Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of death

[sully]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]


the thin I don't like about it is.....what the hell would being dead for 3 or 4 hours be like? THen suddenly thrown back into existence.

It'd be interesting to find out. But I dont' think alot of people will like the result. I bet it'll lead to insanity of some sort. really fucked up shit.

[/ QUOTE ]

speaking from experience, you don't know. what's it like when you sleep and don't dream? you don't know. granted, i wasn't out for 3-4 hours, but there was no light or floating or all my dead relatives reaching out to me.

my point is that if something like this happened to you, you wouldn't know or remember it. it's not any different from someone who was flatlined and jolted back. the only side effect of that is not shutting up about what happened to you. just ask nikki sixx or slash.

....or at the moment, me, i guess! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

sully

[sully]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
the brain, is no good after about 10 minutes without oxygen.

I don't get how this could ever work without turning everyone into vegetables.

[/ QUOTE ]

correct, and i'm no biologist here, but the article says that they've been able to do this without organ damage.

sully

[Tetsuo]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
if you're against this, you should at least be consistent and be against any and all kinds of forms of resuscitation. and if you are, then i have no issue with you; i just think you're wrong. and that's okay.

look only at the science; there is no reason to inject morality into this. personally, i think that's where a lot of potentially great advances in medicine get the shaft in this country. people are very unable to set their own baggage aside for a minute and look solely at data and fact.

sully

[/ QUOTE ]

I am with you on this I do not see what is immoral about this. As I ahve stated if this is against your beliefs just don't do it but why hinder someone else who has different beliefs than you from doing it. What exactly is immoral about saving lives?

[Deneb]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
Here is my general thought on this... If you have beliefs that you think this si a bad treatment... Don't get it. Your choice but for those who do not share your beliefs should they not have this choice to make for themselves and to explore this through science?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was a soldier, that believed in God.

Die, go to heaven.
Freeze, be fixed up and able to live.

I choose the 2nd option, fuck heaven, life is way better than anything I can think of, even at its worst moments.

[veliyasin]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
scenario #1 - your significant other, (and let's say mother of your children) gets into a car accident and is bleeding severely. she's rushed to the hospital, but bleeds to death before she can be stabilized.

scenario #2 - another loved one is attacked brutally and dies.

scenario #3 - yet another loved one is receiving surgery, and would up until now, die on the operating table.

none of you can sit there and say that you would let them die if you knew that they could be saved and live a normal life from this procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that's what happens. Everyone dies at some point. I accepted that way too many times and won't have a problem with another experience. I don't like playing God, I know my place.

[sully]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

me neither. i think that if the term zombie dogs, and that friggin picture wasn't used that there may be different opinions.

i think that many in society take a little bit of info, and then go off on a tangent about how we're playing god when that's not the case.

i'm not interested in reanimating the dead here, just trying to save a life that could be saved. i mean, what about finding a cure for cancer or aids or leukemia. is that playing god? if you're consistent, yes it would be because, well, who do you think gave us the disease? is curing a disease that we couldn't in the past an advance in medicine, or playing god?

i find it interesting that jonas saulk was hero, while people who are trying to do stem cell research are godless heathens who have no morals. think about it for a minute. i know i'm going off on a rant a little, and i'll try and keep it respectful, but basically if you think that this is playing god, you basically should be against any and all medical treatment because you're interfering with god's will.

[sully]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
scenario #1 - your significant other, (and let's say mother of your children) gets into a car accident and is bleeding severely. she's rushed to the hospital, but bleeds to death before she can be stabilized.

scenario #2 - another loved one is attacked brutally and dies.

scenario #3 - yet another loved one is receiving surgery, and would up until now, die on the operating table.

none of you can sit there and say that you would let them die if you knew that they could be saved and live a normal life from this procedure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry but that's what happens. Everyone dies at some point. I accepted that way too many times and won't have a problem with another experience. I don't like playing God, I know my place.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course, everything dies. but what about any other kind of life saving medicine? why is the status quo only as far as we can go before we're playing god? there's no real reason.

again, i'm not saying that everyone should live to be 110 like my great grandmother (RIP), but if that procedure can be added to the list of things that can be done to save a life, it should be given a chance.

[veliyasin]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
i'm not interested in reanimating the dead here, just trying to save a life that could be saved. i mean, what about finding a cure for cancer or aids or leukemia. is that playing god? if you're consistent, yes it would be because, well, who do you think gave us the disease? is curing a disease that we couldn't in the past an advance in medicine, or playing god?

