Canyon Country Zephyr page 5

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

EDITOR'S NOTE: If The Zephyr had never discussed the issues ofover consumption and overpopulation before, regardless of age, race, color or creed, Ms. Drakopulos' criticism might carry more weight. But since this has been an ongoing mantra for most of The Zephyr's 21 years, I think the story mentioned by Ms. Drakopulos (FEB/MAR 2010), is simply one chapter of a much larger story.....JS

MORE ON "OBLIGATIONS"

ON FEBRUARY'S "OBLIGATIONS OF DEATH MUST BE OBSERVED"

Dear Editor Stiles,

Leave it to the Zephyr to bring up a topic as controversial and politically incorrect as your essay in the February/March issue about "the obligations of death." I do remember when Governor Lamm threw himself into the middle of that fray and I hope you fare better. It's a subject that is wrapped in so many shades of grey that it is difficult to say definitively who is right and who is wrong.

My mother fought cancer for a decade. She endured three long bouts with the disease which included disfiguring surgery, painful chemo-therapy that created side-effects that seemed worse than the disease, and after all that, the cancer came back again and killed her in six weeks.

Was it worth it to her or to us? I could give you different answers on different days. Ultimately it should be the choice of the patient. Unfortunately, laws that prevent us from choosing to end our own suffering (not to mention the pain inflicted on friends and families), while we can do the "humane" decision for our pets, has taken that choice away.

So, I don't know, Stiles. But thanks for giving us something to think about.

Dear Stiles,

I'd like to begin by thanking you for writing this piece. You have once again succeeded in pointing out the elephant in the room. Our culture's fear of (and obsession with) death is certainly worth examining and leaves one to question its implications for the direction our society is heading in.

That being said, I think you are ignoring the bigger picture. You commented, "When advances in medicine can restore health and vitality, it is extraordinary; when it merely extends the date of death, is it still worthy of our praise?" This suggests that advances in medicine can be accomplished without the desire or even the end goal of extending the date of death. Even if it ends up being our downfall, it is this instinctual desire to prolong life that has fueled medical advancement. I'm not implying that the current trend is the only logical outcome but simply suggesting that our own self-importance has, for better or worse, driven our ability to "restore health and vitality".

Additionally, you are framing the issue in terms of natural resource depletion. Are our increasing life spans detrimental to the future of the planet at our current rates of consumption? Absolutely. But... your article suggests you only take issue with those already on their deathbed merely adding a few weeks or months to the expiration date. Do you really believe these are the individuals that are sucking our planet dry? Financially perhaps, but in terms of actual resource consumption I would be more inclined to blame those of us who are reasonably healthy.

Sincerely, Robert Hobel Denver, CO

CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE

Kind regards, Lauren Drakopulos Sarasota, FL

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>


	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>

	EDITOR'S NOTE: If The Zephyr had never discussed the issues ofover consumption and overpopulation before, regardless of age, race, color or creed, Ms. Drakopulos' criticism might carry more weight. But since this has been an ongoing mantra for most of The Zephyr's 21 years, I think the story mentioned by Ms. Drakopulos (FEB/MAR 2010), is simply one chapter of a much larger story.....JS MORE ON "OBLIGATIONS" ON FEBRUARY'S "OBLIGATIONS OF DEATH MUST BE OBSERVED" Dear Editor Stiles, Leave it to the Zephyr to bring up a topic as controversial and politically incorrect as your essay in the February/March issue about "the obligations of death." I do remember when Governor Lamm threw himself into the middle of that fray and I hope you fare better. It's a subject that is wrapped in so many shades of grey that it is difficult to say definitively who is right and who is wrong. My mother fought cancer for a decade. She endured three long bouts with the disease which included disfiguring surgery, painful chemo-therapy that created side-effects that seemed worse than the disease, and after all that, the cancer came back again and killed her in six weeks. Was it worth it to her or to us? I could give you different answers on different days. Ultimately it should be the choice of the patient. Unfortunately, laws that prevent us from choosing to end our own suffering (not to mention the pain inflicted on friends and families), while we can do the "humane" decision for our pets, has taken that choice away. So, I don't know, Stiles. But thanks for giving us something to think about. Dear Stiles, I'd like to begin by thanking you for writing this piece. You have once again succeeded in pointing out the elephant in the room. Our culture's fear of (and obsession with) death is certainly worth examining and leaves one to question its implications for the direction our society is heading in. That being said, I think you are ignoring the bigger picture. You commented, "When advances in medicine can restore health and vitality, it is extraordinary; when it merely extends the date of death, is it still worthy of our praise?" This suggests that advances in medicine can be accomplished without the desire or even the end goal of extending the date of death. Even if it ends up being our downfall, it is this instinctual desire to prolong life that has fueled medical advancement. I'm not implying that the current trend is the only logical outcome but simply suggesting that our own self-importance has, for better or worse, driven our ability to "restore health and vitality". Additionally, you are framing the issue in terms of natural resource depletion. Are our increasing life spans detrimental to the future of the planet at our current rates of consumption? Absolutely. But... your article suggests you only take issue with those already on their deathbed merely adding a few weeks or months to the expiration date. Do you really believe these are the individuals that are sucking our planet dry? Financially perhaps, but in terms of actual resource consumption I would be more inclined to blame those of us who are reasonably healthy. Sincerely, Robert Hobel Denver, CO CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE Kind regards, Lauren Drakopulos Sarasota, FL

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>