Assisted Suicide

[Flavius_Aetius]

This came to me after seeing “Million Dollar Baby” a movie that though ending in an assisted suicide definately did not glamorize it with Clint Eastwood´ character feeling glad that she was at peace, in fact he was devestated in every manner after doing it.

However I have always wondered about that, in situations where there is a zero percent chance of ever getting better. Where the only thing your left with is constant suffering, being a economic drain on family and simply worsening into a more painful existance. Why is it not allowed that someone be assisted to suicide? Especially if it is something like the movie where your living off a respirator completely paralyzed. If your living off a respirator then that means that on your own you could not survive, your not in God´s hands at that point your in Man´s hands. By that point if there was no chance of improvement wouldnt you be living on essentially spent time, keeping yourself away from God just to live as a vegetable?

By this Im not calling that every person in that situation be killed off, Im just saying allow the option without threatening them and there loved ones with Hell for doing it.

 

[Apollos]

Eventually the option of killing yourself for serious reasons will become the option of killing yourself for any reason; eventually you will be killed against your will because someone else doesn’t want you around anymore (e.g. your adult children).

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Eventually the option of killing yourself for serious reasons will become the option of killing yourself for any reason; eventually you will be killed against your will because someone else doesn’t want you around anymore (e.g. your adult children).

Is this the best defense? That it could lead down a slippery slope where are Old are killed off once there unwanted by family?

I would rather stick to the topic of if someone gave there consent to rather die now than strech it out with years of payments and suffering then why are they destined to Hell for this?

 

[BenedictSpinoza]

Is this the best defense? That it could lead down a slippery slope where are Old are killed off once there unwanted by family?

I would rather stick to the topic of if someone gave there consent to rather die now than strech it out with years of payments and suffering then why are they destined to Hell for this?

Seen from a different point of view, in the instance of your particular example, can you not look at being off life support as not assisting life instead of assisting death? If that character in the movie was not lucky enough to have help around or unlucky enough to not make it to a hospital in time, she would have died of natural causes.

Can it be asked if giving aid is not interfering with the intended course of one’s life?

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Seen from a different point of view, in the instance of your particular example, can you not look at being off life support as not assisting life instead of assisting death? If that character in the movie was not lucky enough to have help around or unlucky enough to not make it to a hospital in time, she would have died of natural causes.

Can it be asked if giving aid is not interfering with the intended course of one’s life?

Well that is where things become difficult to reason. One extreme calls for someone to be left in a vegetative state for as long as there family can afford to do it, and the other extreme is that a person should not be hospitalized because it goes against the natural course of life…

I am not saying I have any answers, the fact is I am beyond confused on this matter. But why would God call for us to continue living in say a braindead state where we will never improve and are costing our family there life savings? Why is the right choice to continue living off a machine when there is no hope of improvement?

 

[Apollos]

I would rather stick to the topic of if someone gave there consent to rather die now than strech it out with years of payments and suffering then why are they destined to Hell for this?

But the Church doesn’t teach that.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Assisted Suicide is a sin…

So please tell me exactly where I am mistaken about what the Church teaches?

Edit

Ok I found this, but could someone translate the meaning?

The Church recognizes a person’s right to refuse disproportionate medical treatment. What we must safeguard in our society is that a person’s informed treatment decisions are respected.

The Church also recognizes the need for the proper management of pain. In this regard, we must ensure in the clinical setting that a person need not seek death in order to escape pain.

Finally, the Church recognizes the importance of the interpersonal aspects of human suffering and death. As members of the Church, we offer to the sick and dying our service of charity as a resplendent sign that “God has visited his people” (Lk 7:16).

The full info is from here…

americancatholic.org/newsletters/cu/ac0897.asp

 

[Spirithound]

However I have always wondered about that, in situations where there is a zero percent chance of ever getting better. Where the only thing your left with is constant suffering, being a economic drain on family and simply worsening into a more painful existance. Why is it not allowed that someone be assisted to suicide? Especially if it is something like the movie where your living off a respirator completely paralyzed. If your living off a respirator then that means that on your own you could not survive, your not in God´s hands at that point your in Man´s hands. By that point if there was no chance of improvement wouldnt you be living on essentially spent time, keeping yourself away from God just to live as a vegetable?

You have expressed some misconceptions on what euthanasia is and is not. Euthanasia is 1. the direct killing of a person, or 2. the removal of the ordinary means of life. Euthanasia has not occurred in a legitimate medical process, or the removal of extraordinary means of survival.

This speaks directly to the points that you raised. First of all, being against euthanasia does not mean being against pain management. If somebody is in pain, some-medical-body is not doing their job. Morphine seriously does the trick. And if it begins to be ineffective, you up the dosage. This could potentially have the secondary effect of hastening death, but the primary effect, and the intention are to stop the pain by medical means.

