Being merciful to pets, but not to parents

[Rob_s_Wife]

Hitetlen:

It is humiliating, very much so. Neither my wife nor I felt uncomfortable doing it, we considered them as if they were our children, and parents have no qualms about cleaning their infants. But these people are NOT infants, they have their feelings, which are uncomfortable (to say the least) being so much exposed.

There are ways around that to both make things physically easier and to make the patient more comfortable. Colosotomy bags for one. Hospice nurses for another. For my mother it was not wanting her children or dh to lose respect for her given her condition (which wouldn’t have happened regardless, but those were her emotions). So the home nurse did all those things, which made my mother feel much better.

And, yes, it is my view that everyone should be allowed to leave this world at their discretion and forcing them to live against their explicit wish is not right. My number one priority is permissiveness, and I don’t accept the use of force except in self-defense.

We can whitewash the term all we want, but the bottom line is that killing someone sooner than nature/God would have it happen is murder. Suicide is the taking of one’s OWN life. The very nature of suicide insinuates an unbalanced mental state. It is not in human nature to want to die.

You and others said (either explicitly or implicitly) that suffering has value. I would like to ask one question: Do you practice what you preach? When you go to the dentist for a painful session, do you tell the dentist NOT to give you a painkiller injection? When you have a migraine, do you reject a medication to help you?

**We are talking about life’s pain here. To compare taking a tylenol with killing someone is obviously comparing apples to brocoli. No one here is saying a dying patient shouldn’t be made as comfortable as possible. No one is advocating prolonging the pain either. If a patient is near the end, there is nothing wrong with letting nature take it’s course. **

**There is value to pain. Childbirth for example. (and contrary to what many think there is no way to make it completely painless - even a c-section has pain afterwards) The pain of losing a loved one when they die. The pain of seeing a loved one suffer. **

**Being willing to suffer to spare another or to have a chance to do the right thing yourself - these are worthy pains of life. The only way they can be avoided is to not live life to any fullness. They make us stronger people. They give us compassion for others and make us value life’s joys more. They allow us to see goodness and to call evil what it is. **

To use your migraine medication theory…
**Yes, I have turned down pain medications before. I’ve turned them down when I felt breastfeeding was best and didn’t want to drug my baby. I’ve turned them down when they would make me too tired to give the care my children need of me. I’ve suffered horrible pains because it was better to suffer than to let the pain rule my life. **

My dh suffers multiple daily injections and needle sticks and more for the past 26 years because he would rather live suffering them - than let those pains become more important than his love for us. It has made him a man of devotion to his family, care for his fellow man, and allowed him to see the grace of God where others see hopelessness.

**Suffering is the door through which people become saints and heros. Is there no value to those that suffered and/or died in the Holocaust for sheltering a Jew or took the place of another in the gas chambers knowing that other person still had a child to care for? Is there no value to the suffering of people who live/work in horrible conditions saving every penny to make their children’s future brighter? Is their no value to the suffering of a neighbor going into a burning building to save someone else’s kid or grandmother and living with horrible scars and pains for the rest of their life? **Is there no value to the suffering of a husband watching his wife die - yet glad God gave him one more day with her? Should children not be given bikes because they may have to suffer an injury?

Suffering is real - no one here is denying those facts. It is also a vital part of living.

 

[Brendan]

If we are comparing pets to parents.

I can have the right to my pet ‘put down’ anytime they become inconvienient to my lifestyle.

Should I have the same right with my parents?

 

[Hitetlen]

**There are ways around that to both make things physically easier and to make the patient more comfortable. **

Certainly. But what does that have to do with the patient’s wish not to prolong her life?

We can whitewash the term all we want, but the bottom line is that killing someone sooner than nature/God would have it happen is murder. Suicide is the taking of one’s OWN life. The very nature of suicide insinuates an unbalanced mental state. It is not in human nature to want to die.

Under normal circumstances that is true. Being at the end of one’s life is somewhat different, I would suggest. When one’s power is diminshing to the point that they are unable to do anything on their own is seriously different. And the term “murder” incorporates the assumption that the termination of life is against the wishes of the person to be killed.

