The End… is an original short story written by Edward Fagan.

 Drinkers Guilt Need Not Be A Problem For non-drinkers

The end of  life we often cause by our actions 

“The end of life we often cause even without realizing it.”, says Carl Phillips to a friend. He continues “We often follow a way of life which includes habits that contribute to the impairment of our health. This way of life we often follow also reduces our longevity and contributes to our premature death.”

“Many persons abuse substances which impair health and shorten their lifespan, thus causing premature death. People often eat badly and do not get adequate sleep. They often practise poor hygiene, practise unsafe sex and do not exercise. These mentioned practices also can contribute to a shortened lifespan and premature death.”

“Individuals have different motives for following such substance abusing and other life threatening practices. Persons following the above practices, despite their motives, can suffer the same results, namely, illness and self caused death.”

“Death resulting from following a careless, harmful way of life is not much different to death through euthanasia or suicide. We view as normal, people who die through practising this careless, harmful and fatal approach to life. We view in a different light, people who die through euthanasia or who commit suicide.”

“Some people choose suicide as the method by which they would die prematurely. Those people who choose suicide view it as a direct, quick and cheap method of ending their life.”

“People also choose euthanasia as a means of fulfilling their desire to end their life prematurely. Euthanasia does not carry the stigma associated with suicide.”, Carl Phillips finally says to his friend.

Carl Phillips has a problem which he never mentions to anyone. Carl’s problem is a very serious one. He is always thinking about the end of his life because of this problem. Carl often wonders, given the nature of this problem, whether his life should not end prematurely.

The end of his life draws closer, but who is Carl Phillips?

Carl is a young man in his mid thirties. He has a beautiful wife and two lovely daughters. He holds a bachelor’s degree in accounting and is a certified accountant. Carl works with a prosperous midsize company that is about to expand significantly. He is an assistant financial manager.

Carl’s other relatives include his parents and grandparents who are all alive. He also has brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, cousins and inlaws. He, expectedly, has many friends.

Carl is a sceptic, and he believes in humanism.

Carl gives bookkeeping and financial advice to a number of charitable organizations of which he is a member. He also participates in the programme and fund raising activities in these organizations.

Carl is an avid basketball fan and follows the game at all levels. He plays the game for his Alma Mater university past students team. In addition to this, he sits on the board of the university’s current basketball team.

Carl’s immediate family, extended family, in laws, friends, workmates and subordinates love him. Many other persons who come into contact with Carl, also love him. He does not seem to have any enemies.

None of the people who know and love Carl knows that he has a problem. Carl’s closest relatives do not even know that he has this problem. Only Carl and his doctor know of his problem. Carl keeps his secret very well.

The end and a little about Carl’s secret

Carl finds it hard to tell any of these people who he loves, and who love him, about his problem. Carl can not say he suffers from a rare incurable disease. He can not say its victims live no longer than a few years, even after early diagnosis. He tells it to no one; it is his secret.

Carl’s early diagnosis of this disease, before he starts to experience its symptoms, is to his advantage. This gives him time to prepare for the problems of this disease before they come.

This disease causes intense pain, suffering, potential multiple disability, and acute mental illness as time passes. It causes slow, agonizing, premature death in the later stages of its development, and it is incurable.

The end, and Carl’s choices before it comes

Carl can accept his problem without a response; in any case, it will mature and become worse as time passes. He then, gradually, will become helpless and a source of pain to himself and others. Carl will need others to look after him, totally, until he dies. He will become a very painful burden to his loved ones until he dies.

Carl can otherwise choose one of the methods of premature termination of life. He would save others and himself all of the future pain, suffering and hardship of his problem. Carl would also succeed in keeping his secret, and its pain, from others until he dies.

Carl is considering euthanasia as an option for premature termination of his life. He thinks that it offers advantages over the other, more common, option used for deliberate termination of life. One such advantage of euthanasia is that it allows for concealment of the motive, cause and method of death.

This advantage is very important to Carl. Carl, through It, can save others the pain of knowing about his illness and the truth of his self-caused death. He is going to choose euthanasia as the means through which he dies.

The end of his life draws much closer to Carl

Carl has chosen to die by means of euthanasia, as soon as possible. He phones his doctor and arranges an appointment to discuss this decision, and his doctor’s role in it. Both men attend for the appointment. Doctor Michael Hinkson is Carl’s doctor and a Christian. He is sad because Carl wants to end his life.

Carl asks Doctor Hinkson to set a date to perform the act according to his plan. Doctor Michael Hinkson politely declines to do so; and tells Carl that there is still time to find another solution. He therefore does not set a date to perform the role of doctor in Carl’s plan.

Doctor Hinkson agrees to continue helping Carl live with the disease, and cope with the problems it creates. Carl is sad because Doctor Hinkson does not show an interest in performing the role of doctor in his plan.

