Does opposing euthanasia only make sense in the context of faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robyn_p
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robyn_p

Guest
Something someone on Facebook shared today got me thinking about this, and I wanted to hear others opinion. What she shared was the usual pro-euthanasia argument, “when someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness, it shouldn’t be a controversy if they decide when and how they want to die. It’s up to them. Why should they have to suffer needlessly etc…”

Now here’s my problem: this person is not religious, so obviously she doesn’t see any value or meaning in suffering. And I found myself at a loss for how to reach her. I felt like we were almost on two completely different planes. Which I guess we were.

For me, my faith in Christ is the only thing that keeps me going some days, when suffering gets pretty bad. I know with Him it’s not all pointless. But if I didn’t have that…I have to admit suicide would seem like a tempting option. I mean if this is all there is, why not end it a little early??

I hate not having answers. More and more people around me are buying into this garbage, but I feel like nothing short of the Christian worldview will make sense of things. But then they just say “that’s fine if you believe in that, but if you don’t, you shouldn’t be forced to suffer against your will.” Which I have a hard time answering.

So IS there anything out there at all that tries to make a secular case against euthanasia? Does anyone know of any good arguments? Or is this something only faith can answer?
 
Robyn_p said:
So IS there anything out there at all that tries to make a secular case against euthanasia?
Click to expand...
NO! There is no sense of mortality in secularism, except, perhaps, what serves the “common good.”

A terminally ill patient is unlikely to contribute to the common good, so his premature death is of no consequence (and may be of benefit, as resources would not be expended to keep him alive).

The dichotomy for a secularist is: why should society permit euthanasia, but not require extermination of people who do not contribute to the common good, but, rather, take from it? Why should the premature death of such people be consensual, rather than obligatory?
 
Just study Holland’s experience with legalized euthanasia to see the slippery slope in action. No need for a religion to condemn it, just be vulnerable or just old in some cases.
 
Hi!

My sister mentioned the same Facebook post to me yesterday, and kind of asked the same question. I’m trying to come up with an answer. Sometimes I feel that when someone makes up their mind, and seem so sure about it, there is very little chance to reach them, especially when you have a completely different world view, which is sad, but here it goes:

The best secular answer I can come up with (which could be terribly flawed):

You don’t need to be Christian to see value in suffering. I think there is a lot that dying people have to offer to this culture in general. I think that natural death, no matter how tragic and premature, can show us the value of living, and not just living until it is no longer convenient. I am the same age as this woman, and I know that we have become a culture where things come easy, so they have no meaning, and are discarded just as easy. In the new environmentally conscious world, this is called unsustainability. I believe that an argument could be made using the same logic, that humanity has become unsustainable. We seem to have accepted that life only has meaning if it feels good, and how will that change the definition of life in the future?

There is a lot of wisdom that we lose as individuals and as a people when we are allowed to cut our lives short artificially. I think that even secularists could appreciate that, but maybe I’m wrong.

O BLESSED JOSEPH, who yielded up thy last breath in the arms of Jesus and Mary, pray for us.

Peace
 
I would say the answer is yes and no.

From a philosophical point of view, you can demonstrate that human beings are uniquely rational animals and that taking innocent human life (whether someone else’s or our own) is immoral. You can also come to know that God exists and that He is one through reason alone, too.

The problem, of course, is that most of us don’t follow philosophical arguments very well, nor do we use our capacity for reason in a perfect manner.

Of course, it makes much more sense if you believe in the existence of the immortal soul, the afterlife, the value of suffering and its connection to the Paschal Mystery, etc.

As to how to explain the immorality of it using a convincing secular argument, I’ll have to give that some more thought. :hmmm:

What I would tend to do first, though, is to question some of the common arguments used in favor of euthanasia. The most common one I seem to see is comparing it to putting down your dog. That one really grates on me! 😛 I mean, we also eat animals for food, use their fur for clothing, and hunt them for sport. We do not have laws in place that say it is murder to kill an animal. When someone hits a deer with their car (or even someone else’s beloved pet dog or cat), they are not charged with manslaughter. It’s quite obvious to most people in most any other context that human beings and animals are treated differently. So it would really be incumbent on the person making the claim to demonstrate why humans and other animals should be treated exactly the same in this one instance.