**We are talking about life’s pain here. To compare taking a tylenol with killing someone is obviously comparing apples to brocoli. No one here is saying a dying patient shouldn’t be made as comfortable as possible. No one is advocating prolonging the pain either. If a patient is near the end, there is nothing wrong with letting nature take it’s course. **

So letting someone to starve and die of thirst is OK, while giving a big dose of barbiturates is not? This distinction is something I cannot understand. To “allow nature to take its course” has the same effect, with suffering. Therefore it is an inferior option.

There is value to pain. Childbirth for example. (and contrary to what many think there is no way to make it completely painless - even a c-section has pain afterwards) The pain of losing a loved one when they die. The pain of seeing a loved one suffer.

Here you bring up quite a few excellent, rational and secular examples, which prove that pain sometimes, under specific circumstances can lead to desirable results. I would not deny it. But the blanket assertion that “pain is valuable” - which indicates an absolute statement is very different, and that is what I was questioning. Now, could you describe some actual, positive, secular results which stem from having one’s life extended (until nature takes its course) when that existence is painful and against the patient’s wishes?

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

I can’t speak for JC, but I think that you are making a distinction between “humiliation” and “suffering” when humiliation is a form of suffering. Humiliation also can be either exacerbated or alliviated by the attitudes of the people around us.

Yes, they can, to an extent. But as long as the patient has most of her mental faculties, it is her prerogative to make decisions for herself.

BlindSheep:

So you don’t consider killing someone “force”, but rather refraining from killing them is “force”? Are you responsible for the fact that they exist? Perhaps you consider yourself responsible for their continued existance because you continue to feed them; but if they are far enough from death that food and water will keep them alive, by withholding these you are not living up to your responsibilities as a caregiver, and if you attempt to block anyone else from doing so you are actively inflicting further suffering on the person.

Interesting, but Rob’s Wife suggested that “nature should be left alone to take its course”. That solution leads to starvation and dehydration, both quite “uncomfortable”. I suggest that giving a lethal dose of barbiturates is much more humane. The result is the same, but there is no suffering.

BlindSheep:

I do not (or at least, I do by best not to) do anything immoral in order to spare myself suffering. If suffering is inevitable, I “offer it up”. I don’t go around inflicting suffering on myself at every opportunity, or avoiding avery pleasure, and our beliefs don’t call for such a thing. However, if there is a good reason I am willing to suffer. I fast when it is required (and sometimes only suggested) by the Church because I defer to the wisdom of this and many other faiths which claim it is spiritually beneficial to do so. I gave birth to three children without any type of pain medication because I didn’t want to take the small risk that it would harm them; though it was not my reason for doing this, I also feel the experience made me stronger and more confident.
I rarely take medication for colds, flu, headache etc. because I find that when I do so the illness usually lasts longer.
Basically, I accept suffering, and believe has value, when there is some problem with the possible method of avoiding it. I suppose this comes down to submitting to something greater than humanity, whether God, or simply nature, evolution, the universe…

Rob’s Wife gave some very good, secular examples of pain leading to desirable results. I accept all of those. But pain, for its own sake does not lead to anything desirable.

 

[BlindSheep]

No, neither I nor RW is advocating starvation, as I’m sure you are well aware. Witholding food and water from someone when you could feed them is not the same thing as allowing them to die from a disease you cannot cure, obviously. It is more like allowing them to die from a disease you can cure.
As far as suffering having value, I would say that is probably a Christian concept. Life having value in spite of suffering, though, you should be able to understand. Furthermore, I’m sure you can see the slippery slope you embark upon when you suggest that the wish to kill oneself or have oneself killed is, under any circumstances, a healthy, rational desire.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

As far as suffering having value, I would say that is probably a Christian concept.

You are most probably correct, if you think in absolute terms. I do not say that pain and suffering cannot have positive side effects, I just don’t think that they always do.

BlindSheep:

Life having value in spite of suffering, though, you should be able to understand.