There is no cure for Carl’s disease in western medicine. Doctor Hinkson thinks this being so, there might still be a cure for this disease in alternative medicine. He thus intends to find such a cure for carl if any exist.

Carl’s disease and his commitment to euthanasia urgently require a cure or treatment. The required treatment, in the absence of a cure, must allow him to live a normal life with the disease.

Doctor Hinkson identifies a number of alternative forms of curing and treating diseases. He begins reading about cures and treatments for Carl’s disease in such alternative forms of treating disease. Doctor Hinkson looks into: Homeopathic, Ayurvedic, Chinese Traditional and European Traditional medicines. He also looks into several other alternative forms of medicine from various geographical regions around the world.

The end of life looms, but now there is hope

Doctor Hinkson reads about alternative remedies over several months but does not find a cure or treatment for Carl’s condition. It seems as if he will not find such a cure after all. In his reading, however, he has not exhausted all of the areas in this vast field of alternative remedies.

Doctor Hinkson decides to take a break from his reading. During this break, he recalls that he read about the distinguished research work of a prominent German biochemist and doctor. This biochemist and doctor is Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg. He thinks that findings from Dr. Warburg’s research might offer some hope for curing Carl’s condition.

He decides that after his break ends he certainly should consult the research work of Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg. Immediately after the break, Doctor Hinkson starts reading the research literature of Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg. He starts by reading about Dr. Warburg himself.

Dr. Otto Heinrich Warburg (1883-1970), received the Nobel prize for his research in physiology in 1931. Some persons think that later, the Nobel Committee nominated Doctor Warburg for two more Nobel prizes separately. The Nobel Committee, however, did not present these two prizes to Dr. Warburg. Some persons suggest that the committee refused to present these prizes because of Germany’s position during the second world war.

The end goes further away as a cure comes closer 

While he reads copies of Dr. Warburg’s research literature, Doctor Hinkson finds an important discovery within that literature. This discovery offers a conceptual and practical explanation for the cause of, and the cure for Carl’s condition. Doctor Hinkson now is absolutely sure that the principle guidelines exist for finding a practical cure for Carl’s disease.

In one of his many statements concerning this discovery, Dr. Warburg writes “Diseases can not survive in an alkaline body.”. “According to this discovery”, Doctor Hinkson says “Carl’s body is not in an alkaline state. It is in an acidic state. We will cure the disease when we remove the acidic state from Carl’s body and create an alkaline state.”.

Doctor Hinkson continues reading Dr. Warburg’s research findings. He knows that Dr. Warburg’s biochemistry research findings definitely offer a cure for Carl’s condition. Doctor Hinkson decides to apply relevant aspects of Dr. Warburg’s biochemistry research findings toward curing Carl’s disease.

To achieve this aim, Doctor Hinkson is also reading the literature on applied biochemistry research. He begins to apply biochemistry wisdom to Carl’s diet, medication and living habits. Doctor Hinkson prescribes the following for Carl: a pure vegetarian, all alkaline diet, and herbal-only all-alkaline medication as necessary. He also prescribes an alcohol-free, tobacco-free and drug-free lifestyle, that also excludes other unnecessary and harmful living habits.

Doctor Hinkson explains to Carl, very clearly, the course of action he prescribes, its underlying principles and its desired outcomes. Carl listen’s very attentively to all that Doctor Hinkson explains to him about the prescribed course of action. He clearly understands all that Doctor Hinkson says to him.

The end starts to be less of a problem  

Carl begins to follow the prescribed course of action, and looks forward to becoming cured of his disease. He also looks forward to experiencing the other positive, life-changing outcomes of following the prescribed course of action.

Doctor Hinkson continues reading the research findings in the fields of biochemistry and its application. He also continues reading the research findings in the field of herbalism for herbs that effectively and completely cure diseases. He remains tireless in his effort to find a cure for Carl’s disease.

In his reading as mentioned above, Doctor Hinkson discovers the work of world renown herbalist, the late Dr. Sebi. Dr. Sebi is founder of Dr. Sebi’s Research Institute. He also visits the institute’s website at: www.drsebiscellfood.com. His research finally reaches its destination. He finds what he seeks. Dr. Sebi’s products certainly are going to cure Carl’s disease. Doctor Hinkson shares this awesome discovery with Carl. Carl experiences sheer excitement.

Dr. Sebi’s Research Institute cures all diseases including: AIDS, sickle cell anemia, diabetes and cancers among others. They cured all diseases for the past twenty eight years.

The institute recommends only an alkaline diet. In its treatments, the institute uses only alkaline herbs and herbal compounds. Dr. Sebi replaces the acidic state with the alkaline state. He replenishes the body with the minerals it lost during the acid state. He restores the mucus membrane by removing the mucus caused by the acid state.

