Reminders: As you respond to your class’s post, review the expectations for thoughtful, valuable, and timely communication outlined in the “Discussion Forum Rubric.” Additionally, even though you are only responsible for responding to your assigned topic, we will use all four posted topics in our class discussion; prepare accordingly.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Narration Discussion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that God exists, however, I disagree that God has huge influence over a person's life. My idea on determination of life rests on decisions and feelings. My faith and decisions do not lie within religion. In Huttmann's "A Crime of Compassion", the author based her decision on a religious idea because she felt that she was “meddling in God’s work”. While a human life is precious, I find resuscitation appalling in Mac’s case. The doctors saw that Mac was dying a painful death yet they still went ahead and rejuvenated him. I cannot understand why the doctors did not listen to Mac’s pleas to let him die. I feel that I’m leaning more towards author’s decision because it is extremely painful to watch a person die a slow and agonizing death. Despite Huttmann’s argument, my personal belief prevents me from taking sides because a decision of artificially sustaining human life in agony cannot be justified by “playing[ing] God” or “meddling in God’s work”. Every individual has a right to make their own decisions, including whether they wish to live or not. I believe the author made a correct decision to put the patient, Mac, out of his misery. Nevertheless, I disagree with the author attributing existence to God. “A Crime of Compassion” supported my stance on resuscitation. If I was in the author’s shoes, I would have listened to my feelings and pleas of the patient and allowed Mac to finally rest in peace.
ReplyDeleteI think that by creating artificial life, and stopping people from death humans have come to play the role of God. Huttmann helps to solidify my view on the topic when she describes the condition that Mac was forced (by the doctors that revived him time and time again)to live in. Mac suffered many pains that Huttmann describes in paragraph 7. These would not have hurt him if he had died when he was intended to die. These effects that he had to live through were results of his body dying but his mind still living. I believe however that once the mind completely dies with the body, like his did 52 times, than God has a reason for that one life ending. Issaiah 55:8 states "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways my ways." Mac and his family, including Huttmann, undertstood that it was past Mac's time to die. However I believe that the doctors did not understand the reason he was dying, because all they could understand was that they had the power to revive him. They did not see a reason for him to die when they has a reason for him to live. I disagree with Elina in that I believe that God should have an influence over a person's decisions, but i do agree with her thought that Huttmann did make the right decision.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the ability to prolong life is a gift, and it should not be ignored. If we have the means to cure disease then by all means let’s use them. I believe in God and I think that the science we have today is directly connected to his will, I don’t think that man came up with this ability on his own. Huttmann’s work did remind me, however, that we cannot abuse the gift that was granted to us. Taking a concept too far is undoubtedly recognized in her reflection of Mac. He was suffering, in his case there was no hope, he had an INCURABLE disease. I think that in relation to this individual and this situation what she did was indeed “A Crime of Compassion.” I especially liked how she ended her piece, “We do not have the right to die.” This is such a strong statement. It reminds me of the Declaration of Independence, “They [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It almost seems to me that the Declaration is missing exactly what Huttmann said, “The right to die.” Mac pleaded with Huttmann, he begged to be free of his agony, he begged for his right to die. I agree with Sarah Beth and Elina, Huttmann was exactly right in her actions to end Mac's life.
ReplyDeleteFor me, Huttman's use of God in her narrative represents something more like the laws of nature. Due to the fact that the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, I do not feel like I can accurately make a decision on how resuscitating Mac interfered or assisted in exercising the will of God. However, I do believe that humans have free will (whether it is given by God or not), and that this free will will is too often abused. Those who definitely believe in God are likely to argue that humans can interfere with His will as much as they wish, but in the end He will always win. I feel the same way about nature. Even when humans interfere or oppose the laws of nature, nature will always reign supreme. Every person must die at some point; it is inevitable. Therefore, if someone dies I do not believe he or she should ever be resuscitated because even if resuscitation is successful, the person will still die in the end. Everyone understands that the world existed first without such life-saving technology. Whether the creation of the world is the direct result of God's existence or not, it does not matter, because either way it was created in such a way that people could continue to thrive and exist. The use of life-saving technology convinces me that humans may be meddling with the way the world is meant to work. Huttman's description of Mac's wife, Maura, is what persuaded me the most to take my stance against resuscitating Mac. Not only is the continuation of Mac's life inflicting physical pain on Mac, it also has mental and emotional effects on his wife. It is my personal belief that because death is a natural, inevitable occurrence, it is not meant to be avoided and the process of dying should not inflict so much harm on others.
