Letters to the Editor
-
dataguyx...
My grandmother wasn't merely senile, forgetful, etc.--as I said, for several years at the end of her life, she was in much the state Ashley was: diapered, unable to hold the weight of her own head unassisted, fed only liquid food, unable to talk, etc. She certainly wasn't the same Grandma I knew growing up. But if she wasn't a human, albeit a very sick and helpless human, what had she become? She certainly wasn't a dead body. (BTW--she had a living will. There was to be no CPR etc. What the nurses did for her at the end was basically the care you'd give to an infant, plus pain relief.)
This is an oversimplification of things, but I've found that those that argue for euthanasia fall into two main categories: those that argue that candidates for euthanasia are not really human beings, and those that argue that candidates for euthanasia ARE human beings, but that societal burdens of caring for these people etc. are enough to justify the act. (IMHO, the first one is more insidious--this was the justification for the euthanasia of the mentally retarded and mentally ill under the Nazi regime.)
It's interesting that you ask about the possible purpose of the life of the retarded guy at your church. Out of curiousity, may I ask which denomination? Pretty much all of the major religions--regardless of their stance on euthanasia--teach that just because the meaning and purpose of a given situation is incomprehensible to us does not mean that the situation is devoid of meaning and purpose.