That, perhaps, might get them to at least rethink the strength of this argument. It’s not a total victory, but a partial one.

Of course, there are those who sincerely do think that all animal life is of equal value to human life (and that thinking otherwise is blatant “speciesism”). They are going to be tougher nuts to crack. 😛
 
I also saw the article (or something similar) on CNN and it was very compelling. A beautiful young girl, married only one year, diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor, planning to euthanize herself in Oregon surrounded by her husband, mother and best friend while music softly played in the background. However, the gist of the situation was that she didn’t want to suffer and had decided to take control of her death. Kind of the “my body, my choice”
used by pro-abortion people. In each case, abortion or euthanasia, the decision involves the taking of a life- therefore cheapening the value of life. It makes life a choice rather than a gift. This decision is selfish and narcissistic. One doesn’t have to be religious to realize that by endorsing euthanasia one is less compassionate, not more, for one is telling the dying person that their life no longer has value so they might as well die. This is exactly the same as telling the mother that the life of her baby has no value. This mind set, whether at the beginning or end of life, devalues something that should be very precious- life itself and all of humanity.
 
I don’t know if there is a secular argument in favor of suffering, but there could easily be one in favor of life, along the following lines: If you go on living, there will be many opportunities for some kind of good (perform good acts, experience joy, improve the lives of others). If you choose to die sooner, you irrevocably close off all those possibilities.
 
One practical consideration is that a lot of people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses go through a period of clinical depression. Many of these people are not treated, and make the decision for suicide from a place of mental illness, rather than using their whole healthy brain. The solution is to provide treatment for the depression. This isn’t a secular argument against euthanasia per se, but it is a strong argument against many specific instances where people want to commit it.

In addition, you don’t know who you are going to meet or what you might experience, or what good influence you can provide for another by your journey to the undiscovered country. You’ll get there sooner or later, don’t worry. No need to rush.

–Jen
 
Robyn_p said:
So IS there anything out there at all that tries to make a secular case against euthanasia? Does anyone know of any good arguments? Or is this something only faith can answer?
Click to expand...
My answer is yes there are secular organizations that oppose euthanasia and no this is not something that only faith can answer.

Take a look at several of these medical organizations that oppose Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide

From the World Medical Association:
“Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.”
“Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.”
“BE IT RESOLVED that:
The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and
The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions.”
wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/e13b/

From the American Medical Association:
“Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.
The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition.”
ama-assn.org//ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion221.page

From the American Nurses Association:
“The American Nurses Association (ANA) prohibits nurses’ participation
in assisted suicide and euthanasia because these acts are in direct violation of
Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements, the ethical traditions and goals
of the profession, and its covenant with society”
" the term euthanasia refers to those actions that are inconsistent with the The Code and are ethically unacceptable,whether the euthanasia is voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. The nursing profession’s opposition to nurse participation in euthanasia
does not negate the obligation of the nurse to provide compassionate, ethically justified end-of-life care which includes the promotion of comfort and the alleviation of suffering, adequate pain control, and at times, foregoing life-sustaining treatments."
nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/Ethics-Position-Statements/Euthanasia-Assisted-Suicide-and-Aid-in-Dying.pdf
 
Another thing I would like to add: With legal abortions, there is now all this uproar saying that it should be illegal for medical professionals to oppose prescribing or filling prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. What will happen in the future for physicians and pharmacists who want to oppose their participation in euthanasia? Where will their right to conscious fall in the debate?
 
Millie123 said:
My answer is yes there are secular organizations that oppose euthanasia and no this is not something that only faith can answer.

