"rtk" wrote in message ...


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

No, you don't have it straight. But then, I would never expect you to.
Obviously if you can't tell the difference between a dog, a puppy, a fish, and
your mother, then chances are you don't have any business caring for any of the
above.