ReplyDeleteI feel like both sides of the argument, whether stopping or sustaining someone's life, present ways of "meddling in God's work" (par. 2). God has a reason for everything he does; because we are only human beings, we should not interfere with his plans. Proverbs 3:5 says, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." We must simply put our faith in Him, because He knows what is best. I personally believe, however, that God put this type of technology in our lives for a reason, as Elizabeth stated. If we have the knowledge to prolong a person's life, why not use it to our advantage? But there is a time and place when resuscitation deems itself necessary and the right thing to do; and Mac's case is not one of these. Mac had already been resuscitated fifty-two times, and now lives every waking moment in agony. According to "The Right to Refuse Treatment Act" from the American Journal of Public Health, "common law and the United States Constitution protect an individual's right to refuse medical treatment." We should not keep people, like Mac, alive against their will.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who does not believe in God, I do not find it fair to label resuscitating (or not resuscitating) a life as “meddling in God’s work.” I do believe that resuscitation is completely ethical in some cases. In Mac’s case, however, it was only cruel to repeatedly resuscitate him. Although Huttmann presents both sides of the argument, her descriptions of Mac’s transformation from a “young, witty, macho cop” to a “sixty-pound skelton” who could not “do the slightest thing for himself” makes the reader feel that her decision was completely moral and natural. She describes the results of Mac’s bedridden existence including, “saliva [that] drooled from his mouth,” “big craters of bed sores,” and “feces that burned his skin like lye.” These images almost left me begging for death for Mac. In addition to Huttmann’s descriptions of Mac’s sufferings, she includes a quote from Mac: “Pain…no more…Barbara…do something…God, let me go.” Mac pleads for death himself. Considering Mac’s suffering and the consent given by both him and his wife, Huttmann makes the right decision, and in this case she is not “playing God” because, in this stage of Mac’s treatment, it is completely unnatural to keep Mac alive, and I do not think God would encourage his suffering.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this selection, we are challenged to take a position between science and religion. But, it does not have to be this way. There are not two sides to this argument, but rather a plethora of individual cases that must be looked at separately and fairly; once they are examined, we can make a decision based on our own set of moral, religious, and legal standards. While I would never want to take a life away, I realize that in some cases this is the more "morally correct" thing to do because it erases suffering. What Huttman does is not so much a CRIME of compassion, but rather an ACT of compassion. She is trying to put a dying, pain-riddled man and his family out of misery. By letting him die, she actually gives life back to his family because they no longer have to see him suffering. I personally believe that God put technology on this earth to help His children, leading to my conclusion that it should be used to our best advantage. But, resuscitating fifty-two times is an extreme use of technology that hurt more than it helped. Is it moral to torture someone past sanity? Is it moral to keep someone in agony? Is it moral to make their family watch? Is it moral to refuse the last wishes of a person? Is it moral to push a person past physical limits because we are afraid? Afraid of our own actions and of our own passiveness. Afraid to do something or to not do anything at all. Afraid that others will look and not understand. But sometimes, if we push past these fears, we will commit an act of compassion.
ReplyDeleteThough I understand both sides of the argument of God’s role in life and death, I feel like for the situation of Huttmann in “A Crime of Compassion”, sustaining Mac’s life artificially was to the extreme that it was “meddling in God’s work.” Though, as a human race, we have progressed to the point where we can extend life in a positive way, at the extent to which the specified medical team was performing resuscitation, “fifty-two times in just one month” (par. 3), they were simply delaying the inevitable. Huttmann made the right choice in choosing to end Mac’s life. To begin with, I believe that everyone has the right, to a certain extreme, to die. Though a person’s own choice to quit living is an essential part in the decision, a person suffering from a fatal illness is likely to be depressive, so one must consider other factors as well. In Mac’s case, life seemed to have become a mass of suffering. He lost the “ability to do the slightest thing for himself” (par. 5) and he “wasted away to a sixty-pound skeleton” (par. 6), leading to an existence that must have been painful on a mental level. Additionally, however, he must have had to deal with the external suffering from “the lung fluids that threatened to drown him,” “the feces that burned his skin like lye,” “the bone-on-bone pain,” and “the bedsores” (par. 7), pain that must have existed 24-7. We make the decision to euthanize animals to ease their suffering; though for humans such a decision involves many more crucial factors, surely one might consider euthanizing a human, especially if he wanted to die. Such human euthanasia may be a humane way to end the suffering like that that Mac had to deal with. From another point-of-view, as an economic reason, Mac wanted to die and it must have cost masses of money to sustain his life artificially; what if that money that was used to keep Mac alive against his will was siphoned to the cause of a person in a similar situation who actually wanted to continue to live? In response to the opposing side, that Huttmann was “play[ing] God,” I disagree. It would have been one story had Huttmann specifically overdosed Mac to end his life; however, she simply let him die as he would have naturally. I believe, as Huttmann presents, that everyone has a right to die to a certain extent, but, specifically in Huttmann’s narrative, she definitely made the right choice to end Mac’s suffering.
ReplyDeleteI think, regardless of your belief, you should rarely make a decision in a person's best interest, and if they choose to end their life, especially in a situation as described by Huttmann one should most definitely go with the wishes of the person who is involved. Of course there are multiple cases where the person in question cannot rightly make a decision for themselves, and when that situation happens to occur it should be that of the family who decides what to do with the person, not the doctor. Never should a doctor or nurse be the one who decides the fate of the patient. Their job is to help the patient, cure them, make them feel better, not cause them insurmountable bouts of pain. You have to look at it through the eyes of the nurse and the patient. What would you do in the shoes of Mac? or Huttmann. Would you play dumb as the person you see everyday, who went from a lowly patient to a friend, die, and lie in agony wishing to be let go or would you be the patient wishing for death as you fall deeper and deeper into pain, not allowed to make the decision to end it yourself.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no one knows God's plan except for God Himself. We as human beings will never be able to comprehend the larger picture God already has perfectly planned for us. According to Phil Donahue, Huttman was "playing God" because she allowed Mac to die even though it was "God's plan" to keep him alive. Huttman believes, on the other hand, that she would have been "meddling in God's work" had she not let him die. She believed that it was his time to go. No matter what the argument, Mac died at the perfect time and the perfect place, surrounded by the perfect people because it was according to God's timing, not Donahue's nor Huttman's, but God's perfect timing.