Doctor Hinkson wastes no time at all. He places carl on Dr. Sebi’s alkaline diet. (This diet is available at: www.drsebiscellfood.com.) From Dr. Sebi’s Institute, he orders the relevant alkaline herbal compounds. The compounds arrive in two days. Carl starts to take them immediately. His confidence in the compounds is limitless.

The end fades away, the cure works

Carl follows the diet faithfully and takes the compounds as instructed. After one week, the lab will test Carl’s blood for the disease. This is the same lab which initially diagnosed his disease. One week passes, and Carl attends the lab for his test. He takes the test and should receive the results in a few days.

On the third day Carl receives the test results. He opens the envelope slowly, in the presence of Doctor Hinkson. Both men look at each other before reading the results. Carl reads the results, and tears settle in his eyes. He then hands the results to Doctor Hinkson. Doctor Hinkson reads them and tears also form in his eyes. When he finishes reading the test results, Doctor Hinkson makes a short statement. “God, through the knowledge he has given us, has cured your disease my friend.”.

By Edward Fagan

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is an original essay written by Edward Fagan.

Training and adults  

Children: their training for life is important for several reasons. These reasons include, developing in them good and regular habits of behaviour that contribute to their personal wellness and circumstances.  These habits of behaviour are morally just toward others and themselves; and also help them to become socially graceful.

Others must assist and train them in developing such habits of behaviour. They are unable to develop these habits of behaviour on their own, given their level of immaturity.

The average level of immaturity and underdevelopment in children does not cause them to suffer any serious disadvantage. It gives them, on the contrary, freshness of mind and an eager willingness to learn and let others guide them.

(In this essay the parent, guardian and child care-giver are seen as knowing what they intend to pass on. They will pass on what they intend to, by way of instruction and example, to those children under their care . Their calling expects that they understand the relationship between indifference to training children and its consequences. That calling also expects that they understand training children in the right way and its advantages.)

Training children

Children develop good, as well as bad, regular habits of behaviour best during early childhood. They also, generally, form bad habits of behaviour where they do not develop good habits. We know what happens when children develop such bad habits of behaviour during the early years.

Younger children develop correct habits more easily than they understand concepts and principles. They doing so is also more immediately important at this stage of their development.

Understanding underlying concepts and principles behind the correct habits becomes easier as children grow older. Younger and other adolescents should understand these underlying concepts and principles, and their relationship to good and bad habits.

They should understand the connection between their actions, right and wrong, and the consequences of these to themselves and others.

Training our little ones draws on several areas of knowledge and practice. It is concerned with correctly influencing and shaping the thinking and action of young innocent persons.

Discipline and other factors

Occasionally, adults must act to prevent undesirable thought and action from becoming rooted in the minds and behaviour of children.

We can use discipline, simple and appropriate, to help us implant correct thought and behaviour, as may be necessary occasionally.

Early childhood training and development of good regular habits of behaviour contribute to the building of character. Such character affects how we relate to ourselves, and to others as individuals and members of social groups. It also affects how we relate to institutions of the sovereign state in which we live, and to God.

Parents, guardians and others who are responsible for nurturing children will determine whether they participate in the training of them. They will determine also, what methods of instruction and action they use in their attempt to successfully train them. Parents who refuse to train their offspring, choose to train them in the wrong way and toward the wrong outcome.

By Edward Fagan

 

Standing Up For Morality And The Family Was Necessary On This Occasion.

This is an original essay written by Edward fagan. 

Standing up together for a common cause is something that both government and opposition politicians should do more regularly. One occasion when all politicians should have taken this bipartisan approach was following a particular action which occurred in 2013. On this occasion, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a section of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA). This section relates to such topics as (for federal purposes) government employees insurance benefits, social security survivors’ benefits and bankruptcy. These laws apply to heterosexual couples only.

The section also relates to immigration, filing of joint tax returns and a scope of other laws. This scope of laws includes protection of (heterosexual only) families of federal officers.  It also includes financial aid eligibility laws, and federal ethics laws applying to heterosexual spouses only.

Those seeking to redefine marriage and the family, obviously, would want to have SCOTUS struck down this section of DOMA.

Standing up for DOMA

This bipartisanship was very evident in May 1996 when both government and opposition politicians voted for the same cause. The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed Congress and the Senate by large majorities. This bipartisanship thus contributed to the DOMA being signed into law in September, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

DOMA defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also defines “spouse” as a partner in a legally recognized heterosexual marriage.

Four out of the nine SCOTUS judges voted in favour of upholding Section 3 of the DOMA. Their position is the correct one, and very noteworthy. The other five judges, clearly, misinterpreted part or all of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

All elected office holders who favoured upholding the DOMA should have highlighted the voting position of those four judges. They should have upheld the voting position of those four judges locally and nationally. They then should have considered using that voting position as the rallying cry for their upholding it in practice. This would be a very good case of the ultimate bipartisanship. It would also be a valid case of the end justifying the means.

By Edward Fagan