 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-25 12:27
2 topics rolled into one:
a) Inasmuch has music a political dimension? Watching the artist´s efforts to campaign against a re-election of G.W. Bush, it appears, here in Europe I daresay, both misplaced and impressive. Music in this country has never been that outspoken and realpolitik, if at all, more academically distanced and indirect. Should we learn something from US-pop there, something perhaps important? We´re certainly all aware that we´re not musicians in a vacuum, and we all know about the socio-, cultural political implications of the production´s conditions of cultural goods, how explicitely political can and/or should a musician be?
b) Here in Berlin there is a huge exhibition on these days, "The Flick Collection": Great contemporary art, collected by one Flick, whose grandfather was one of Hitler´s biggest weapondealers, a NSDAP-member. Should I refrain from seeing it? Is the art in thus collected, with money come acchieved through slavelabour and a genocidal regime, stained, and in itself impossible to look at? It´s not difficult to drop those realsozialismus-worker´s painitings or these maiden-bulks painted by artists during the 3rd Reich, but what now with, taken for itself, astonishing contemporary art, presented by someone whose aim it is to "give his name a different ring in the world again", as the collector said it. Our chancellor opened the exhibition officially, and I am a bit sick at the tries of this rounding up history, as if it were over and done with. Or am I the typical hysterical German, in this respect, and should just go and see the exhibition?
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-25 12:42
A teacher of mine once had us memorize:
"Art is the result of the objective desire innate within every culture to express its most profound moralities and its concept of beauty in a form which is both tangible and eternal"
If we agree with the statement (I do not entirely agree) , then seeing an exhibit does not mean that we condone it.
Art does not exist in a vacuum.
Wagner had social and polital views....shall we avoid his music if we disagree?
I am NOT certain that the quote is a truth. Art can also express a concept of disdain rather than beauty. And it need not be tangible nor eternal.
Nonetheless, we can gain a modicum of understanding...or at least cogitate on what it is saying.
Point of this being? Not certain. But good starting point.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-10-25 12:57
Just a quick comment & note:
This thread is a good, thought-provoking one and merits some real consideration in any answers (such as alseg's latest one) ...
BUT
to remain an open thread it must remain non-partisan. Examples are fine, of course, but endorsements of any political party or person in politics (or mud-slinging towards any political party or person) are off-limits, no exception. All posts must stay on-topic for this thread.
Let's see if we can keep to those boundaries. History on this BBoard leaves me a bit wary, but I'm willing to chance it again.
The judgement of both GBK & myself with regards to the appropriateness of the responses is final.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-10-25 13:22
Ten days ago I visited the Guggenheim in Bilbao, generally reckoned as one of the finest museums of its kind in the world. How did the Guggenheims get their money? Not by activities comparable to Hitler's, for sure, but I get the impression, maybe wrongly, that they were far from model employers. And I assume they made a fair bit of money out of the 1914-18 war at least. (I hope that is not seen as mud-slinging. I don't claim any more than the most superficial knowledge of the Guggenheim business empire. But what matters here is not the truth about them, but what I suspect to be the truth.)
Should I have thought, as I walked around the museum: I'd rather they'd been nicer guys, and not had the money to build this?
The past is past, Markus. We shouldn't forget it, we should try and learn from it. But you shouldn't boycott Flick's collection just because his grandfather was a baddie. You wouldn't refuse to look at a cathedral because its construction was funded by a corrupt and parasitical Church.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-10-25 13:40
If you think deep down, much of society and many materials that are used very commonly are "tainted" in one way or other, depending on who you ask. From sweat-shop made sneakers to animal-tested makeups to pesticide treated vegetables to (as might be the case here) slave-labor and genocidal tainted art.
However I don't think you should worry much about what OTHERS might think but simply go with what YOU want on this one. If your conscience would be clear going to see the exhibit, do so. If you don't think you'd be able to live with yourself, maybe you shouldn't. Don't let US make the decision for you. Likewise, if you DO make a decision, don't judge others who maybe disagree with you, but accept that they simply view it a different way.
On a sidenote, just think about those pyramids? Weren't they produced SOLELY out of slave-labour? And yet, aren't they simultaneously labeled one of the "Seven Wonders of the World"? In the case of art and similar things, I personally believe that there comes a point in time when you have to start focusing on the 'end' instead of the 'means'.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
Post Edited (2004-10-25 13:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2004-10-25 15:34
Hi, Markus--Interesting thoughts.