Take a look at several of these medical organizations that oppose Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide

From the World Medical Association:
“Euthanasia, that is the act of deliberately ending the life of a patient, even at the patient’s own request or at the request of close relatives, is unethical. This does not prevent the physician from respecting the desire of a patient to allow the natural process of death to follow its course in the terminal phase of sickness.”
“Physicians-assisted suicide, like euthanasia, is unethical and must be condemned by the medical profession. Where the assistance of the physician is intentionally and deliberately directed at enabling an individual to end his or her own life, the physician acts unethically. However the right to decline medical treatment is a basic right of the patient and the physician does not act unethically even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient.”
“BE IT RESOLVED that:
The World Medical Association reaffirms its strong belief that euthanasia is in conflict with basic ethical principles of medical practice, and
The World Medical Association strongly encourages all National Medical Associations and physicians to refrain from participating in euthanasia, even if national law allows it or decriminalizes it under certain conditions.”
wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/e13b/

From the American Medical Association:
“Euthanasia is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.
The involvement of physicians in euthanasia heightens the significance of its ethical prohibition.”
ama-assn.org//ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion221.page

From the American Nurses Association:
“The American Nurses Association (ANA) prohibits nurses’ participation
in assisted suicide and euthanasia because these acts are in direct violation of
Code of Ethics for Nurses with Interpretive Statements, the ethical traditions and goals
of the profession, and its covenant with society”
" the term euthanasia refers to those actions that are inconsistent with the The Code and are ethically unacceptable,whether the euthanasia is voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. The nursing profession’s opposition to nurse participation in euthanasia
does not negate the obligation of the nurse to provide compassionate, ethically justified end-of-life care which includes the promotion of comfort and the alleviation of suffering, adequate pain control, and at times, foregoing life-sustaining treatments."
nursingworld.org/MainMenuCategories/EthicsStandards/Ethics-Position-Statements/Euthanasia-Assisted-Suicide-and-Aid-in-Dying.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks for those sources, those are helpful. And thanks everybody else for your (name removed by moderator)ut. If you guys think of anything more, please share!
 
Beryllos said:
I don’t know if there is a secular argument in favor of suffering, but there could easily be one in favor of life, along the following lines: If you go on living, there will be many opportunities for some kind of good (perform good acts, experience joy, improve the lives of others). If you choose to die sooner, you irrevocably close off all those possibilities.
Click to expand...
revert_jen said:
One practical consideration is that a lot of people who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses go through a period of clinical depression. Many of these people are not treated, and make the decision for suicide from a place of mental illness, rather than using their whole healthy brain. The solution is to provide treatment for the depression. This isn’t a secular argument against euthanasia per se, but it is a strong argument against many specific instances where people want to commit it.

In addition, you don’t know who you are going to meet or what you might experience, or what good influence you can provide for another by your journey to the undiscovered country. You’ll get there sooner or later, don’t worry. No need to rush.

–Jen
Click to expand...
Hmm…I like these. I think these could be combined into a pretty good argument actually.

What if we used an example of a severely depressed teenager who wants to commit suicide? There’s nothing else physically wrong with him, he just finds life so pointless and painful that he wants it to end. We could then ask, “Why shouldn’t his doctor help him end his life? Why would this be such a bad thing?” If they say it’s because there’s still more love and life for that person to experience, why isn’t that the case with a cancer patient? If they say that cancer is unbearable suffering, we could point out that depression can be just as unbearable to those afflicted with it.

And besides, aren’t we all terminal? Every single one of us is going to die. So why can’t doctors help us all commit suicide if we decide life is not worth living anymore? What’s the difference?

I don’t know, what do you guys think of this? Maybe it won’t convince people, but hopefully it would get them thinking.
 