ReplyDeleteHuttman's use of rhetorical questions, such as,"Did we really believe that we had the right to force 'life' on a suffering man who had begged for the right to die," and the connection she felt with Mac's family further convinced me that she did the right thing, that she was NOT a murderer. Mac was pleading to die. I believe it was wrong to keep him alive for so long-- to resuscitate him fifty-two times in a single month. I believe forcing him to stay alive was the real crime. Huttman's description of Mac before he was diagnosed with cancer and her description of what he had "wasted away to" grabbed at my heart as well and allowed me to temporarily feel the pain that Mac's family and Huttman were experiencing as I read through the essay. This sympathy compelled me to believed that letting Mac die was not a crime of compassion, but rather an ACT of compassion.
I do not particularly take to either position, as it is my belief that God does not exert a strong literal influence over our lives. Good men and women die everyday, some of timely natural causes and others from manslaughter (regardless of religious belief). As for the question of His influence over life and death--I do not believe it is this simple. As in most 'debate topics', I rather dislike to break it down to 'this side vs. that side' as that tends to over simplify the nature of the question. In taking to one side, the validated truths that support the other are ignored.
ReplyDeleteThere are many different circumstances that pertain to ending and prolonging life. I'm sure God doesn't view the life of a man with the "this vs. that" perspective. In the event that a diseased and elderly man wishes for the end of his earthly service to come, then I fail to see how God would would find fault with that. The medicine of today which helps us to live longer lives are a product of the earth with God gave us--there can be no sin in the act of good will being the cause of longer life.
However, I do not believe that it is our place to force men in pain to live past their will for the sake of prolonging their life. In this event we must judge God's will by the will of the life in question--that is obviously the will of that person and in obliging to his (/or her) wishes we are doing the right thing in his eyes and in God's. If however, that man pursued longer life and willed his aid to do whatever possible to to keep him alive, then it would wrong to deny him that right.
As Huttman wrote of “the lung fluids that threatened to drown him, and “the bone-on-bone pain,” it is evident that this man was in pain, and desired an end to it. And to comply with his wishes was an act of compassion and goodwill--God would surely understand.
Death is often a sweeter gift than life itself. In Huttman's case, this was the cause of the turmoil. Should she have let Mac die or have brought him back to life for the fifty-third time? Which is morally correct? I feel that Huttman wants us to understand the meaning of death; that we all have a "right to die" which should never be taken away from us. They said that she was "playing God." If playing God means that she is helping to end the pain of lifelong suffering, then yes. However, it is my belief that it was not she, but rather society that was playing God. Society has become so dependent on medicine and technology to keep us alive for prolonged time. We have skirted a natural occurrence by misusing a precious gift. I feel that technology is a gift and that we have abused this. We have allowed for an originally healing tool to be transformed into a weapon of life. They called her a murderer. How is ending a man's suffering murder? No. They are the murderers. Is it not murder to bring Mac back to a painful life fifty-two times? Is it morally correct to make his wife watch him be brought back to pain fifty-two times? No. I feel that with my personal belief, as well as Huttman's argument, no one should be denied their "right to die."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth's comment provided me with some new insight that technology is indeed a gift that God has given to us. But as with any gift, as Elizabeth and Erin both mentioned, it must not be taken for granted and used improperly or for the wrong reasons. In "A Crime of Compassion," the use of a machine fifty-two times within a thirty day period on a single person who is pleading for death goes far beyond "improper use." Yes, we should take advantage of the knowledge we have been given to create technology, but prolonging life on a dying person who has an incurable disease is simply morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI also liked Katie's comment pertaining to the money involved in prolonging Mac's life. I had not thought of the overwhelming cost of medical care and I agree with her suggestion of putting that money towards someone who was curable, someone who had the DESIRE to continue his or her life here on Earth. Perhaps Donnahue is the real murderer in this situation, wanting to keep Mac from having an eternal and everlasting life with God, free of pain, free of hurt, and free of suffering.
Sydney,
ReplyDeleteYour post brought to mind an important message: after Mac's death, his family has major expenses and the memories of watching a strong man, both mentally and physically diminish into a helpless shell of the man he once was. Do we extend life to the point that the family lives with these memories rather than what truly spoke of this person's life?
Mrs. Field
Erin’s comment reading, “society is playing God” is, in my opinion, completely correct. I hadn’t thought of attributing this controversy to society itself. It makes me think that the doctors in hospitals are only doing what they are supposed to do in order to please the rest of the world. She said, “Is it not murder to bring Mac back to a painful life?” That’s a hard question to comprehend. It’s ironic to say bringing someone back to life is murder, but then again it’s almost as if each time he is resuscitated a little bit more of the hope for his recovery dies. This case was obviously fatal, but the right to die or rather, the right to die in PEACE is killed by the repeated resuscitation. Society, as a whole, wants a happy ending to a tragic story, this is not possible. Society itself, by the hands of the doctors, stole comfort from Mac, caused his pain to proceed as long as it did, and murdered his chances at dying peacefully.