One comment I have about your first point is that I do not look to artists and entertainers for political and economic analysis, although art can certainly have political and/or economic content. There is a difference between art that is meant to make a statement and challenge people and work that is simply meant as a finger to the eye of a person or group. I personally would prefer that pop entertainers put their energy and fame into charities and causes they support rather than partisan politics.
As far as seeing or not seeing the exhibit, that is up to your sense of what is right. It is not censorship to not support something one finds distasteful or unworthy. But, if you want to go and don't feel wrong about it, don't worry about what others say.
Mr. Peacham, coming from a community that completed and dedicated a new church this year, I can tell you that the people who spent so many hours planning and making decisions, the people who gave money, and the construction workers and craftsmen who did their work with pride, did so out of their better selves. Our community has benefitted from the experience creating something beautiful.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: johnsonfromwisconsin
Date: 2004-10-25 15:45
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We´re certainly all aware that we´re not musicians in a vacuum, and we all know about the socio-, cultural political implications of the production´s conditions of cultural goods, how explicitely political can and/or should a musician be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good questions. Everyone in a democratic society has the right to speak up on their own behalf, and ability to use one's non-political influence to share political views isn't, and shouldn't be prohibited by law.
I get annoyed by influential people using the wrong venue to share their thoughts when the audience wasn't expecting such. There is a time and place to share your views, and it would behoove any performer not to share thoughts in a place that could put you at odds with your listening audience.
-JfW
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-10-25 15:47
clarinetwife wrote:
> Mr. Peacham, coming from a community that completed and
> dedicated a new church this year, I can tell you that the
> people who spent so many hours planning and making decisions,
> the people who gave money, and the construction workers and
> craftsmen who did their work with pride, did so out of their
> better selves.
I believe David was talking in the historical (medieval) sense where it was a bit more threatening to one's livelihood (and life) to disagree or stand out than it may be today where we live ... he does mention "a Church", not "your Church".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-10-25 16:16
Indeed I was. I did not intend to imply that every group calling itself a Christian Church has been corrupt and parasitical. But many have been. That is one reason that there are so many Christian sects, all professing to believe much the same things and yet managing to despise each other.
OK. Off topic.
sfalexi's example of the pyramids is, I think, a better one, and less controversial.
Let us also bear in mind that Markus's question is, in essence, "should we look at art produced by people we dislike?" It does not matter whether the builders of the cathedral were corrupt or not. The point is that I think they were, but holding that opinion does not stop me enjoying what they built. Similarly, to go back to my example of the Guggenheims, I enjoyed their museum despite my suspicions, whether well-founded or not, that the original Guggenheim family were not the very nicest of people.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2004-10-25 16:19
Different musicians support each of the candidates. (Both conventions included performances by popular musicians.)
As to whether musicians should get involved in politics, perhaps everyone should, regardless of vocation or avocation. I'd like to see everyone looking at all the issues at a deeper level than most do.
Should we be forming our opinions based on what pop musicians or other popular culture icons tell us? Regarding politics, probably not unless they can provide well researched, well thought out bases for their opinions. This goes back to the point of the previous paragraph. We should all become more educated as to the complexities of the issues rather than forming opinions based on sound bites, distortions from the opposing candidate, and the opinions of pop icons.
---
Regarding your second question, I would not go see such an exhibit if my doing so benefited evil-doers or promoted evil acts. (E.g., I would not go to an R. Kelly concert or watch a movie featuring O.J. Simpson if he were getting residuals from it.) Otherwise, I would consider it OK to go to it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-10-25 16:30
There's no satisfactory answer.
Leni Riefenstahl was a deeply committed Nazi, who was one of the regime's most effective advocates. Her film Olympia is a work of art that simultaneously glorifies Hitler and his ideals. Triumph of the Will stirs something in me, even though I'm Jewish and have relatives who went to the death camps. I felt a profound conflict when I saw these films, with esthetic and even emotional response clashing with nausea at the evil these people wrought.
Eduard Pernkopf made amazingly accurate and detailed anatomical drawings that are still in use. He was also a Nazi and inorporated tiny swastikas and SS symbols, and at least some of the drawings may be of concentration camp victims. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/medmurder.html. The Nazi symbols have been deleted from current editions. Nevertheless, it's a difficult decision whether the use of his drawings to train physicians and other savers of lives can justify using the work of a monster.
Even worse, the Nazis performed infamous experiments on concentration camp victims (which you'll have to Google yourself to find -- they're too sickening to link to), to find the limits of human endurance (e.g., how long a person can be immersed in ice water and still be revived, and what the most effective revival methods are). This information is medically valuable. Should this information, which is not reproducible in any other way, be used? Is there some point at which the information itself becomes tainted?