For sure, but those values can be either objective or purely subjective ones. And I think that pain and suffering can be so intolerable, that life’s other values will diminish in the face of said sufferings. That decision is best left to the person in question.

BlindSheep:

Furthermore, I’m sure you can see the slippery slope you embark upon when you suggest that the wish to kill oneself or have oneself killed is, under any circumstances, a healthy, rational desire.

I never advocated such a blanket, absolute statement. However, terminating one’s life may be a rational choice under some circumstances.

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

For sure, but those values can be either objective or purely subjective ones. And I think that pain and suffering can be so intolerable, that life’s other values will diminish in the face of said sufferings. That decision is best left to the person in question.

So every suicidal person should be killed? No, because you claim:

I never advocated such a blanket, absolute statement. However, terminating one’s life may be a rational choice under some circumstances.

Ok. When? Under which circumstances? To whom would you give the responsibility for making that judgement, whose criteria should it be based on?
Furthermore, I thought the discussion was about terminating someone else’s life, albeit at their request. You originally implied that it would be cruel not to comply with such a request; that there is a duty to kill a person who expresses a desire to die, correct? Now it would appear you are arguing that there is not always a duty to prevent a person from commiting suicide.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Hitetlen:

Certainly. But what does that have to do with the patient’s wish not to prolong her life?

You used the condition of feeling humiliated by the circumstances of their health (a metnal/emotional pain in other words) as a valid reason to end life. My point was that if that is indeed such a point of mental anguish for a person - there are plenty of ways to alliviate their suffering without killing them prematurely.

So letting someone to starve and die of thirst is OK, while giving a big dose of barbiturates is not? This distinction is something I cannot understand. To “allow nature to take its course” has the same effect, with suffering. Therefore it is an inferior option.

Actually, that is not what I meant and many people would argue that starvation is not natural. Goodness, my babies cannot feed themselves either - is it natural to let them starve then?!

---

I would say give all comfort that can be given (nutrients, pain medications, ect…) and care for them. Nature taking it’s course would be more along the lines of not giving antibotics or not restarting the heart should it fail or deciding against continuing radiation or another surgery to a patient near the end of their days.

Here you bring up quite a few excellent, rational and secular examples, which prove that pain sometimes, under specific circumstances can lead to desirable results. I would not deny it.

Well there’s something then… a decent start in the right direction…

---

… secular results which stem from having one’s life extended (until nature takes its course) when that existence is painful and against the patient’s wishes?

I’m confused by your statement: Who here is arguing for “extending” the life? Let’s be clear, you are not arguing for not extending life - you are arguing in favor of cutting life short. Two very different situations.

---

Let me give this perspective. What makes you think just because a person does not want to live any longer that they would chose suicide? Many people in this world for many differnet reasons live unbearable lives they do not want to continue living in - yet they don’t go leap off a building. Why?

---

There’s hundreds of reasons. A husband that loves them and wants every minute he can get. A child they haven’t seen walk yet. A doctor hoping for a breakthrough. Another chance to say sorry or I love you or to hear it. An elderly sibling who has seen every other family member gone and will be left all alone once his last sibling dies. The pet dog that never stops warming their feet in bed. (This was true of a grandmother - she insisted she wouldn’t die before her dog because it would kill him to lose her and she couldn’t stand the thought of him griving for her. Neither one of them could hardly move, but she’d taken care of that silly mutt for 18 years and “wasn’t leaving him now!” )

---

People suffer at the end of their life for the same reason they suffer during it. They do so without remorse or anger for the sake of others or simply to make it to the next day. That has value. It doesn’t change the world or make history or change the fact they are dying or make the pain go away - it is simply done.

---

It is very rare for a person, regardless of pain level, to request suicide when they have people who love them during the end of their life and their general comfort is seen to. This doesn’t mean they are in less pain, often they are not.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

The value of suffering is most definitely a Christian concept. If you do not believe in the Christ’s victory on the cross and eternal life in heaven, you most likely will not understand its value.

You see, we believe that apart from Christ, suffering is of little eternal value. But, united with Christ’s suffering and offered to our Father in Heaven, it gains infinite value in the redemption of souls.