ReplyDeleteMary, I suppose that when you say that “if someone dies I do not believe he or she should ever be resuscitated because even if resuscitation is successful, the person will still die in the end,” you mean in reference to an incurable disease. But, if you mean in any situation at all, I cannot agree. For one thing, there are some situations in which resuscitation can fully revive a person to live a normal life. Just imagine all of the medical shows out there on television, like House for example; there is often an emphasis on drama, but often one can find a layer of truth underneath the storyline, including references to the life-saving capabilities of resuscitation devices and methods. Also, sure, modern advances in medicine do allow us to extend life beyond the expectations of the earlier days, but is it not the nature of humankind to advance in terms of technology? If you would like to put it in terms of religion, might it not actually be God’s will that we have come up with these methods of retaining life artificially? If so, is it actually “meddling in God’s work” if it was the fate of humankind to be able to achieve such medical advances? I recognize that this argument is going against my original post about how I agreed with Huttmann’s reasoning that she allowed Mac’s life to end because otherwise they were “meddling in God’s work” with the retention of life artificially; however, I also believe that in “A Crime of Compassion,” the medical team did take the resuscitation to an painful extreme and I still feel like Huttmann’s choice was the right one. In situations like Mac’s, I think that the doctors and nurses need to consider all the factors, weighing the different sides, such as if the patient actually wants to die, what the patient’s future actually will be, if the patient is suffering, and what the effects of sustaining life will be on the loving family members and friends. This is exactly what Huttmann did, and that is most likely why the majority of the people who read the story, including all of us, will agree that she made the right decision.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to comment again on Erin's statement that it is "murder to bring Mac back to a painful life." I agree with this in the metaphorical sense, even though it seems to contradict itself, as Elizabeth said. Maybe it was not literally murder, but submitting someone to pain and suffering and depriving them from resting in peace seems just as deleterious. Every single time Mac was resuscitated it allowed for another, seemingly more painful death than the last. Like listening to a broken record, Mac suffered through the same agonizing pain, day after day.
ReplyDeleteI also like the way Mrs. Field pointed out that these successive resuscitations may leave an image of misery and sorrow in the minds of Mac’s family. One wants to remember a loved one as they were at their best, not bedridden in a hospital, barely able to function. Huttmann seemed only to relieve Mac of his and his family’s burdens, so that they both could finally be at peace.
Sonia, I agree with your assertion that states “it is not fair to label resuscitating a life as ‘meddling with God’s work.’” Huttmann’s descriptions of Mac’s transformation brought tears to my eyes. Mac is very close to death but doctors keep bringing him back. He is basically a dead living person. It is just not right. No person in this world deserves to suffer like Mac has. Would you not agree that the doctors seem like the bad guys for resuscitating the patient fifty-two times? Resuscitation practice in cases like Mac’s does not do justice to us as a society.
ReplyDeleteSonia and Elina, I do believe in God and do believe that he has a strong influence over our lives. I agree with you both that it was wrong for the doctors to do this to Mac 52 times but I wonder if you both would see the option of resuscitating differently if we did not label it as "God's work" that is being meddled with. I think that we all acknowledge that there is some sort of power, being, force, or reason that we are put here on Earth. Whether by faith or nature, it is a fact that SOMETHING must have happened to create our living state. Then I ask, do you still see resuscitating a life after it has ended naturally not intervening in whatever made us start in the first place? Now that we have this power to bring a life back, do we forget the question of why it ended to begin with? I can not help but wonder if the doctors who do resuscitate afte muplitle deaths (of the same person) lose sight and focus on the fact that they CAN. Just because we CAN do an act does not mean that it is morally right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Driftin's statement that we should only make decisions in a person's best interest if that person is clearly incapable of making the decision. In Mac's case, it is made clear that he begs for the end of his life, and the doctors refuse his request. While medical personnel may consider resuscitating Mac 52 times a charitable act, I feel that they are acting out of selfishness. The only reason the doctors refuse to end Mac's life is out of fear that they will be accused of murder. Is it worse to be accused of a murder you did not commit or to put another person through so much pain that your lack of action is equivalent to murder?
ReplyDeleteKatie, you are correct to say I am applying my opinion to diseases that are not curable, such as Mac’s. I do believe that if a person had an incurable disease and still wished to die, his or her desire should be respected. Of course it is human nature to advance in technology, but I think we need to lay off the use of high-tech, life-saving machines. As you stated in a previous post, keeping Mac alive probably cost “masses of money.” You must also take into account the fact that the world’s population is growing, while its resources are diminishing. It is for this reason that I do not believe life-saving technology should be used as often as it is. While most people with a curable disease would request life over death, keeping these people alive is creating a larger population than the world is not meant to support. I think that many factors should be considered in order to limit the use of such equipment. First of all, what is the person’s preference? If he wishes to die, let him. Second of all, how old is this person and how long should he expect to live afterwards? I believe we should give younger people a chance to live because they have not yet had time to experience and contribute to the world. For those who believe in God I would also like to argue my belief that not everything humans create fulfills the will of God. For those who believe in God, surely He has given us the gift of free will. If God did not give us free will, then how could we possibly sin against Him? Everything would be done according to His will.
ReplyDeleteSarah Beth, if we are to label to option resuscitating as "God's work," then in this case Huttmann is correct to label Mac's multiple resuscitations as "meddling in God's work." Though, as many of my classmates have mentioned, each individual case is different. In other cases resuscitating a life after it has ended naturally could be considered "not intervening" because we are simply making use of the resources available to us. Incurable cases such as Mac's cannot be compared to curable situations where complete recovery is possible. As Caitlyn puts it, there are "a plethora of individual cases that must be looked at separately and fairly."
ReplyDeleteElina, I would not say that the doctors are necessarily the "bad guys," because, legally, they have no choice in their decision. Unless a patient has a "do not resuscitate" document, the doctor does everything in his power to keep the patient alive. Morally, however, the doctors do not make the "right" decision, and in this sense I see how you can consider the doctors "bad."