I take it as given that the Flick Collection contains great works of art, well worth seeing. On the other side is the owner's association with and benefit from the Second Reich. There are any number of arguments and counter-arguments. The Flick family member who benefited directly from the Nazis was the current owner's grandfather. Should the grandfather's sins be visited on the grandchildren? On the other hand, the grandchildren have inherited the ill gotten wealth.
There are many good arguments, and no satisfactory answer. Many Jews will not listen to Wagner or own a German car. After some thought about it, I do both. It's each person's individual decision.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rick Williams
Date: 2004-10-25 16:37
In the United States we have a very strong history backed by Constitutional law supporting free speech. It isn't absolute, but it is very close. Artists and I would include any artists but actors and musicians seem to make the most of it have every right to express their viewpoints in this country in whatever venue they choose. However, right and wisdom are two separate issues.
The wisdom of preaching a political view to an audience which paid good money to hear you perform may not be there, but the right certainly is. Likewise activist actors and actresses have many of the same opportunities due to their fame. I fully support their rights to do so.
However, I have no sympathy whatsoever when artists who make full use of those rights complain when others call them to task for it. Freedom of speech is a two way street and as has been said, that includes the right to call the artist a complete idiot for their views and boycott their products if you happen to feel that way. Too many artists when that happens begin to make bogus claims that they are being censored. They are not; they are simply on the reverse side of free speech and a free marketplace where people show support or disproval with their wallets.
Personally I don't believe that the views of a "star" matters in the least and the people I know feel pretty much the same. In the case of actors, if you think about it their one demonstrable skill is the ability to pretend they are someone else while speaking words written by others. Why would I give them or any artist special credence?
RW
Best
Rick
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2004-10-25 16:56
Rick--I like what you said, particularly in regard to free speech and it being a two-way street. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." It does not say that privately owned institutions can't create rules governing speech (or that parents can't limit what their kids say or that a message-board owner can't put limits on what gets posted). So, if a venue decides to no longer employ a singer because of the singer's political rantings on stage, it is perfectly legal. And should be. Businesses and individuals should and do have the right to boycott those we disagree with. But I'll be there fighting for them if the government tries to censor them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-10-25 17:01
A very good subject here, Markus.
Celebrity politicking is something that most folks tend to applaud when they agree with what they're hearing and jeer when they disagree. As a viewer of the arts, I feel more receptive to the opinions of celebrities who are generous, accomplished and well-behaved in their personal lives. I also consider whether their political position differs from audience to audience or whether a performer might be trying to affect his or her popularity via the opinion expressed.
Here's an example that I respect. In 1938, Gene Autry walked off the lot at Republic Pictures in the midst of contract negotiations in which he was trying to get Republic to end a practice which he felt was unfair to theatre owners. His films provided the leverage with which the studio forced theatres to buy all of its products each season. I respect this. He faced the studio owners directly, and knew that this process could seriously damage his career. He was replaced in that movie by an unknown named Roy Rogers, who would go on to become an even bigger star. Fortunately, Autry returned to the movies and recouped his fame, and Rogers would prove to be a man of similar integrity in other areas.
Of course, this isn't truly an example of political expression and maybe that's why I really respect it. Autry was standing up for right and wrong in a practical way. The most politicially active celebrities that I see seem to feign a level of expertise that they don't really have, and attribute to the general public levels of ignorance that they don't really have. (Although it is probably a more ignorant segment that is receptive to celebrity political opinion <g>)
The second question has a lot of grey area, and not just in the arts. Nazi medical experiments provide one of the richest resources in the study of hypothermia, but I reall a tremendous controversy around 20 years ago as to whether that research should be used or destroyed. I don't know how it finally turned out.
I also recall that some ground was broken in Israel recently because someone had been allowed to perform Wagner. While I can understand some objections there to Wagner, I found it curious that Richard Strauss was not similarly banned there, despite his official role in the Nazi government.
In most of these things, it seems to me that it's just better to let the audience vote with its feet.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-10-25 17:05
Markus, you wrote: "Music in this country [Germany] has never been that outspoken"
No? Never?
Surely there was plenty of political motivation in the Arts in the DDR.
Politics and the Arts were heavily intertwined in the Weimar Republic, too. Think of Brecht and Weill. The NSDAP understood that well enough: Entartete Kunst and all that.
Or are you referring only to present-day Germany? If artists in present-day Germany are silent politically, perhaps they just don't think there are any important issues to speak about.
