If something can be fixed or cured you fix/cure it. If you are going to die from your injury or illness then that is a different story. Your broken bone wasn't going to kill you and does not relate in anyway what these people are going through.
Terminally ill 29-year-old woman plans to take her own life on Nov. 1
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
Abortion should be banned. Such a barbarity should not be allowed in the 21st Century.
You got to be careful, sometimes there are real risks to the woman's life. Remember," there is an exception to every rule"
How funny....on the pain scale a broken bone is way down there. My mum broke both hips, collar bone, wrist and humerus. With the colles fracture of the wrist (displaced), she waited two days before we convinced her it was really broken!! Now my dad died of generalized cancer and there was no comparison to his pain. He was semi-conscious in the last days and even with all the drugs they could give him, he writhed in pain.
Good thing your prayer wasn't answered eh?? Never came across a parent who put down their child because of a broken bone.
Kids are actually better at dealing with pain than an elderly person (although they may whine a little more) but with an elder, a broken femur is not something to be taken lightly- a large percentage do not survive a broken femur.
Grow a womb and then you can decide.
I am almost 100% convinced that past a certain age something is going to take you and there is truly no such thing as dying of old age, just complications and disease.
My grandmother had several bouts of different types of cancer at various stages of her life. Stomach cancer, they removed part of her stomach, she was fine spent approx 20 yrs cancer free. Skin cancer (she was a ginger) they removed that, she was fine, spent approx 20 years cancer free. At age of 92 she developed breast cancer, double mastectomy but it metastisized to her lungs. She passed away at 94.
LOL....Guess who, if reincarnation is real, comes back as a woman in a place where they are expected to produce a child every year....YOU.
Well, she certainly had a full life and I bet she had some character too!
Boy! Not only are you an authority on abortions and guns but you are a clairvoyant too!
You and Cannuck should team up, between the two of you there would be a wealth of wisdom! -
LOL.......Since I worked in an ED for 30 years, I did pick up a bit on abortions. As far as guns go, I only saw the wounds. Not nice but memorable.Well, she certainly had a full life and I bet she had some character too!
Boy! Not only are you an authority on abortions and guns but you are a clairvoyant too!
You and Cannuck should team up, between the two of you there would be a wealth of wisdom! -
As far as clairvoyance goes, everyone has some and a few occasionally use it. Time is like a river, sometimes one can actually move forward, like remembering backwards.....Unfortunately, since we are creatures of free choice, and we do tend to change our choices fairly often we tend to see the most likely results of a scenario until any event actually happens. In other words, nothing is as it seems the most unlikely things can intervene.
There are alternatives out there for treatment that might save her life. Unfortunately, they're not covered by insurance which makes them really expensive. There's a doctor in Texas who has quite a good history of curing stage 4 brain cancer using wholistic medicine. It's too bad she's taken this route. Maybe by using (what's the term when you ask people to raise money for a cause)....anyway, if she could raise the funds to be sent to the clinic, she may well be able to save her life. She's far too young to give up yet.
JMHO
JMHO
I whole heartedly agree with you while others wouldn't! As I mentioned to someone else awhile back, read up on Richard Bloch. BUT we have to remember too, it is her life and she's allowed to make that decision.
Aren't you assuming that she hasn't already investigated all the possibilities? She may well have and assessed the risks and then made her decision. Honestly, I don't dispute alternative treatments, I do think there are many out there that can do a lot of good (and some out there that are practiced by charlatans and scam artists too) but one thing that makes me wary is any 'doctor' using the word 'cure' along with 'stage 4 cancer'. Cancer does not get cured....cancer goes into remission.
Absolutely
Since it's HER life, I'm pretty certain she would have viewed all of the options and risks involved.
We all know someone who "beat the odds"
If that was the norm, it would not be considered "beating the odds".
Would you take the option of assisted death from her?
The whole 'dying with dignity' issue is a really fine line for me, but it's one that I think needs to be out and in the open so that it leaves little to no doubt in anyone's mind that the choice being made is a carefully considered one. Just to be really clear, my position is one based upon those who have been given a terminal diagnosis. Where medical science is just not adept enough yet to reasonably prevent death from occurring, where the quality of that life and the unbearable pain associated with it's end is intolerable. It is about end of life care.
Do I wish a 29 year old woman could enjoy more time with her family, could take the time to explore as many options as possible? Of course I do. Who wouldn't? But until we reach a consensus on end of life care where we can be completely assured that once we reach a point where continued existence is completely intolerable (predetermined when we are of sound mind, a living will) and that assistance to end our suffering will be rendered, we are left forcing people to choose to end their existence early, when it can be done by their own hand.
We do this for our pets but we won't do it for our loved ones. And that is sickening.
Do I wish a 29 year old woman could enjoy more time with her family, could take the time to explore as many options as possible? Of course I do. Who wouldn't? But until we reach a consensus on end of life care where we can be completely assured that once we reach a point where continued existence is completely intolerable (predetermined when we are of sound mind, a living will) and that assistance to end our suffering will be rendered, we are left forcing people to choose to end their existence early, when it can be done by their own hand.
We do this for our pets but we won't do it for our loved ones. And that is sickening.
Cancer: Cure vs. Remission - Dr. Z's Medical Report
Complete remission means that there are no symptoms and no signs that can be identified to indicate the presence of cancer. However, even when a person is in remission, there may be microscopic collections of cancer cells that cannot be identified by current techniques. This means that even if a person is in remission, they may, at some future time, experience a recurrence of their cancer.
Partial remission means that a large percentage of the signs and symptoms of cancer are gone, but some still remain. Complete remission would therefore be better than partial remission because with partial remission the chances of recurrence are higher.
Doctors will sometimes refer to 5-year cure rate or a 10- or more year cure rate. What they really mean by this is a 5- or more year remission rate. The longer the remission time lasts, the greater the possibility that the cancer actually has been cured, but there are cases of cancer recurrence many, many years after remission begins. So if the doctor says there is a 95 percent 5-year cure/remission rate for a particular cancer, it means that after five years, 95 percent of people with that cancer will still be in remission (meaning that you have an extremely high likelihood of not having a recurrence for at least five years). With people living longer and longer, doctors can now often give remission rates for 10, 15 or even 20 years. In many ways, the approach to most cancer treatment is to make it a chronic disease that lasts for many years.
So can we ever really talk about a cancer cure? In general, the answer is no
Complete remission means that there are no symptoms and no signs that can be identified to indicate the presence of cancer. However, even when a person is in remission, there may be microscopic collections of cancer cells that cannot be identified by current techniques. This means that even if a person is in remission, they may, at some future time, experience a recurrence of their cancer.
Partial remission means that a large percentage of the signs and symptoms of cancer are gone, but some still remain. Complete remission would therefore be better than partial remission because with partial remission the chances of recurrence are higher.
Doctors will sometimes refer to 5-year cure rate or a 10- or more year cure rate. What they really mean by this is a 5- or more year remission rate. The longer the remission time lasts, the greater the possibility that the cancer actually has been cured, but there are cases of cancer recurrence many, many years after remission begins. So if the doctor says there is a 95 percent 5-year cure/remission rate for a particular cancer, it means that after five years, 95 percent of people with that cancer will still be in remission (meaning that you have an extremely high likelihood of not having a recurrence for at least five years). With people living longer and longer, doctors can now often give remission rates for 10, 15 or even 20 years. In many ways, the approach to most cancer treatment is to make it a chronic disease that lasts for many years.
So can we ever really talk about a cancer cure? In general, the answer is no