I'd have to agree with what Sarah Beth said, in that you could easily argue that by reviving Mac 52 times you are already meddling in God's work. If Mac was supposed to have died the first time, every time they brought him back, knowing that he himself had admitted to being ready to die and had wanted to die, they themselves would have been going against God's decision to take his life. It's one thing to escape death once or twice, but after being revived unwillingly so many times, it becomes more of an atrocity that shouldn't happen rather than a miracle that one should marvel at. One could argue that doctors at all times are meddling in God's work, or even that they in turn are performing God's work themselves, yet after a certain point they take God's work into their own hands and at that point they seem more power hungry than interested in the well-being of the person in question. In Mac's case they were, like Sarah Beth said, more interested in figuring out ways to cure him and keep him alive for their own purposes than to fulfill the wishes of he and his wife.
ReplyDeleteI find that I agree with a lot of what everyone said. It's difficult to take a side on such a hard topic like the ethics of science and technology as well as how religion plays into that. However, I must admit that the economic viewpoint that Katie brought up was something I hadn't considered before. Expense is often a major problem that many families worry about. And if they (the doctors) are repeatedly bringing back to life a man who doesn't want to live, it makes me feel as if they are cheating his family out of their money. It is as if they are saying "let's resusitate him again, it's another 200 dollars in our pockets." Of course this probably isn't the mindset of most doctors but still it's hard for me not to look at it that way.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Driftin's statment about how the patient's thoughts should be the first source when deciding future actions unless they are in an unconsious state. If the patient is able to be brought back to a consious living state then shouldn't he or she have the say so in their fate? This is a similar idea to what Sarah Beth had stated. I feel that doctors often lose sight of the fact that their main purpose is to heal and help end pain. If that is their goal, then are they blind to the fact that they are bringing Mac back to more misery? That they are adding to the emotional pain of his wife? As Mrs. Field brought up, do they realize that with every time the resusitate Mac, his wife is starting to have trouble remembering him as the strong, prideful man he once was?
After reading everyone's comments, it is really amazing to see how everyone's opinions melded together. I really agree with what Erin said when she stated that society has become too dependent on medicine. It is a true statement. Sometimes, medicine cannot make a person better, even if it makes him or her live longer. Should we not want to make someone comfortable for the rest of his days rather than try to extend them uncomfortably. I agree with Elizabeth's assertion that technology was put on this earth to help, and not hinder, us. We have to take care, though, of the gifts given to us and not take them too far. If we abuse the power we have through technology, will we not lose some of our humanity? Will we not end up negating God because we have such a will to live here on Earth? If we take advantage of life-prolonging technology, we lose sight of life truly is: an experience that has to end. Life is not life without death. If there is no death, is there even life?
ReplyDeleteTo the group: Thank you for posting such thoughtful ideas and having such respect for the exceptional differences in our class. This week, and our debates, has re-lit a fire in the AP program.
ReplyDeleteIf you know me at all, you know that I don't haphazardly pass out cudos. Know that you've earned this!
Mrs. Field
Today as we discussed "Champion of the World," I became of aware of the "last picture" we remember of the people who pass away and how that has affected me. I never realized that every time I think of my grandpa who passed away, I think of him laying on the hospital bed, thinking as a little girl that he was just playing a trick on me, that he was going to spring out of the bed and say, "Gotcha!" But that is not the only picture I want to remember of him. I remember his huge smile and telling jokes at the dinner table during Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner. I remember sitting on his knee and watching television with him all night long. I remember eating popsicles whenever I spent the night at his house and him teasing me for eating too many. These are the memories I want to think of when I remember him, but the memory of his cold and emotionless face in the casket takes over.
ReplyDeleteI think that the last six months Mac's family spent with him are what they will remember him as even though he was a strong and brave man. This is a cruel thing that Mac's family must face and I was revealed to and could connect to this disparity as we discussed it today in class.
So in answer to your question Mrs. Field, I think that we sometimes do extend life beyond what is necessary. A family should not have to go through that pain and everlasting struggle for the rest of their lives. I think that is what is most painful about death: going on living your life after someone else's is gone.
As I read through the other classes’ responses to “Champion of the World,” “Indian Education,” and “Fish Cheeks,” I noticed that the majority could relate to the stories. Everyone had their own account of fitting in, being different, or rising above expectations, relating to the narratives just as Maya Angelou, Sherman Alexi, and Amy Tan had meant to happen.
ReplyDeleteBut “A Crime of Compassion.” At first, I could not understand how we were supposed to relate. Huttmann’s very purpose is pointing out how it is not fair that we “do not have a right to die.” How well can any of us relate to that? How many of us find ourselves in a situation like that? This lack of connection is especially prominent these days as a person can legally make a statement that they do not wish to be revived.
Then I thought about Huttmann’s “crime,” an act of transcendentalism. The concept of ignoring laws to do what is right is a much more general theme. Some of the greatest leaders of the ages, such as Mahatma Gandhi, were prime incarnations of this transcendentalism. Perhaps Huttmann’s story is an example of transcendentalism that a person can actually imagine and understand and connect to? But no. Many, if not all, of us, at this point in time, have not encountered a time when we have found that we have had to seriously disregard the law to do what is morally right.
However, through our conversations, both on the blog and in class, I began to realize the elements that everyone can really relate to. It is truly the individual parts of the story that provide this relatable material. For one, the emotions of having to let go of a loved one are all too real for everyone. Whether it is the loss of an actual human being or just having to make the decision to euthanize a loved pet, everyone has experienced death to some degree or another. Then also, one of our big discussion topics involved the way one remembers a loved family member after their death. I had not realized how many people had their own story of the distress they felt after having seen a loved one after death, like Sydney mentioned in her post and like Mrs. Field mentioned in class. I am reading a book right now, “The Last Lecture” by Randy Pausch, detailing a true story in which Pausch finds himself diagnosed with pancreatic cancer with an estimate of three to six months left to live. Worried that his kids will have to grow up without a father, he shares his “last lecture” in an attempt to depart the stories and lessons he would have taught the kids otherwise, striving to have his young kids remember him in such a positive way. This book contains the same theme of wanting to have a good memory after the death of a loved one. And, even though it did not appear so at first, I now realize that just about everyone, including me, can find some meaning out of the emotions and/or concepts in “A Crime of Compassion.”