Rick wrote: "Personally I don't believe that the views of a "star" matters in the least". I agree. But many don't. Marlene Dietrich - a star if ever there was one - was reviled in post-war Germany as a traitor.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-25 17:31
Nazi pilots suffered femur fractures in crash landings. Their orthopedists developed a long 4-sided shaft (nail) to stabilize the fractures and return the pilots to action. This technique was perfected on concentration camp "volunteers." The method is valuable and still in use. Practical? yes.
Morally repugnant?...yes, by most of today's standards... but not to the Nazis then.
Was it not Fortwengler (sp?) who was a favorite conductor of der fuhrer?
Do we refuse to listen to his legacy because of his politics?
Hitler rode in a Merc. Benz. Do we buy them now?
And what did H Wurlitzer do...or Buffet....during the war? (anyone?)
History is full of ethical dilemnas. I wonder what History will say of bin Laden a millenia from now? Depends on who "wins" perhaps.
Yikes. This is sure an intelectual board..
How bout dem Sox!!!!! ![[toast]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley15.gif)
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
Post Edited (2004-10-26 00:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2004-10-26 04:58
''just think about those pyramids? Weren't they produced SOLELY out of slave-labour? ''
No, as I understand it, the pyramids were built by (more or less) willing conscripts, who were free to return home when the work was completed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-10-26 09:28
Meant to mention this before. I saw "Team America: World Police" last weekend and greatly enjoyed its portrayal of 'politically responsible' celebrities.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-26 21:20
That is a bit lighthearted, Alseg, isn´t it? Guilt and responsibility aren´t the same - I didn´t kill any Jew, nor anyone of my family, still I cannot escape the responsibility the past demands and represents at the same time.
It is not about seeing a single particular painting I feel in this double-bind but entering an exhibited collection that as such was come by a heritage buildt from Nazi-tradings. It is this creeping possibility of "why now look at that, at least this is some good end all this wrongdoing came to...", (like the incredible stupid utterance "but the motorways this Hitler buildt are surely a good thing, see they´re still in use today" etc... You all know this sort of stuff) that makes a visit there so tainted to me.
David,
certainly there were and still are individual political artists in Germany, and yes the former GDR played a particular role inasmuch art could/can/has to be a political one as well. I don´t know whether a political meaning at least in parts should/can be up to a work of art as such, but surely playing with a tshirt on "don´t vote for N.N." has a somewhat obscene tinge to it, in my opinion. I´m still undecided on this field, and I think it bad that I am. It is not the point that the single vote doesn´t evoke a relevant change in realpolitik, but voting, being political, is exactly what keeps democracy alive, it is about ht evoting process, the individual act of going there and putting the sheet in the box, not so much where the check was made actually (still, those elections lately, where neofascist parties managed to enter local parliaments, carried along by plain ignorant and deranged young voters, makes me mad at the frustrating results Enlightenment comes down to still, something art conceives itself as part and parcel of, since its beginning.).
Think of Nono, e.g., even when one disagrees on his concrete ideas and opinions, he was very explicit as a composer about his political attitudes, or Yun, Schoenberg, Ligeti, Xenakis, or, to leave the music departement, Jelinek, this year´s Nobel-prize winner for literature, her very core-theme is this internal herrenmensch, and he´s speaking German. I cannot wlak into the mentioned exhibition and feel myself detached from Nazi-money, "it wasn´t mine, was it?" - wise. But does this make the Ereignis of works of art in that case impossible? On nearly every guitarcase of those sympathetic punks I meet in the s-bahn there´s a "No Nazis!"-sticker, and justly so, as if all this being a politically correct and well-informed performer is rendered somewhat shallow if I could see the exhibition "just for the sake of art". Or is this "I want to see it but I declare my awareness of the inhuman conditions it was put together in the past!" simply righteous and puffed up?
What´s, as Allen puts it, the "practical way to stay up for what´s right", for us, behind our musicstands? Of course we were indignated as the Wannsee institute, questioned whether we could play Schoenberg´s "A Survivor form Warsaw" there in the very room where the endlösung for the Jewish people were conceived, declined our offer, even admitting that this project´d be a bit too daring for the mostly older audience there - but this isn´t much of a revolutionary stance, is it? I want to "behave well", Allen, as I think it the most credible way an artist as a r t i s t can be political, - but what´s the right conduct then there, with this exhibition? I can´t even control that the few euros of my ticket fee will be used to finance let´s say the room´s aircondition, and won´t go into this Flick´s purse...or can I?
I´m afraid that Ken´s right to say that to feel and admit this conflict is the single way to deal with this. And be ashamed by the fist buried the trouser´s pocket.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2004-10-27 09:00
Markus, it seems to me the question is, what do you achieve by not going?
