Assisted suicide

  • Thread starter Thread starter Darryl_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Some don’t like the slippery slope argument but it definitely applies here. Once you allow it to apply to some members of the community, more will cry “human rights” “dignity in death”.
Palliative care does the job 99 per cent of the time. it is just that 1% that makes us doubt. Doubt whether we should allow excruciating pain to linger and linger . But cant they just up the amount of morphine to end their pain anyway? Assisted suicide is already occurring then it seems.
I’ve given a mixed answer, haven’t I.
 
My priest is from the Netherlands wich adopted assisted suicide in early 2000. It has morphed into something of science fiction. Soylent Green the book and movie come to mind. A dumping ground for the unwanted. Below is an excerpt from a news article from 2014 New Eastern Outlook

In 2002, Netherlands passed the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act, which legalized euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in specific cases, and for people twelve years old and up. In 2004, the Groningen Protocol came into effect, which allows doctors to euthanize infants, who are obviously not able to request or consent.

According to EPC-Europe, “In the Netherlands the number of deaths by euthanasia has increased by 64% between 2005 and 2010 … In comparison, the Dutch population grew by less than two percent over the same period. Yet the Dutch are now discussing the extension of euthanasia to people with dementia despite huge concerns about proper consent.” In addition, euthanasia is now being performed on psychiatric patients in the Netherlands, with 42 such cases reported in 2012
 
Last edited:
I’m reminded by this scene between Dr. McCoy & his dying father in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. It’s widely considered the worst Star Trek movie among the fans. I won’t spoil the scene but it’s related to this issue.
 
Darryl_B said:
My country is currently proposing a bill that would permit assisted suicide. I realize there are many countries in the world which we are just following behind (blindly), one’s who have paved the way in a sense, and countries we seem to want to embrace in the fear least it seem that we might be a backward colony?

I agree fully with my Catholic Faith position, however I am looking for arguments which might reflect more on our secular culture, without having to use the rather appropriate and applicable Nazi argument for the first time in my life.

Any ideas which provoke other ideas which build and provoke other ideas would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...
1: EAS devalues disabled people: At the heart of the argument in favour of EAS is a belief the some lives are not worth living.
2: EAS undermines suicide prevention
3: EAS is not health procedures: it is prompted by social concerns of ie burden, fear of loss of independency.
4 EAS risks coercing our elders. As our aging population continues to grows, feeling of being a burden to families may consequently will find themselves having to justify the right to live.
5: EAS can not be contained or made safe. There is no robust evidence from Belgium and Netherlands that the law is being routinely volated.
 
“If you allow assisted suicide, what rational do you have to prevent youth suicides?”

Is that the type of argument you are looking for?
 
Thanks, I did wonder about the relationship between insurance companies and this particular form of “treatment”.
 
Thanks, I did wonder whether we may be giving the wrong message to our youth.
 
My friend, I am willing to watch a Star Trek movie, but did you have to tell me it’s regarded as the worst before I watch it, that sounds too much like a spoiler-alert.
 
It’s not meant to be standalone movie because I to VI represents the adventures of Kirk, Spock & McCoy on the Enterprise.
 
I have a medical power of attorney which specifically instructs my representative to notify my physicians not to keep me on life support should my brain cease to function. This post now has me concerned! (BTW, I’m very serious about this)!
 
If I’m not mistaken, it’s one thing to have a DNR (do not resuscitate) in place. That is not considered assisted suicide, you have no obligation to keep yourself from dying by natural means. It’s another thing entirely, however, to order your POA to pull the plug on you after being in a coma for six months, or to have them inject you with a lethal dose of morphine. That’s not nature taking its course, that’s a human being doing something to kill you.
 
Thanks for the answer. Human dignity vs Disposable is something a secular world-view may be persuaded by. Also I found a rather comparative differentiation in what you said between “assisted suicide” and “to kill themselves”. They are really the same thing but the first sounds like there is something “humane” and “compassionate” (why I don’t know) whereas the other sounds like ruthless abandonment.
 
This may put your mind to rest: EWTN: Morals and end of life Decisions

Q. When may medical therapies, procedures, equipment and the like be withheld or withdrawn from a patient.
A. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

2278. Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of “over-zealous” treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.

The key principle in this statement is that one does not will to cause death. When a person has an underlying terminal disease, or their heart, or some other organ, cannot work without mechanical assistance, or a therapy being proposed is dangerous, or has little chance of success, then not using that machine or that therapy results in the person dying from the disease or organ failure they already have. The omission allows nature to takes its course. It does not directly kill the person, even though it may contribute to the person dying earlier than if aggressive treatment had been done.
Click to expand...
So if on life support and medical tests show’s brain death, multiple organ failure beyond repair the turning off life support is deemed as allowing the natural death to occur. It is not uncommon for those on long term kidney dialysis (5-10 yrs) no availability match for kidney donation to decide to discontinue with dialysis and die naturally.
 
Last edited:
There was a lot of damage done to Catholic influence on this matter when many Catholics tried to prevent life support being withdrawn from Terri Shiva, who was plainly in need of being allowed to die a natural death. While Catholics say they worry about the slippery slope, others worry about being forced to have their bodies maintained artificially for long periods with no hope of thought or recovery. Catholics in my view should also consider that while they believe the end never justified the means and that it is always wrong to take an action that ends an innocent life directly, whatever good is sought, others do not. It is a philosophical position no more accepted by non-Catholics than Catholics accept the Hindu position on the evil of cow slaughter. Does any group have the right to impose its philosophy on those who disagree with it when no one is having anything imposed on them?
 
FiveLinden said:
There was a lot of damage done to Catholic influence on this matter when many Catholics tried to prevent life support being withdrawn from Terri Shiva… While Catholics say they worry about the slippery slope, others worry about being forced to have their bodies maintained artificially for long periods with no hope of thought or recovery.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the details of this case, but it is not any part of Catholic moral principle that extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve life.
FiveLinden said:
Catholics in my view should also consider that while they believe the end never justified the means and that it is always wrong to take an action that ends an innocent life directly, whatever good is sought, others do not.
Click to expand...
Yes, some people do take the view that choosing to directly kill an innocent person is ok in some situations. This is not news.
FiveLinden said:
Does any group have the right to impose its philosophy on those who disagree with it when no one is having anything imposed on them?
Click to expand...
Laws need to be made on matters of life and death and we all get a say on what the law should be.
 
Rau said:
Actually, it did in China for a while.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the effects of voluntary abortion. Abortion in China was never 100% voluntary to begin with, so it doesn’t validate slippery slope arguments.
 
Last edited:
ndmoharo said:
“If you allow assisted suicide, what rational do you have to prevent youth suicides?”

Is that the type of argument you are looking for?
Click to expand...
That’s a solid point. What difference does it make whether we off ourselves at home, or let the doctor do it in the hospital?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top