Randy Pausch, Carnegie Mellon professor and deliverer of the above “The Last Lecture” has lost his battle with pancreatic cancer and died. He gave the touching and uplifting presentation last September at CMU. If you haven’t yet watched it, please do so now, and then say prayers for his family and friends.

Technorati Tags: Randy Pausch, The Last Lecture

A bit over three weeks ago, as I sat bedside with my mother-in-law who was battling her end days with cancer, emphysema and heart failure, I was asking these questions:

It’s in times like these that one’s beliefs are challenged. Why must she suffer so? Why does God allow this to happen? Why not allow assisted suicide to folks that have no hope of survival, not much time left, and are in agony? Good questions all, and I am at a loss for any good answers, except for the belief that our Lord has a purpose for his children, and that there are lessons for us to learn[.]

I can hear that heavenly reprimand echoing in my mind, “Oh ye of little faith,” especially after reading through Elizabeth Scalia’s A Tsunami Cannot Be Drawn in Pastels: On Dignity and Suffering posted at InsideCatholic.com. I had read her posts in real time that first half year of my blogging, as she and her family watched and dealt with the loss of her dear brother to cancer. I thought that I was moved at the time, having lost my own mother just two years before, however nothing I felt then prepared me for what I encountered during this reading, having lost my wife’s mother just a few short weeks ago.

She harpoons my question, “Why does God allow this to happen?”, by explaining that without sorrow there is no joy, without loss, there is no appreciation, without extreme hardship, there is no personal growth — it is as it ever was. How foolish the collective “we” have all become; “We” only want to live our lives from cradle to grave with as little challenge and impediments as possible, constantly in a state of middling euphoria, with never a pain or a loss seemingly too great to bear — can’t have ourselves being put to that test, mind you . . .

It would do no justice to excerpt this important read, so just go and read it all. If you would like to read more from her, then do so here.

The Okie’s wife’s mother passed away this am just before 8 o’clock. It’s been a hectic day. I was with her a good bit of the day yesterday and it was time amazingly well spent, time that I wish I had been able to have spent with my own dear mother a little over four years ago — no, make that five years ago! It was in ’03 . . . I’m so bad with dates.

I will have a proper remembrance for my mother-in-law by, over the weekend. It’s off to bed, long day tomorrow — much to arrange.

Thank you dear Lord for sparing her any further suffering. Only you truly know how hard she worked to stay with us until after the 15th!

I’ll explain later.

BTW — thanks for all the kind thoughts and especially the prayers . . .

Life sometimes rears up and says, “Hey Okie, whatever you have planned, you’re gonna do this for a while instead!” Life’s been real intrusive lately.

The wife’s mother is in the hospital, had to be taken to the ER by paramedics last Friday after several falls the night before. She’s a dear lady, 86 years old, with emphysema, congestive heart failure, and newly diagnosed late-stage breast cancer that has spread to her lungs — can you imagine a more devastating diagnosis? I can’t. Only so much pain relief can be administered without resulting in respiratory failure, so pain management is definitely an issue.

It’s in times like these that one’s beliefs are challenged. Why must she suffer so? Why does God allow this to happen? Why not allow assisted suicide to folks that have no hope of survival, not much time left, and are in agony? Good questions all, and I am at a loss for any good answers, except for the belief that our Lord has a purpose for his children, and that there are lessons for us to learn, especially for us that bare witness to this dear woman’s plight.

I remember sleeping across two chairs at the foot of my mother’s hospital bed on the night of the day after Christmas four years ago, listening to her pray to her Lord to take her home — her heart was a mess and she had decided to refuse any more treatment or meds. Sixteen days later her wish was granted. That was a long sixteen days for her.

“Lord, please take thy daughter in Christ home, gather her unto your bosom and give her the peace of eternity in your presence, grant unto her the eternal sleep we all must face, let her congregate among all those who have gone before and are waiting for her. Release her into your eternal comfort .

Amen.”

If only it was that simple . . .

Randy Pausch reprises his “Last Lecture” on Oprah.

It’s 11 minutes and 32 seconds of your life –

that just might change your life . . .

[H/t: The Anchoress]

[I wrote this post I think on Wednesday and thought that it had been posted -- Doah!]

What a great announcement coming just before Thanksgiving — that scientists have successfully transformed human subsurface skin cells into stem cells that behave like embryonic stem cells, all without having to destroy a living human embryo! This came out of research announced last summer that had done the same thing with mice cells, with human cell success projected to be years away. My, how time compresses in today’s modern world. From the LA Times article of today:

Researchers from Japan and Wisconsin reported Tuesday that they had reprogrammed mature human cells to behave almost exactly like embryonic stem cells, a biological breakthrough that instantly recasts the field’s ethical, scientific and economic landscape.

By activating a handful of dormant genes, the researchers were able to coax the cells back in time to a point in embryonic development before they had committed to becoming a particular type of tissue.

The rejuvenated cells were able to grow into all the main tissue types in the body, including muscle, gut, cartilage, neurons and heart cells.
{…}
For scientists, the method offers a straightforward alternative to the tricky and still unsuccessful cloning process in which a patient’s DNA is inserted into a human egg to create a cloned embryo whose stem cells theoretically could be harvested.

The technique also bypasses the thorny debate over the morality of destroying embryos in the cause of alleviating human suffering.

As I was reading this I was also wondering what the rationale was going to be for scientists to keep on killing human embryos to harvest embryonic stem cells for research, because I just knew they would. The secular researchers see little to no value in human embryos, they’re just more tissue masses to them, more tools to play with. Well, another article in the LA Times provides that info too.

The political controversy over restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is unlikely to end with Tuesday’s news that mature human cells can be made to acquire the powers of embryonic stem cells, because scientists say research on both types of cells is closely related and is needed to inspire and cross-check each other.
{…}
“I must say, this is a very exciting breakthrough, and it shows great promise, but it’s still in its very early stages,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a leading supporter of loosening federal restrictions on human embryonic research. “People like me feel we have to encourage all forms of the research, because you never know where the cure is going to come from.”

Amy Comstock Rick, chief executive of the Parkinson’s Action Network, said research on embryonic stem cells was much more advanced. “Unless something has been shown to fail, it should not be taken off the table, and embryonic stem cell research has shown great promise,” she said.

The two kinds of scientific research will probably move in tandem for some time.

I’m sure they will. Gotta look on the bright side, Okie. And, without President Bush’s insistence on restricting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to the existing lines, these new breakthroughs might just not have happened at all.

As the LA Times columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote last month in Why be pro-life?:

I don’t know if life begins at conception. I don’t really know what “life” means. Consciousness? Possessing a soul? Well, if consciousness defines the issue, then life surely does not begin at conception. Not even the most adamant pro-lifer claims otherwise.

As for souls, I believe we have them, but I don’t know how they work. Indeed, ensoulment — the process by which God puts a soul in our bodies — is a controversial topic among religious scholars, people who know a lot more about such things than I do. And I’m not sure any of them are right anyway.
{…}
[U]nless you are 100% sure that babies only become human beings after the umbilical cord is cut. I don’t see how you can be that sure, which is why I’m pro-life — not because I’m certain, but because I’m not.

No one really knows, and if you are not religious, why would you have a tendency to be certain one way or the other? Therefore, if you can’t be certain, why not always err on the side of life?