Suppose you, and many others, boycott the exhibition. You are giving out the message, "We think Hitler (and Herr Flick's grandfather) were bad people." But surely everyone already knows you think that. Most probably Herr Flick would agree with you (or is he an apologist for Nazi Germany - I know nothing about him.)
Suppose on the other hand you go to the exhibition. Will that give out the message that you support Hitler? Are you covertly voting for the NSDAP every time you drive on an Autobahn? Are you being anti-semitic by buying a Volkswagen?
I am reminded of the French (and Jewish) political commentator Raymond Aron, who was criticised for not speaking out against the use of torture by the French state during the Algerian war. His reply (my translation): "But I wouldn't have been telling anybody anything if I had said I was against torture. I've never met anyone who was for torture."
If Herr Flick is a neo-Nazi and the proceeds of the exhibition go to finance his work, then of course my answer would be different. But I assume you wouldn't even be asking the question if you thought that to be the case.
---
Ken Shaw asks "Is there some point at which the information itself becomes tainted?"
No. If the information can benefit others, it should be used. At least that way the suffering was not in vain. Discarding the information is a greater insult to the memory of the victims.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-27 14:01
Lighthearted? Think again after reading the statement that went before the injection of humor.
Why not do this.....Go to the exhibit. Keep your mind focused on the exhibit itself. Go home and cogitate. Then ask yourself if you gained anything from the exhibit that is of any value to you either as an artist or as a person.
If yes...then you know that in the future you can separate a work from the history of its creator. If no....then avoid such things in the future.
"When you go to a barber you can expect a haicut"
Denton Cooley, famed cardiac surgeon, commenting on how
we decide on how to handle things that can
be done in varying ways.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2004-10-27 15:37
Alseg and David Peacham have contributed some very valid thoughts about the Flick collection. I'll add an observation to the many ideas that have been expressed in this thread. From what you have written, you seem troubled about seeing the exhibit. Perhaps that is part of your answer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-28 01:07
My old aol profile quote "Subjectivism is reality"
certainly applies here.
Clwife...
Your statement to Markus et al that "you seem troubled about seeing the exhibit. Perhaps that is part of your answer." is very perceptive
Freud could not have said it better. Perhaps to update the psychology I can close my eyes and imagine some sage (Yoda?) saying it to a student.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2004-10-28 06:35
Still so, Alseg - the means to an end matter, especially if it´s questionable what that particular end in question is like and whether one should at all approach it.
Clarinetwife, I´ve no idea what You mean by that. In the logics of hermeneutics a question is eo ipso part of the answer, indeed does already faciliate it semiotically, but should the fact that I have troubles with seeing that exhibition express something more/else than just that I have those, which goes without saying?
David, this is certainly a very valid question, what could/will be gained by me seeing/missing the exhibition collected through Nazi means. Flick himself is no Nazi, at least not in respect to his reputation as a ressourceful collector of contemporary art - he is that type that creeps and irritates me much more in nowadays Germany, that wurstigkeits-character who thinks and expresses that history and responsibility do not go on forever, that there´s an end to coming to grips with what has been. He wants, so he says, to give the name Flick a different ring in the world. None of the artist is even remotedly close to fascism, it´s the Flick money that made this exhibiton possible - what makes me go up the walls is this attitude, more often heard right now in Germany, even so multiplied by artists, that the past is past and we´ve had enough of beating our backs because of it. Nobody of my family took part in Nazism, nor did we loose someone during that time - but it makes me sick to do as if we could quite literally paint this particular German past over, and even admire the paint. the works of art are great for certain, but I´d hate to be close to anything of that reeking money, and I am then, aren´t I? Wouldn´t that exhibition be an end I can avoid, whereas there certainly are ends and goods come up with during the reich I cannot avoid, at least that easily? This art exhibited there is not of the kind that explicitedly fights inertia and this shrugging-attitude towards the past, as far as I know beforehand, Flick hasn´t collected works which themselves represent primarily a shoveling away of that heap of bloodstained money, so that exit is closed more or less.
Markus
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-28 12:31
"Still so, Alseg - the means to an end matter"
Markus.....yes I suppose so....By the way, I think you and I have conversed before in another setting (online auction ) under my guise of clarinetconcepts.
Back to the point of discussion.......
In questioning that (practical) aspect you made me realize that my answers expose my own personality trait when it comes to undoing Gordian knots...after all, I am a surgeon, and these same conflicts come up in discussions of medical ethics with gerontologists, theologians, etc.
Let us know what you ultimately decide.
![[up]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley24.gif)
And thanks, Markus, for a provocative and informative thread. And tip of the hat to all who contributed
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