Reading through all the previous comments I feel as if our class has said it all. I agree with a majority of what people have said. The comments that I don’t entirely agree with, I see where you guys are coming from and I respect that we all have different opinions.
ReplyDeleteI think that Mrs. Field, your description of how you remember your father
(by not going to his funeral) really hit the spot for a lot of us. It brought attention to the experience of Mac’s wife, more so than the experience of Mac himself. When I think about my own experiences, I can remember my father’s dad as an active, fun, musically talented, and strong man. But then on my mother’s side, I made the mistake to go see my grandfather in a hospice before his death. Like Sydney, that’s the memory of him that outweighs all the rest. By comparing the two memories of my grandfathers, it almost angers me that the medical field today uses its technology the way it does. Not only is it unfair to those being kept alive against their will, like Mac, but also it’s cruel to force a family member to suffer through the long and hopeless end of a life. I think of Maura and all the pain she went through, how she went from “a young woman into a haggard, beaten old lady.” This is too similar to the transformation of her husband. It’s unfair to her emotionally and, as Katie first pointed out, financially. She didn’t have a disease killing her, but she still underwent an outrageous transformation.
After all the discussion we have had, I still stick to my original interpretation of this story. However, a lot has been added onto my original understanding of Huttmann’s acts. I believe she saw and comprehended just about everything we came up with. After all, we’ve been discussing the topic for about a week and a half, Huttmann had six months to decide what she believed.
Admittedly, I was glad to discover that 2nd period’s posts concerned “A Crime of Compassion” rather than the other narratives. I felt this way because it seems like all of the other stories deal with race and culture as separating factors between young people and their peers. As for me, I never found difficulty fitting in because of my race or culture, which have always been the majority in places that I have lived. Honestly, I still do not feel as though I can connect to the other three narratives on a personal level. On a positive note, however, reading through other people’s posts enlightened me to the diverse variety of cultures that we have here at Lakeside. Although I have known many of the AP Lang students since about 2nd grade, I never thought about other’s backgrounds or lives prior to our acquaintanceships. I now realize that living in the same place for the majority of my life has probably limited me from experiencing other cultures, while also saving me from feeling like an outsider.
ReplyDelete“A Crime of Compassion” is the one narrative that I feel like I connect with on a personal level. Of course, at this point in my life I have watched death slowly (or suddenly) take people who I love. In my experience, the process of death has a different effect each time you witness it. The first experience with death is always the hardest, because up until that point you live your life thinking that the people you want and need will never leave you. Out of everyone I knew who passed away, I have the fewest memories of those whose deaths were prolonged. To me, the best thing about our discussion topic is how it connects religion and death. I’m always intrigued by religious discussion, whether one is arguing for or against the existence of a higher power. What I find most interesting about our class discussion is that everyone has such wide varieties of religious beliefs, yet we all agree that Huttman did the right thing. All religions are often criticized for holding beliefs that differ from other religions, but this discussion demonstrates that differences in faith are minimal when one considers the fact that people of all different beliefs stand for the same thing: love and respect for other human beings.
Joseph Ebron
ReplyDeleteAs I look back at each of these stories, I would like to reflect on “A Crime of Compassion.” This story doesn’t really relate to me on a personal level, but as I see the way this story touches the hearts of my classmates, I gain a view into their personal experiences. This story really has a way of reaching out to a person on an emotional level, as seen from the numerous sharing of similar experiences by our class that relates to Mac and nurse Huttmann. It also connects to each of our religious beliefs and how those beliefs would shape our decision on this subject. Many of these aspects of our lives that relates to this story has opened up thoughtful discussions in which I learned much about the class and how their thoughts and beliefs relate to mine. This story along with these discussions will always come to mind when a situation similar to “A Crime of Compassion” comes up. After seeing the effect this touching story has on this class I can personally say that the story is moving to me and to the class.
I am posting for Joseph. His computer doesn't like blogging, but I want you to see his thoughts.
Since discussing “A Crime of Compassion” in class, as well as reading all of my classmates’ posts, I feel that my original ideas and thoughts still hold true but at a much deeper level of understanding. My original thoughts about this narrative were all about how Huttman did the right thing. Huttman ended a man’s pain and agony instead of dragging it on just for the sake of being able to. However, as with most of my classmates and Mrs. Field, I have been able to relate to this event in some way. Before my aunt passed away, she was in a hospital bed on life support for around two weeks. Within that time my family went to see her almost every day. However, I never went to see her because I was afraid of what I might find. I am glad that I never saw her in a bad state because I am content to cherish the memories of her as a healthy mom with her two kids. As Katie said, there is some element of emotion or event that everyone can relate to in this narrative.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest change in my opinion is that I see Huttman in a more human light. I know that sounds odd, but truth be told after reading her story I saw her as a heroine, someone who was always righteous and fair and who saved the day. But after our discussion I asked myself how I would have wanted my life to go if I was the one being resuscitated fifty-two times instead of Mac. I realized that I would have wanted to go after number ten. I could picture the looks on my sister’s and mother’s face if I was brought back to that pain day after day. Then I took my thoughts and put them in Huttman’s. What if she asked the very same thing to herself before making her decision? I had been looking at everything from an outsider’s perspective with an outsider’s own stories that can relate, but not once did I think to put myself in Mac’s shoes.
