Monday, November 21, 2005
Cindy Sheehan
Had Cindy Sheehan's son been killed while he was doing a tax return in his office for a client or twirling in a pirouette during a performance of "Swan Lake" it would have been a case of murder. Sheehan's son, however, was a soldier and fighting is what soldiers are meant to do. When they join the army, they have to be prepared to serve wherever and whenever they are needed. They can't say "Sorry, that place looks too dangerous for me. I prefer to go to Barbados for the weather. Send someone else cause I don't want to upset my mother."
There are thousands of mothers who would have preferred their sons to stay home and be safe. After all, no mother wants to see her son go off to war.
There are many jobs where the risks are great. Policemen and firemen, for example, face danger every day and they do this fully aware of the risks of their job. We all remember their bravery during September 2001.
Cindy Sheehan was traumatised by her loss and we sympathise with her grief, but she should accept this loss as the risk that her son took when he enlisted. By complaining and demonstrating against the war she is diminishing her son's profession, not to mention the contribution made by all military personnel and their families.
Do I advocate war? Most certainly not.The discussion should not be about the legality of the war in Iraq. That is an entirely different issue. But if Cindy Sheehan wanted her son to remain safe and coddled then she should have encouraged him to pursue a career with fewer obvious risks.
It was his choice, his risk and his life, and perhaps she would be happier today if she accepted that he did this in the hope that others would be safe. Even if his motivation were not based on the ideals of defending the nation, he made a contract to join the military and was obliged to fulfill it. He was not conscripted; he chose to join.
There are thousands of mothers who would have preferred their sons to stay home and be safe. After all, no mother wants to see her son go off to war.
There are many jobs where the risks are great. Policemen and firemen, for example, face danger every day and they do this fully aware of the risks of their job. We all remember their bravery during September 2001.
Cindy Sheehan was traumatised by her loss and we sympathise with her grief, but she should accept this loss as the risk that her son took when he enlisted. By complaining and demonstrating against the war she is diminishing her son's profession, not to mention the contribution made by all military personnel and their families.
Do I advocate war? Most certainly not.The discussion should not be about the legality of the war in Iraq. That is an entirely different issue. But if Cindy Sheehan wanted her son to remain safe and coddled then she should have encouraged him to pursue a career with fewer obvious risks.
It was his choice, his risk and his life, and perhaps she would be happier today if she accepted that he did this in the hope that others would be safe. Even if his motivation were not based on the ideals of defending the nation, he made a contract to join the military and was obliged to fulfill it. He was not conscripted; he chose to join.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
What a waste of an organ!
What a waste of an organ!
Can't help thinking that the family whose loved one donated a liver to George Best in 2002 would be feeling that the former football star disrespected the greatest gift that one person can bestow on another. Not long after the transplant, George resumed his alcoholic binges and is now on life-support.
Donor families aren't told who receives the organs but this must be a step-back for the donor cause. Most likely, there was another person in need of a liver who would have treated the transplant with the care it deserved. The donation would have represented a second chance at life for those poor souls who missed out in favour of the celebrity.
So what happened instead? George trashed it.
I firmly believe that George has every right to do whatever damage he wants to his own body, but in this case, isn't there a moral responsibility to the donor?
I was under the impression that recipients are vetted for more than just organ compatiblity. Surely they should undertake to change their ways following a transplant, not just for themselves but as a gesture to other would-be donors who wonder if their gift could also be wasted.
Can't help thinking that the family whose loved one donated a liver to George Best in 2002 would be feeling that the former football star disrespected the greatest gift that one person can bestow on another. Not long after the transplant, George resumed his alcoholic binges and is now on life-support.
Donor families aren't told who receives the organs but this must be a step-back for the donor cause. Most likely, there was another person in need of a liver who would have treated the transplant with the care it deserved. The donation would have represented a second chance at life for those poor souls who missed out in favour of the celebrity.
So what happened instead? George trashed it.
I firmly believe that George has every right to do whatever damage he wants to his own body, but in this case, isn't there a moral responsibility to the donor?
I was under the impression that recipients are vetted for more than just organ compatiblity. Surely they should undertake to change their ways following a transplant, not just for themselves but as a gesture to other would-be donors who wonder if their gift could also be wasted.