Secondly, a respirator is considered extraordinary measures to preserve life. The only ordinary measures are food and water, and even regarding those, it is medically recognized that near the end of life, the body will not accept or process food and water. At that point, those may be stopped.

Finally, I would like to defend the slippery slope proposed by Apollos in post 2. Your OP specifically made mention of “being an economic drain”. Frankly this shows a higher value placed on money than human life. Given that attitude, we will end up at the bottom of that slope. Holland is almost there.

 

[Apollos]

Ok I found this, but could someone translate the meaning?%between%

It means you can refuse treatment, but not kill yourself or help someone kill himself. Pain is sometimes used as a reason for killing yourself, but it is an invalid one. Suffering and death are not meaningless or valueless, although the assumption that they are is also used as a reason.

What reasons would convince you to kill yourself, Flav?

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

It means you can refuse treatment, but not kill yourself or help someone kill himself. Pain is sometimes used as a reason for killing yourself, but it is an invalid one. Suffering and death are not meaningless or valueless, although the assumption that they are is also used as a reason.

So what does it mean when you refuse treatment with the expectation of dying? It kinda makes it out that yes you can die if your being kept alive by extradordinary measures, but only if you take the most painful path instead of a lethal injection.

What reasons would convince you to kill yourself, Flav?

Probably if I was brain-dead I would wish to no longer be kept alive, as I mentioned before it would put my family through economic hardships they couldnt afford, and it just seems cruel to keep someone around like a doll…better to leave the body entirely by that point.

 

[Apollos]

So what does it mean when you refuse treatment with the expectation of dying? It kinda makes it out that yes you can die if your being kept alive by extradordinary measures, but only if you take the most painful path instead of a lethal injection. … Probably if I was brain-dead I would wish to no longer be kept alive, as I mentioned before it would put my family through economic hardships they couldnt afford, and it just seems cruel to keep someone around like a doll…better to leave the body entirely by that point.

What’s with the obsession over pain? Anyway, if you were brain-dead pain wouldn’t be a problem.

 

[Spirithound]

…but only if you take the most painful path instead of a lethal injection.

No, because a painkiller is always acceptable.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

Unless someone else wants to continue this discussion, I feel I have enough information. I’m fine with this stance the Church has taken, prior to now I believed that it was a Catholic teaching to hold people on life support even if it was by extrodinary means. I’m glad to know there is an option there and if no one else wants to springboard off this topic I’d like it to end here.

 

[Newbie2]

This came to me after seeing “Million Dollar Baby” a movie that though ending in an assisted suicide definately did not glamorize it with Clint Eastwood´ character feeling glad that she was at peace, in fact he was devestated in every manner after doing it.

However I have always wondered about that, in situations where there is a zero percent chance of ever getting better. Where the only thing your left with is constant suffering, being a economic drain on family and simply worsening into a more painful existance. Why is it not allowed that someone be assisted to suicide? Especially if it is something like the movie where your living off a respirator completely paralyzed. If your living off a respirator then that means that on your own you could not survive, your not in God´s hands at that point your in Man´s hands. By that point if there was no chance of improvement wouldnt you be living on essentially spent time, keeping yourself away from God just to live as a vegetable?

By this Im not calling that every person in that situation be killed off, Im just saying allow the option without threatening them and there loved ones with Hell for doing it.

So what does it mean when you refuse treatment with the expectation of dying? It kinda makes it out that yes you can die if your being kept alive by extradordinary measures, but only if you take the most painful path instead of a lethal injection.

Probably if I was brain-dead I would wish to no longer be kept alive, as I mentioned before it would put my family through economic hardships they couldnt afford, and it just seems cruel to keep someone around like a doll…better to leave the body entirely by that point.

Just a couple of thoughts; I know that you’ve had your questions answered…

About the movie…I watched it on DVD about a year after it left the theaters, but didn’t know about the ending. Wow, what a shocker. And a downer, too…but a story that was told well. I would like to have seen a little more explanation as to why Clint Eastwood’s character seemed to struggle with his Catholocism and more about his relationship with his daughter.

But, that’s the brilliance of the movie. They tell you just enough to let your imagination fill in the blanks, and that’s good moviemaking. I like movies that allow us to use our brains to enjoy the movie experience.

Anyway, as has been said there are certain principles of Catholic end of life theology that can be used to help make decisions in certain situations, but there is no handbook; every situation is different.

One thing that is consistant, though, is that it is wise to put your own wishes in writing for what you would want to be done if you were terminally incapacitated. Yes, you can let your spouse, family member or significant other know, but situations could occur where the two of you are in a car crash, the other person who knows you best is killed and you are incapacitated. That, and family members all too frequently disagree on what “dad” or “mom” wanted. Best to put it in writing.