Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ns-mx!iowasp!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!bunker!hcap!hnews!10!475.0!Jim.Rankin
From: Jim.Rankin@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.org (Jim Rankin)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: Euthanasia
Message-ID: <10729@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 90 19:41:17 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Jim.Rankin@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:10/475.0 - Nightingale BBS, San Francisco CA
Lines: 30
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 7232

      The issues you raise are indeed complex ones, so far 
as human suffering is concerned, and no one wishes to be 
cavalier on that level.  However, no real inquiry into the 
meaning of human suffering -- if any -- ever seems to go on.

      That is not what occasioned this response in passing, 
however.  Rather, it bothers me to hear views discussed as 
"liberal" and "conservative" and just about everything in 
between.  I know nothing particularly "liberal" about 
euthanasia.

      A little thought as to its use in the past -- forced, 
or otherwise -- is worth considering.

      And euthanasia ("good death") has a very different 
meaning in this hedonistic age than it did in the past -- 
when it was discussed almost daily in terms of dying at 
peace with God and with life itself ("at peace with the 
world" whether suffering-free or not).

      Strange, how people think they change, but ideas 
remain essentially the same: plus ca change, plus ca reste 
meme.  (Sorry about the lack of proper diacritical marks -- 
this is not a European keyboard.)

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!10!475.0!Jim.Rankin
Internet: Jim.Rankin@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.org