Quality of Life is More than Just Interacting

We might never solve this -- until we master the art of reading minds.

Do we let the living dead live? No, I'm not talking about those who crawl out of the graves on Halloween. I'm talking about the brain dead, those in the vegetative state, and those in long-term comas.

Do we let them live, or as it is expressed so often, do we "allow" them to die? (As if we are doing them a favor by sending them to their deaths)

Living wills partially answer the question. If a person sets it in their will that they want to be taken off life support when they can no longer interact with us, should be always honor that wish?

I mean, always, 'cause sure as death might seem ideal way at one point, once it gets right up and in our face, we might be saying, "Hey, hold off, here. I'm having some real second thoughts."

They say "Give me death" at one point, but "Give me liberty" later.

They say, "Hey, this isn't all so bad, after all. I can't communicate with anyone, and my thought process is greatly diminished, but still, I enjoy life as it is and have decided I do want to stick around."

Only thing is, their ticket has already been punched -- and they are the ones who punched it, if they signed that living will.

Somewhere in mankind's time frame, we started using the term, "quality of life." We decided quality of life is not only important, but if a person is in a vegetative state, they lack quality of life and most likely would be glad to be let go, so yank those respirators, feeding tubes, and lifelines.

But in actuality, living in a coma might not be all so bad. Living in a vegetative state (which is defined as a state of partial mental arousal, but not true awareness -- a state of severe mental injury) might not be so awfully terrible.

Kind of like sleeping ain't all so bad. There've been times in my life when I've thought nothing could be better than to just sleep and sleep and sleep, dreaming a little here and there and just chillin' in a make-believe world.

Wonderful, even.

So, since it is that we can't read minds -- never did quite get that one down --  just how do we know whether these people are having  "quality" lives? Quality of life shouldn't be judged by whether others can interact with us, but by whether we, ourselves, are enjoying dreaming, or listening in on a world around us when everyone thinks we aren't.
.

A Great Nation is a Civil Nation

One of the wisest men who ever lived, that Rodney King.

"Can't we all just get along?" I may not have the exact verbage of his quote, but that is probably close to word perfect.

I only caught snippets of the Republican convention, I mean, a sentence here and a sentence there. But, it was enough to feel the hatred. Why, I ask, is this necessary? Is there suppose to be something inherent in the democratic process that requires people to divide into two camps and bicker and spit at each other?

Because, I don't think vindictiveness and hatred become a great nation, not a godly one.

Is it possible for a nation to exist without this? Is it possible for a people to be so good, even in the political arena, they treat each other respectfully? I don't mean that they shouldn't point out each other's faults when there is genuine concern to be made. If there is evidence Bain Capital rode companies into the ground while the executives received dividends, let's talk about it. It would be wonderful, though, if those news stories all contained Romney's responses. And, it would be wonderful if the tone of the articles and discussions was more searching in nature than accusatory? (I mean searching for Romney's explanation when I say searching.)

Let a great nation exist, one that is inquisitive of its own flaws, but not spiteful and spitting and up in arms, everyone against each other.

'How Great Thou Art' Greatest Hymn Ever

I looked around the room, while the song was being sung, to see two or three people dabbing their eyes.

"How Great Thou Art," the greatest hymn ever written.

I remember once speaking to a friend, about the Holy Ghost or some such. I believe I mentioned to him that "How Great Thou Art" showed that people of all faiths can feel the Holy Ghost, for it was the greatest hymn ever, and yet it was not written nor composed by a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

He was quick to put me in line, suggesting there are a number of hymns just as great as "How Great Thou Art" that have been written by members of our faith. I took that correction then, but today as I listened to the song, and saw the wet eyes of the people in the room . . .

I thought, No, "How Great Thou Art" is the greatest hymn ever.

Among other songs I like a lot, and perhaps the one I consider the next greatest: "Lead, Kindly Light." Hmm. I'm fudging already. The first verse of "Lead, Kindly Light," does touch me about as much as "How Great Thou Art."

But, I don't remember ever seeing "Lead, Kindly Light" cause people to tear up, as I have with "How Great Thou Art."

Heat is Essential for Living

Food, water, sleep, and air to breathe: the things we need in order to stay alive.