As we were discussing “A Crime of Compassion” in class, the “last image” made me aware of a memory. I remember when I was in third grade; my grandmother received a phone call from our relatives. They told her that my great aunt had passed away. I recall crying a lot with my grandparents. My great aunt suffered for many months from breast cancer and she was in great pain just like Mac. Even though she was sick, I am always reminded of a trip I had made to her house. She had given me two puzzles to play with and she took me for a walk along with her other granddaughter. She told funny jokes and played with us. It was truly a wonderful time. This is my memory of my great aunt. I never went to the funeral and I am very thankful that I did not. Otherwise the image of the coffin lowered into grave would have haunted me for the rest of my life. I remember my aunt as a lively and happy person.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if I would be able to say no to resuscitate my parents. I am very attached to my parents and the thought of them dying makes me break out in cold sweat. Yet I do not wish for them to suffer like Mac. In “A Crime of Compassion,” it was easy for me to agree with the author because it involved an individual with whom I had no connection of whatsoever. It is very difficult for me to imagine what Mac’s wife feels because emotional pain of another person cannot be envisioned, unless one had experienced a similar situation. So do we as individuals of have the mental and emotional strength to make a decision like Huttmann in real life?
Reading through all of the comments on the blog, I am very glad that everyone was able to accept different point of views. When one is an avid believer of a certain idea, it is challenging to consider the other side.
I think everyone’s personal reactions to and connections with “A Crime of Compassion” are exactly what the author intended when writing this piece. Huttmann’s narrative is very personal, yet it still allows the reader to picture himself in Huttmann’s shoes. Almost everyone has experienced the death of a family member or loved one. In situations where the individual is suffering, like Mac’s case, there is almost a sense of relief when he finally “passes on.” A few months ago, after suffering months and months of a failing liver and kidneys, my uncle died. While I was never close with him, my grandmother and aunt took care of him for months until the day he died. They watched him suffer and waste away to a man who could do nothing for himself, much like Mac. I spoke to my grandmother the day of my uncle’s death, and although she said it was “the worst day of her life,” she also admitted that she was “glad he was finally at rest.” I gathered that while nobody wants their loved ones to die, in some cases death is a relief, and we should all “have the right to die.”
ReplyDeleteAfter the discussion and reading Huttman’s argument, I agree with her perspective. Huttmann uses lurid and disgusting diction to provide the reader with an emotional understanding of Mac’s living hell. The organization of his process of resuscitation has a distant tone, but still describes the utter pain. Huttmann uses verbs with parallel structure like “wipe, suction, clean, pour, put, change, turn, and keep” to illustrate the terrible routine that Mac has to endure daily. The painful imagery consisting of “big craters of bedsores, lung fluids that threatened to drown him, feces that burned his skin like lye, and bone-on-bone pain” portrays his life is no life at all. Huttmann uses rhetorical questions to strengthen her argument not only to justify letting him go, but also to influence the readers to take action and make a difference. She persuaded me to her side of the argument with her objective tone when describing his suffering through descriptive yet distant language. In essence, it was not the emotion from Huttmann that swayed my opinion; it was the emotion I developed from imagining the revolting experience.
ReplyDeleteAfter discussing “A Crime of Compassion” in class, I considered the most compelling part of Huttmann’s argument to be the relationship between Barbara and Mac. To Barbara, Mac is not just another patient; she “loved him, his wife, Maura, and their three kids as if they were [her] own.” Huttmann describe his gruesome experience as a cancer patient, but she also illustrates the deteriorating impact Mac had on his family and Huttmann herself. She describes “Maura’s transformation from a young woman to a haggard beaten old lady.” Mac’s corrosion diffused into the souls of all the loved ones around him. Huttmann loved Mac enough to respect Maura’s wishes, “to not let them do this to him,” and Mac’s wishes himself, “pain…no more… Barbara… do something…God, let me go.” She realizes that her future actions are neither out of annoyance nor insincerity, but out of sympathy and love. Barbara, every night, “prayed that Mac would die and that his agonized eyes would never again plead with [her] to let him die.” Not only did his family feel the impact of Mac’s cancer, but also she had to live with the constant reminder of his terrible state of life.
ReplyDeleteEven though I really like "A Crime of Compassion" I think I can relate personally more to "Fish Cheeks". My grandmother is full Korean and moved here with my dad and uncle when my dad was around five. For my whole life she has always been associated with Korean food. Either we would drive to a Korean restaurant that she knew about in South Carolina, or she would cook an extravagant meal for us when we came over. When I was younger I thought this was very strange because she worked part-time at Red Lobster also. I never understood why she would go out of her way to cook or provide us with Korean food when we could easily sit down to eat (with a nice discount) at Red Lobster. I love Korean food, mainly because I grew up with it, but I also love American Seafood. Not until reading this piece did i understand why she worked so hard to get us that particular meal. Now I understand, partly due to the effect that I am older, that while she is more than happy and content living in America, she does not want to forget her culture. Everything that she was taught and the way she lived her life, she wants us to remember it and nor forget it once she passes away. She has grounded the importance of remembering in my father and uncle but also in me, my sister, and my mother. Once she is gone and I have grown up and made a family I will cook Korean food because it is apart of who I am. This is apart of who I am because of my grandmother, and because I have been taught not to forget where we came from.