You see, God has shared his dignity with us by creating us in His image. He has extended this great gift to us in other ways, too. Just as His great love resulted in the creation of new life, He permits our love to result in new life. Just as His great love, expressed through His suffering on the cross, results in our eternal life, He permits our love (expressed through suffering) to contribute to eternal life for all.

Being able to share someone’s last moments on earth is a great gift that leaves a person profoundly changed. I hope it leads you to an even greater gift.

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

I personally do not know much about atheism… besides the fact that they do not believe in God. I assume that science and physical senses take complete place of our religion and God centered faith. (I am not attempting to draw parallels.)

That is a good way to put it. Of course atheists do not “worship” science. Science is simply the tool to gain knowledge.

frogman80:

I assume, the most import thing to an atheist would be life itself, and how well it is lived… how much impact a person makes to the rest of mankind and the planet.

Another good observation. Since atheists do not believe in afterlife, the only thing we leave is memories, and to me it is important to leave good ones.

frogman80:

I would think an atheist would see human life as “sacred” because to them, that’s all we get. Suffering or not, a person should get the opportunity to make that impact to the world up until their last breath.

Since you put the word sacred into quotes, I agree. But the opportunity you speak of is contingent upon the person’s wishes.

frogman80:

To me an atheist should want to allow a person to make an impact just in case it is something huge.

We cannot be all so important that we could leave an inheritance which significantly influences the world.

frogman80:

That person in a coma might wake up… that person in a deep sleep might wake up… and they could say or do something important that affects their family or the community. An atheist in mind, I would also think that a person who wishes to end their life for whatever reason should not be allowed to because it could rob the rest of us from some impact they might make.

Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot. If the brain is damaged to the extent that there is no EEG (electrical activity) any more, we only have an empty hull, which only has been a human.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Ok. When? Under which circumstances? To whom would you give the responsibility for making that judgement, whose criteria should it be based on?

The responsibility lies with the person affected. Just an example: a soldier may throw his body on a grenade, so save his fellow soldiers. How do you evaluate his action? It is clearly a suicide.

BlindSheep:

Furthermore, I thought the discussion was about terminating someone else’s life, albeit at their request. You originally implied that it would be cruel not to comply with such a request; that there is a duty to kill a person who expresses a desire to die, correct?

I would not go as far as a duty, but I think it is compassionate and merciful to comply. And I also think that one should make as sure as possible to ascertain that the death wish is serious, well thought through and not just a passing thought. Such things are almost never clear-cut, there is always a risk involved.

BlindSheep:

Now it would appear you are arguing that there is not always a duty to prevent a person from commiting suicide.

I am not sure what you mean here.

 

[Hitetlen]

Elizabeth B.:

Being able to share someone’s last moments on earth is a great gift that leaves a person profoundly changed. I hope it leads you to an even greater gift.

It is a very profound, even uplifting moment. I am grateful that we were able to be there, and by holding their hand, maybe made their last moments less lonely, even though this is only wishful thinking, since neither of them were conscious at the time. I don’t feel any changes in me, but that does not mean that there is none.

 

[Hitetlen]

You used the condition of feeling humiliated by the circumstances of their health (a metnal/emotional pain in other words) as a valid reason to end life. My point was that if that is indeed such a point of mental anguish for a person - there are plenty of ways to alliviate their suffering without killing them prematurely.

Is there? I wonder, and I don’t see how could you substantiate that.

I would say give all comfort that can be given (nutrients, pain medications, ect…) and care for them. Nature taking it’s course would be more along the lines of not giving antibotics or not restarting the heart should it fail or deciding against continuing radiation or another surgery to a patient near the end of their days.

What about respirators, artificial kidneys or hearts? What is possible is dependent on technology.

It is very rare for a person, regardless of pain level, to request suicide when they have people who love them during the end of their life and their general comfort is seen to. This doesn’t mean they are in less pain, often they are not.

Rare does not mean nonexistent. And the right to die should not be denied to those who request it.

