george wrote:
When it came to her last
week, she refused to eat, and her will did not allow a feeding tube nor an IV
for hydration after she had lost consciousness. All we could so was watch her
waste away. Which is worse? Watching that happen to your mother, or allowing a
near-death fish to suffocate in a few hours? You tell me.


Let's see now if I got this straight. My fish is going belly up, full
of white fuzz and all the other fish are beginning to take bites at it.
Of course it doesn't feel a thing, doesn't mind because - you suggest
- it's small, like for example a little puppy which of course doesn't
feel pain because dogs are so much bigger. At this point I remove my
fish and I ask myself about my mother's health. I then balance the
possiblility of allowing the mother to waste away or of painlessly
killing the fish. Is this what you're suggesting? If I come out on the
side of my mother, then I take a bite out of the fish? Or what? I must
admit the quandary you propose doesn't lend itself to the decision
making process as I understand it. I thought we were discussing the
quickest, easiest on the fish, way to end its slow death, but you seem
to be saying that suffocation of the fish over a period of a few hours
will somehow prolong the lives of our mothers.

Ruth Kazez