Medical 'advancements' and marriage.

HuntingMan · #21 22nd June 2008, 02:07 AM

Also, I do see this in the OP.

Please dont add or subtract details from what is actually being presented here, or build any straw man arguments instead.

I guess that was too complicated a request.

HuntingMan · #22 22nd June 2008, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Yona

I believe you are bound to your spouse until they have a death certificate, brain dead or not. Through sickness and in health.

If I were to ever marry, I would want my spouse to stay true to me even if I was brain dead, and I would stay true to them if they were. Anything else would be sinful, and I would never want my spouse to do something sinful.

I disagree, but thanks for the response

Crazy Liz · #23 22nd June 2008, 02:14 AM

Now it's a lot easier. Brain dead is dead.

However, if my spouse were to remarry during the few hours that might pass between brain death and disconnecting the machines, I think just about everybody would consider that pretty odd and insensitive. I'd rather he at least wait until after my funeral.

HuntingMan · #24 22nd June 2008, 02:17 AM

Originally Posted by Crazy Liz

Now it's a lot easier. Brain dead is dead.

Given the details, it was easy from the start. Oddly, a couple other posters managed to get it figured out easily enough.

Frankly Liz, I like it better when I dont have to read your posts that seem to constantly be trying to cause confusion wherever Im posting.
Dont take this the wrong way, its not you, its me....but its best if I just put you back on ignore and leave you there.
Feel free to respond in any way to any silly thing I say tho

IndomitableAmy · #25 22nd June 2008, 02:38 AM

HuntingMan, you will not yell at me.

I initially did respond to the opening post and within its guidelines. Then further restrictions were given.

In the post for which you yelled at me, I simply answered the direct question "Is it not 'death' if the body is still alive even if it WOULD die if not for the machinery sustaining it ?" If we were to define death as the inability to live without being sustained by machinery, this would have far-reaching consequences. I did not stray from your question. If your question strayed from the subject, I do not see it as my problem.

By "for you, perhaps", I meant only that perhaps it seems that way to you so for you is it [like that]. I in no way meant to imply you're a woman.

At the last, I only suggest alternatives to redefining death, other solutions to this problem you see. Redefining death is not the only way.

HuntingMan · #26 22nd June 2008, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by IndomitableAmy

HuntingMan, you will not yell at me.

I apologize for it seeming that way.
Actually when I use caps its meant only to highlight. I keep forgetting that that is taken as yelling sometimes since Ive done it for so long. Ive been trying more to use bolding and underlining more often.

I initially did respond to the opening post and within its guidelines. Then further restrictions were given.

The other further 'restrictions' that were given was the black part in question 1. >(REGARDLESS of how it occurred)
The second question was added but that didnt add any restrictions.

In the post for which you yelled at me,

Again, see above. No 'yelling' was intended. I simply dont think about highlighting as yelling as many do unless a whole section of type is all caps and exclamations are used, but it is something Im trying to adjust more often lately

I simply answered the direct question "Is it not 'death' if the body is still alive even if it WOULD die if not for the machinery sustaining it ?" If we were to define death as the inability to live without being sustained by machinery, this would have far-reaching consequences. I did not stray from your question. If your question strayed from the subject, I do not see it as my problem.

Actually, I never wanted to the question to stray from the clear wording of the OP.
Someone took 'coma' in the second question added later and ran with it instead of reading the OP and understanding that I was ONLY asking the question from those of a certain viewpoint and that NO alterations were to be made to the questions at all.

At the last, I only suggest alternatives to redefining death, other solutions to this problem you see. Redefining death is not the only way.

the definition of "death" was redefined, again, the moment they figured out a way to keep a brain dead body alive thus keeping a woman "married" who believes in marriage until death even if the brain is dead but the body still 'lives' ..

Joykins · #27 23rd June 2008, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by HuntingMan

As an additional question;
2. Speaking now today to your spouse, would you ask them to remain UNmarried as long as your body was alive, or would you want them to remarry if they felt the need to, if you were deemed as being brain dead (obviously this is hypothetical, but a response is not impossible).

.

I have already told my husband to not keep me alive by machines if I'm as good as dead. After my death I would want him to wait at least long enough not to scandalize the children before remarrying, but I would want him to remarry and be happy if that is what it takes.

Joykins · #28 23rd June 2008, 12:28 AM

I want to add to the scenario a bit because I think I heard of this actually happening...and it's what I would have wanted given the scenario: brain dead pregnant women kept on life support until the baby is delivered.

In this case I would not want the spouse to remarry until I was off the machine and the baby delivered.

HuntingMan · #29 23rd June 2008, 01:21 AM

Sounds very self-less Joykins.

Joykins · #30 23rd June 2008, 01:24 AM

By the time I am brain-dead I will have made the poor man miserable long enough

, he deserves to be happy after I am gone.