But, perhaps there is at least one more that we don't class with them that we should: heat. I thought of this one as I stood in the shower, the warm water coursing over my body. At times, the showers seem as if they are almost rejuvinating my body, as if they are having about the same effect that a little sleep has. Perhaps, perhaps not, but, at any rate, it is clear we will die if we do not have heat, if it is too cold, we freeze.

So, I say consider heat transfer to be something the body needs on a regular basis, same as food, water, sleep and air.

Rights of Unborn Cannot be Swept off Table

The argument of our day, in favor of abortion, is that women have the right to control there bodies.

It is good to consider the rights of the mother, but how can we refuse to even consider the right of the unborn? The right of the unborn that is in question is the right to live. We cannot -- simply cannot -- say that that is not something even under consideration, that it is not even on the table, that the only issue here is solely the rights of the mother, and that the rights of the child have nothing to do with anything.

Fetus has Brain Three Weeks in, so Let it Live

They would question the intelligence of the unborn, they would.

A pig has more intelligence, one posted posted as we debated on Facebook. He argued that it does not matter whether the fetus has a heartbeat as early as 18 days in, it (make that he or she) has no right to life if it cannot think.

But, truth be told, the baby's brain is also developing just three weeks in.

At birth, the baby's brain contains about 100 billion neurons, virtually all it will need for the rest of its life. Do not say that this has happened just right before birth. Just four weeks from conception, the neurons are being created at an astonishing rate, a quarter of a million each minute.

The question becomes then, not whether the fetus has a brain, but whether it is operable. If the fetus is thinking, then of course it is living. Another Facebook poster provided a link saying neurological activity (electrical activity) can be detected as early as 22 weeks in. Supposing brain waves mean thinking, then, a baby surely should not be aborted after 22 weeks.

But, do we know no thoughts are occurring unless electrical activity is present? Do we know that? Because, if we are wrong, then we are taking the life of a child. If the brain is developing just three weeks conception, perhaps some forms of thought are also forming.

Do we say, perhaps, but not enough? There may be thoughts, but the brain activity is not adequate enough to call the fetus a human? Forbid that, if among those already born, we took life away from those we judged to not have enough intelligence. Why would it be any different with the unborn? Why should we take their lives because their intelligence is not considered adequate?

Is Cancer Not Considered an Emergency?

I'm left to wonder if cancer is not considered an emergency, if it is left out of the practice of rushing same-day treatment and care to a person whose life is on the line.

If a person's heart fails them, we rush them to the hospital. I had a friend tell me of being life flighted to the hospital for a rare muscle or skin disease. We spare no expense when life is on the line, not expecting insurance to be in place before the life is saved . . .

Except when it comes to cancer. Or, so it seems to me.

Oh, there are times when cancer is detected just in time, and patient is rushed through treatment just in time. But, as a practice, not so. The practice is more along the lines of the cancer being suspected, maybe even diagnosed, and then they schedule a ultrasound, then schedule a biopsy, then wait for the biopsy results, and then wait for the insurance to approve the treatment.

While patients wait for treatment, they sometimes die. Family and friends lament that the cancer was not discovered earlier, in time to save their loved one, but they should be more attentive to how long it took from the time cancer was suspected to when treatment took place -- or was scheduled to take place.

It takes weeks, sometimes.

I think of a lady who was told she had one of two forms of cancer, and that one of them was very treatable. She ended up with the "very treatable" form, but by the time doctors got around to treatment, her condition had spiraled down.

Why, I ask, could not the ultrasound, biopsy, and first treatment have been achieved within a day? Isn't that emergency care, doing everything you can to save a life as quickly as possible, not on a scheduled basis, but on an emergency basis?

When death lurks at the doorstep, don't we usually hospitalize the patient, so they can be watched and given every medical advantage? Kidney failure? I've had a friend hospitalized through his final week on earth while having kidney failure. While it was perhaps a foregone conclusion he would die, they took him in and monitored him till his death.

But, it does not seem common to hospitalize a person for cancer before the time of the treatment. It does not seem common to rush them to the hospital for treatment the day the cancer is suspected. Why would they be? If the treatment is to be done on a scheduled basis, and not on an emergency time table, why have them just sit in the hospital waiting? Nothing can be done until the point of treatment, and if the treatment isn't immediate, but rather is days or weeks away, why have them just pass time in the hospital awaiting the day of treatment?

I say the treatment should be immediate. People die while waiting for treatment. This should not be acceptable.