• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page



Recent comments

  • Ron Tizzard
    September 15, 2012 - 14:22

    Interesting Column(s) Pam, including the follow-up responses supporting the notion of 'balanced, respective responses' from readers who may wish to join with their own remarks either pro or con the content of any article or blog. I agree fully with Herb that people, and legions of others, I would anticipate, submitting a 'blog article' or comment on another's submission, should sign thier names, taking ownership of their submissions. There is no reason to hide if you are respective; one can oppose the opinions of others, not a problem; respectfully critique the content, the opinion, not the author. Authors have rights to express, and argue points of views. Should one not agree, state that and share your reasons why...without attacking the author personally...just be reasoned. Blogs are not 'free-for-alls', they are opportunities to offer opinions and 'reasoned ' public debate. That's the fun, and educational opportunities blogs opportunites offer. Just be civil in any of your opposing opinions.

  • Ed Power
    September 10, 2012 - 00:33

    My thanks as well, Pam. I have really enjoyed reading the comments and arguments generated by your column and the subsequent letter. It is an issue that has affected me personally, watching my mother's slow and inexorable decline as Alzheimers claimed her brain and her body over the period of seven long years. Her death came - I almost feel guilty to say- as a relief. While her body may have finally died in 1992, my "mother", the woman who had given birth to me, taught me to read before I had started school and had rejoiced in becoming a grandmother - even though my career in the RCAF meant that she saw her grandchildren only once a year- had died years earlier, Everything that had been my mother - the love, wit, family tales, cooking, baking and staunch RC faith - had died sometime before 1990. Accupuncture, hyponosis and the "Patch" hadn't cured her addiction to tobacco, but Dr. Alzheimer's illness did. How's that for irony - she forgot her cravings for tobacco. I also know that had she lingered for any longer we might have been burying my father as well. A man in his seventies providing full-time care to an equally aged, aggressive and incontinent patient, isn't far from grave himself. Fifteen years later, in 2007, my father suffered a major heart attack that left him, briefly, on life support. My brother and I were faced with the 'ultimate' decision - do we allow aggressive medical intervention to prolong his life , or opt for a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order? Dad was 88, lived at home, still did a little farming, had a (much younger) girlfriend and volunteered with the Bridging Cultures Group and the Seniors Resource Centre. My father had a great quality of life. He had COPD, and arthritis in both kness that restricted his mobility, but he still enjoyed a good "Scuff and a Scoff". Neither one of us could picture him hooked up to machines for months, or years, waiting to die, most likely unaware that he was even there. After discussing the options with the ER physician we opted for DNR, but in the the end it was all moot. He died three days later after a brief rally that had us optimistic for a partial, if not full, recovery.Mother Nature can be a cruel mistress at times. Colin seems to believe that human life is precious in any form. I disagree. If one cannot feel life - enjoy it, savour it, experience it, suffer it, love it, bask in it - one is not truly alive. Sitting trapped in an unresponsive body -ALS- or existing as a brain dead animated corpse - Alzheimers - is not life, it is Hell. We all remember the political and media circus - there is no other word for it - that surrounded the 2005 decision by Michael Schaivo to disconnect the feeding tube that had kept his wife Terri alive since suffering a heart attack in 1990. We were witness to a frenzy the like of which had never been seen before - although many families around the world make the same decision every day - a frenzy which had one politician, an MD no less, make a diagnosis on the cognitive abilities of Ms. Schavio remotely, via video, from the floor of the US Congress. This is what I would hope could be avoided by an open debate and, hopefully, future legislation on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. I still have concerns about the administration of such an option. Thank you, Colin, for your spirited defence of life. I just wish that I had Pam's skill with words so that I might show you the 'error' of your ways......

  • Herb Morriosn
    September 09, 2012 - 19:33

    At the risk of sounding like the proverbial "broken record, I strongly believe that unless a person has a valid reason for claiming anonymity, all bloggers on any website, including those on the Telegram's website, should be required to publish using their real names. This would go a long way in removing much of the caustic drivel posted on websites in general and the Telegram's website in particular. Furthermore, the remark made by Justice Robert Blair has frightening implications. I would have thought that a remark regarded under the law as deframatory, would be deframatory within the context of any situation. Does this mean that anyone can interelate with people using a different set of ethical standsrds, with which to govern their behaviour in each situation? Sounds like a "when in Rome do as the Romans do" type of mentality. Since there are apparently not sufficent laws to govern behaviour on websites, perhaps organizations, including The Telegram should consider taking the lead in this situation by making their own rules for website use more stringant. Banning the use of pseudonyms except in certain specified situations would, I suggest, be an excellent. A very effectively written column, Ms. Frampton.

  • Colin Burke
    September 08, 2012 - 07:57

    Thanks, Pam, for an excellent column excellently well written as always. I would disagree only by saying that the website discussion is from my viewpoint not basically about "democracy vs. theocracy" but rather about popular will (democracy) vs. "abstract, eternal and objective standards" as accessible by reason unclouded by "mere feelings". I was a bit inclined to rebuke the man who called you a hussy -- "hatemonger" is a more "routine" accusation these days -- but Ed Power was keeping me pretty busy.