Anyhow, I asked BlindSheep, and I will ask you, too: How do you evaluate the action of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies. And I don’t mean the soldier only, anyone who commits suicide in order to save others?

 

[BlindSheep]

Hitetlen:

The responsibility lies with the person affected. Just an example: a soldier may throw his body on a grenade, so save his fellow soldiers. How do you evaluate his action? It is clearly a suicide.

Google the principle of double effect.
You also may find this informative regarding the Catholic position on pain relief for dying patients, which you seem unaware of.

I would not go as far as a duty, but I think it is compassionate and merciful to comply. And I also think that one should make as sure as possible to ascertain that the death wish is serious, well thought through and not just a passing thought. Such things are almost never clear-cut, there is always a risk involved.

And what is the risk? What do you percieve as the benefit?

 

[frogman80]

Hitetlen:

Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot. If the brain is damaged to the extent that there is no EEG (electrical activity) any more, we only have an empty hull, which only has been a human.

Thank you for the time you took to reply to my post!

The Catholic Church does not consider the person alive when they are brain dead. It would not be necessary to keep someone on life support if there was no EEG.

 

[Brendan]

Hitetlen:

The responsibility lies with the person affected. Just an example: a soldier may throw his body on a grenade, so save his fellow soldiers. How do you evaluate his action? It is clearly a suicide.]

Not quite.

It is sinful to intend one’s own death. But that is not what the soldier is doing.

The action of the soldier is not to intend his own death. For example, if the grenade turned out to be a ‘dud’ the solider would be quite relieved, would he not.

The soldier commits this act both in the hope to save lives, and in the hope his own life would not be taken.

He understands that there is an almost certain chance for grave injury and a very high chance of death, but that is not the goal of the action.

The goal of a suicide IS their own death.

Thus they are two completely different moral actions.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Google the principle of double effect.
You also may find this informative regarding the Catholic position on pain relief for dying patients, which you seem unaware of.

I would appreciate if you gave me a few words, or a link to a site you think about.

BlindSheep:

And what is the risk? What do you percieve as the benefit?

The risk is that the person may recover after all, or would have changed his/her mind later.

 

[Hitetlen]

frogman80:

The Catholic Church does not consider the person alive when they are brain dead. It would not be necessary to keep someone on life support if there was no EEG.

I see. How about the persistent vegetative state? Almost no bodily functions, though some parts of the brain still might be operational, for example producing a heartbeat. The patient may even need a respiration-support, artificial kidneys, etc., and it is certain that he will never recover.

 

[Hitetlen]

Brendan:

Not quite.

It is sinful to intend one’s own death. But that is not what the soldier is doing.

The action of the soldier is not to intend his own death. For example, if the grenade turned out to be a ‘dud’ the solider would be quite relieved, would he not.

The soldier commits this act both in the hope to save lives, and in the hope his own life would not be taken.

He understands that there is an almost certain chance for grave injury and a very high chance of death, but that is not the goal of the action.

The goal of a suicide IS their own death.

Thus they are two completely different moral actions.

It may be both. The soldier may be suicidal for some reason, and connects it with saving his buddies. Which one takes precedence?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Hitetlen:

Is there? I wonder, and I don’t see how could you substantiate that.

Yes, there are ways to lessen the mental/emotional pain of some aspects of a suffering death. Pain meds, anti-depression drugs, hospice care, ect…

What about respirators, artificial kidneys or hearts? What is possible is dependent on technology.

---

**There is a difference between something ALL need to live (air, water, nutrients) and deciding to not accept a heart/lung machine or artificial organs when you know they are not going to save your life. I wouldn’t want my babies to be on a heart/lung machine during their last days knowing it was just prolonging their death, but I sure wouldn’t suffocate or starve hurry their death along either. **

How do you evaluate the action of a soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies.

I think the difference is clear, but I’ll turn your questions around.

---

How does a mother starving to death because she doesn’t want to be a burden on her family or be in pain compare to a soldier taking a bullet to save another who would die otherwise? How does a person killing themselves to avoid dependancy, pain, or mental suffering save another from death? It doesn’t.