some "limbo" of > half-dead souls or whatever, as Yvonne queried about. She is simply > existing at a lower level of sentience, like the pot of flowers in > the window, if you will. > > So what should you do: Push the flower pot out the window and let it > smash on the sidewalk below (assuming the plant would be the only > being harmed), killing it immediately? Stop watering and feeding it, > and let the plant and let it die slowly? Or keep watering and > feeding it indefinitely, 'til it dies of its own accord? > > I know that the various levels of discussion about this woman are > obscuring this issue: It has become a political question (are you a > conservative if you keep her alive? a liberal if you let her die?); > an economic question (is it worth the money to keep her in the > hospital?); a medical triage question (wouldn't the resources being > used to keep her alive be better spent on a patient with a better > chance of recovery?); a statistical question ("what are the odds > she'll ever come out of it?); a legal question (who has the legal > right to decide if she lives or dies, parents or hubby?). > > But for me the solution is in the plant-on-the-windowsill example. > My personal answer is, I'd keep watering and feeding it. Maybe I'm a > fool, but my mind says, "You are removing food and water from a > being who can not eat and drink by herself!" To me, it is almost > better to euthanize her. Why let her starve slowly? If she's to die, > kill her and get it over with, like any execution. Give her a lethal > injection, and let it be over in 20 seconds. Otherwise, you are > being a sort of coward -- choosing to omit decision when definitive > action is called for. It is simply not right to starve and dehydrate > her to death. > > DB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 25, 2005 Report Share Posted March 25, 2005 Hi First there are many theories, but at present condition she is not really dead. Breath in Yoga is life: If one is breathing, she is alive. If you look at a person gone into samadhi, you will see that the person in samadhi looks more dead than the girl who is 15 years brain dead. Well, here I mean to say that she is very much alive and can maybe feel but cannot express her feelings as her brain is not completely working. I pray for her to get back on her two feet and show the world that miracles do happen. OM namah shivayah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 First: Wow, the look of the message board has really changed! It's going to take me awhile to get used to this. It's not bad, but quite different. Next: I want to say that I really appreciate kapil kumar's viewpoint. Thank you for reminding us about the importance of the breath. Riffing on prainbow's earlier post about killing plants, I have a cactus that has some spots on it that are turning what was a beautiful little rainbow cap into a kind of ugly thing. It was occurring to me today as I looked at it, though, that if someone were to stare at the parts of me that could be deemed unwell by some (even me), they'd see only what made them uncomfortable, and might choose to get rid of me (like prainbow did with her plants). And, isn't that kind of what the Nazis did? They decided they didn't like certain people and traits so they set about destroying them. So, now I think if the money is there to care for Terry Schiavo, it should be used for that purpose and exhausted before pulling the tube is even considered. And I'm going to keep watering the cactus, keep sunning it, and see what happens. I already transplanted it. Maybe it will die; maybe it will live. If it becomes only disease-laden, then I will consider pulling its feeding tube and let the disease fight for its life without my help. , kapil kumar <kapilkumar20> wrote: > > Hi > > First there are many theories, but at present condition she is not really dead. Breath in Yoga is life: If one is breathing, she is alive. If you look at a person gone into samadhi, you will see that the person in samadhi looks more dead than the girl who is 15 years brain dead. > > Well, here I mean to say that she is very much alive and can maybe feel but cannot express her feelings as her brain is not completely working. > > I pray for her to get back on her two feet and show the world that miracles do happen. > > OM namah shivayah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2005 Report Share Posted March 26, 2005 I cannot even read this font. I really hate this "new" look. , "Mary Ann" <buttercookie61> wrote: > > First: Wow, the look of the message board has really changed! It's going to take me > awhile to get used to this. It's not bad, but quite different. > > Next: I want to say that I really appreciate kapil kumar's viewpoint. Thank you for > reminding us about the importance of the breath. > > Riffing on prainbow's earlier post about killing plants, I have a cactus that has some > spots on it that are turning what was a beautiful little rainbow cap into a kind of ugly > thing. It was occurring to me today as I looked at it, though, that if someone were to > stare at the parts of me that could be deemed unwell by some (even me), they'd see > only what made them uncomfortable, and might choose to get rid of me (like > prainbow did with her plants). And, isn't that kind of what the Nazis did? They > decided they didn't like certain people and traits so they set about destroying them. > > So, now I think if the money is there to care for Terry Schiavo, it should be used for > that purpose and exhausted before pulling the tube is even considered. > > And I'm going to keep watering the cactus, keep sunning it, and see what happens. I > already transplanted it. Maybe it will die; maybe it will live. If it becomes only > disease-laden, then I will consider pulling its feeding tube and let the disease fight for > its life without my help. > > > > > > , kapil kumar <kapilkumar20> wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > First there are many theories, but at present condition she is not really dead. > Breath in Yoga is life: If one is breathing, she is alive. If you look at a person gone > into samadhi, you will see that the person in samadhi looks more dead than the girl > who is 15 years brain dead. > > > > Well, here I mean to say that she is very much alive and can maybe feel but > cannot express her feelings as her brain is not completely working. > > > > I pray for her to get back on her two feet and show the world that miracles do > happen. > > > > OM namah shivayah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.