[/ QUOTE ]
According to my beliefs God is the giver and taker of life. He doesn't interfere directly into the affairs of the world, He doesn't give anyone diseases, just like he doesn't fix lotteries to make a believer win. Funny analogy, but descriptive enough of my beliefs I think.

So trying and improving someone's condition while that person is living is one thing, creating life in laboratory conditions or reviving people is another.

[Tetsuo]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

I am so with you Sully... I truly think that a lot of this is just a knee jerk reaction. Veli we all do die at some point no doubt but if we can be saved with "No permnant damage" is it at least something taht should be considered. how disssimilar is it from being shocked back to life? This isn't voodoo it is science. I am not saying I personally would opt for such a procedure but what is wrong with those who do not have such beliefs to investigate it?

[veliyasin]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying I personally would opt for such a procedure but what is wrong with those who do not have such beliefs to investigate it?

[/ QUOTE ]
For the very same reason I mentioned before. While people who would use this procedure to get their loved ones back are all good for me(I wouldn't use this), in this world you have no idea to what causes this can be used... Actually you do, but it is easy to not think about it when you can get excited about the prospect of quasi-immortality. This is just my rant, I am not trying to propagate here, but I do think this stance should also be mentioned among all the encouragement here.

[sully]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
So trying and improving someone's condition while that person is living is one thing, creating life in laboratory conditions or reviving people is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, so lemme ask you this: would you consider something like open heart surgery an attempt to improve someone's condition? let's say someone's having that procedure and their heart stops.

by your definition, that person is now dead, and no attempts at resuscitation should be made, right? shouldn't they try to save the life so they can "improve someone's condition?"

do you have an issue with CPR? you should.

there is a difference between creating life in a laboratory (are you against infertility treatments? you should be) and reviving someone.

i would like to say though, that i'm not trying to attack you for your beliefs; i have no issue with people believing as long as they're being consistent.

[MBreinin]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i'm not interested in reanimating the dead here, just trying to save a life that could be saved. i mean, what about finding a cure for cancer or aids or leukemia. is that playing god? if you're consistent, yes it would be because, well, who do you think gave us the disease? is curing a disease that we couldn't in the past an advance in medicine, or playing god?

[/ QUOTE ]
According to my beliefs God is the giver and taker of life. He doesn't interfere directly into the affairs of the world, He doesn't give anyone diseases, just like he doesn't fix lotteries to make a believer win. Funny analogy, but descriptive enough of my beliefs I think.

So trying and improving someone's condition while that person is living is one thing, creating life in laboratory conditions or reviving people is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then by your own definition god created disease...

If he is the giver and taker of life, and the life is taken by disease....has god not interefered with that life?

How about a virus? Did god create viruses? They are living..and since he created life, he created viruses. All a virus does is live off of another creature..sometimes taking the life of that creature.

You are going down a very bumpy road here.......

Mike

[veliyasin]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So trying and improving someone's condition while that person is living is one thing, creating life in laboratory conditions or reviving people is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

okay, so lemme ask you this: would you consider something like open heart surgery an attempt to improve someone's condition? let's say someone's having that procedure and their heart stops.

by your definition, that person is now dead, and no attempts at resuscitation should be made, right? shouldn't they try to save the life so they can "improve someone's condition?"

do you have an issue with CPR? you should.

there is a difference between creating life in a laboratory (are you against infertility treatments? you should be) and reviving someone.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I am against infertility treaments. If someone is not meant to have a child, they shouldn't.

Concerning CPR: You don't die the second your heart stops. Where did I say that? So why should it be inconsistent to believe that CPR is ok, while this is not?

[sully]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

yeah, we are going down a very bumpy road here, and we really don't need to.

personally if i'm seriously ill, don't put me on machines, let me go. but if i've been injured and can be resuscitated in a manner that will leave no damage and basically be the equivalent of jump starting your car, go ahead.

we've had techniques like that for years (cpr, defibrillators, etc), and this is just adding to the options that are already there and in use.

[veliyasin]

Re: Bringing dogs back to life after 3 hours of de

[ QUOTE ]
You are going down a very bumpy road here.......

[/ QUOTE ]
No no. You are just trying to twist my words and trying to put them in my mouth. No need for that attitude, unless you are trying to show how big your online penis is. Just cool down, everything will be alright.