ReplyDeleteI beleive very strongly in God and that only he has the right to create and end life. I think that euthanasia, or helping to commit suicide to relieve pain or suffereing, is wrong regardless of how good the intentions are. In the Bible, in Ecclesiastes 8:8a, it reads "No man has power over the wind to contain it; so no one has power over the day of his death..." I believe that only God can control life and death. Huttmann, however, presents a compelling argument against this belief by justifying her choice to help Mac end his own life. She tells us that Mac begged them "Mercy...for God's sake, please just let me go." It's always upsetting to see someone we love suffering in pain, but I don't believe that that sympathy gives us the right to control that person's death. I don't think of euthanansia as anything different than abortion or murder. Though I hold very strongly to my personal beliefs and think that Huttmann was wrong in her choice of action, I can see Huttmann's point of view on the situation. Even though this story didn't change my belief on the matter, I can now understand the thought process that people like Huttmann go through when deciding whether or not to assist a person in his or her own death.
ReplyDeleteI beleive very strongly in God and that only he has the right to create and end life. I think that euthanasia, or helping to commit suicide to relieve pain or suffereing, is wrong regardless of how good the intentions are. In the Bible, in Ecclesiastes 8:8a, it reads "No man has power over the wind to contain it; so no one has power over the day of his death..." I believe that only God can control life and death. Huttmann, however, presents a compelling argument against this belief by justifying her choice to help Mac end his own life. She tells us that Mac begged them "Mercy...for God's sake, please just let me go." It's always upsetting to see someone we love suffering in pain, but I don't believe that that sympathy gives us the right to control that person's death. I don't think of euthanansia as anything different than abortion or murder. Though I hold very strongly to my personal beliefs and think that Huttmann was wrong in her choice of action, I can see Huttmann's point of view on the situation. Even though this story didn't change my belief on the matter, I can now understand the thought process that people like Huttmann go through when deciding whether or not to assist a person in his or her own death.
ReplyDeleteMy post was by Ayn Rand because I hadn't changed it from the literary periods project :)
Sonia Mccall,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that sometimes it is a releif to the family of the person that passes away after months or years of struggling. Sometimes we may feel like the person struggling can be a burden on us, no matter how much we love them. I think however, that if I really loved someone, I would do whatever possible to help them live as long as they could. I believe that God has a plan for their death and that I don't have the right to make that day come before it was meant to.
Like Mary said earlier, I was also glad to find out that 2nd period had to review "A Crime of Compassion" because I felt like I had a strong opinion formed about the matter. The other narratives focused on race and discrimination. I don't know how to relate to that since I don't feel like I personally have had to deal with discrimination because of race or background. I do, however, like the message that "Fish Cheeks" presents. Amy Tan says "You must be proud to be different. Your only shame is to have shame." I think that everyone can put this advice to use since all of us ARE different. Not only different as far as race and color are concerned, but different in character. "Fish Cheeks" was a narrative that I felt as if everybody could take a message from.
ReplyDeleteAfter discussing the selections in class and rereading my classmates' posts, I realize more than ever that everyone comes from such different backgrounds, yet we all can relate on the same issues. Even in our tiny class of about fourteen, differences can be seen and taken into account, yet we come together as a unit and agree or agree to disagree on certain topics. Whether it is religion or discrimination, I find it comforting that everyone was so open to each person’s point of view on the matter. I still feel as though Huttmann made the right decision in letting Mac go, because I feel strongly that we do not have the right to put someone through suffering that they beg to be relieved of. To me, this counts as infringing on their rights as human beings. As a Christian, I understand that some may see this as meddling in God’s work; however, I do not believe that God would punish anyone for relieving someone in pain.
ReplyDeleteI must have skipped over this when first reading the posts, but I was intrigued by Caitlin’s statement that “Life is not life without death.” This opened up my eyes to see that life would not have the same meaning or weight if we all did not die at some point and have it taken away from us. If we all lived forever and ever, why would we bother to get anything done? Our determination would be gone. The frailty of life would also be gone, and we would not care. It is said that you cannot fully appreciate something until it is gone, but in this case we need to learn to appreciate life before we miss out on our chance.
After our discussion in class, it hit me really hard what everyone said about being able to relate to the struggles presented in the narrative selections. I think we often think of ourselves alone in our struggles. But, maybe we are not as alone as we think. If we talk about our own experiences, we will not only have that "cathartic" release that Mrs. Field talked about, but we may also help someone else to know they are not alone in their struggle. I think we have all had the experience of feeling alone, maybe not literally, but figuratively. When we talk about our problems with other people, we feel like we are no longer shouldering the burden alone. I think that this blog itself has helped us to help each other by sharing our struggles. When we read the four stories, "Fish Cheeks," "Champion of the World," "A Crime of Compassion," and "Indian Education," there was something in each story that we could relate to. Therefore, each of these stories helped us to shoulder our own burdens better. We, or at least I, felt like our problems were shared and lightened because someone else had gone through the same thing we had. I think discussing everything in class and on the blog has helped our class to grow tremendously.
ReplyDeleteI would like to personally thank my class (and the other classes) for posting so much. I know it sounds weird, but it has really helped me to get some perspective. I think sometimes I get caught up in school and soccer and I forget that there is more to life than high school. I think the four stories helped me to realize that it is good to be different, and that often the people who can help you the most are those that are different from you. Everyone here has such distinct voices that the blog has ended up being a masterpiece (I think) that shows just how diversity can effect and help a class.
ReplyDeleteI agree with SaraBeth in that the doctors interceded with the natural process of death and that when it comes down to it they "played the role of God" but not through God's choosing but their own. I also liked that she used a biblical quote to support her assertion and she made good and grounded points in her argument in total.
ReplyDelete