At its simplest it comes down to the rights of the individual vs society. Most arguments against euthanasia revolve around almost everyone but individual in question.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
At its simplest it comes down to the rights of the individual vs society. Most arguments against euthanasia revolve around almost everyone but individual in question.
Click to expand...
I can’t argue against this, because I think you’re correct; but do individual ‘rights’ trump society’s ‘rights’? Does Society have a reasonable right to say that certain individual actions are detrimental to society and therefore should not be allowed? And if that is the case, I think arguments can be made that are not necessarily faith based, but would be based more on the secular traditions of the specific society in question.
 
Stephen_says said:
Another thing I would like to add: With legal abortions, there is now all this uproar saying that it should be illegal for medical professionals to oppose prescribing or filling prescriptions for abortifacient drugs. What will happen in the future for physicians and pharmacists who want to oppose their participation in euthanasia? Where will their right to conscious fall in the debate?
Click to expand...
I believe in most cases, the doctor or pharmacist could refuse, but there could be fall out for it. I remember hearing a case about a pharmacists that refused to fill an order for plan B on religious grounds. In an interview, he said when that normally comes up, he walks away and another pharmacist handles it. In this case, he was the only one on duty, so it got to the news.
 
Code:
TxGodfollower said:
I believe in most cases, the doctor or pharmacist could refuse, but there could be fall out for it. I remember hearing a case about a pharmacists that refused to fill an order for plan B on religious grounds. In an interview, he said when that normally comes up, he walks away and another pharmacist handles it. In this case, he was the only one on duty, so it got to the news.
Click to expand...
Yes this is the case, you’re correct. Two of my family members are pharmacists, and they have others fill plan b prescriptions. What I meant to say was that I have heard people arguing that it should be made illegal for pharmacists to refuse to fill them, and if that’s the case now, there will be people arguing that in the near future in regards to euthanasia.
 
Thank-you Robin p for the link.
It was most helpful to me. I am involved in such a discussion on a cancer support site.

I am a stage IV esophageal cancer and stage IIIb uterine cancer. Twice the Drs. have set an expiration date. The last expiration date was last month. But when I went for scans and blood tests they could find no cancer. Both times I did prepare for my death. I knew that I wanted to live as long as possible even if that meant a lot of pain. I did not want any pain-killers that did not extend life. And I definately would not sign a DNR. :bigyikes: Did I get the flack. I feel great pressure from the medical professionals and I know if I were in Oregon or Washington I would feel even greater pressure.
When those medical professionals your family needs “death with dignity” , I say does that mean that I die naked and covered with blood" When they say “No” I point to the cross (the only jewelry I wear) and say “Well that is my idea of Death with Dignity”
 
Barbara_Ann_Bau said:
Thank-you Robin p for the link.
It was most helpful to me. I am involved in such a discussion on a cancer support site.

I am a stage IV esophageal cancer and stage IIIb uterine cancer. Twice the Drs. have set an expiration date. The last expiration date was last month. But when I went for scans and blood tests they could find no cancer. Both times I did prepare for my death. I knew that I wanted to live as long as possible even if that meant a lot of pain. I did not want any pain-killers that did not extend life. And I definately would not sign a DNR. :bigyikes: Did I get the flack. I feel great pressure from the medical professionals and I know if I were in Oregon or Washington I would feel even greater pressure.
When those medical professionals your family needs “death with dignity” , I say does that mean that I die naked and covered with blood" When they say “No” I point to the cross (the only jewelry I wear) and say “Well that is my idea of Death with Dignity”
Click to expand...
Beautifully said. When I thought I was dying, I got the Anointing of the Sick and was prayed for.

Deceptive packaging with a nice sounding label are not arguments.

I doubt the average person is more familiar with the word euthanasia than the marketing phrase, “Death with Dignity.” I’ve dealt with terminal patients. I transported bodies to the morgue. Assisted Suicide is still suicide. I have been suicidal twice and I know how it feels.

What is Death with Dignity? First, where is the lack of dignity when dying from a terminal illness? Caregivers are caregivers. When they are encouraged to cross the line and kill others through overdose or lethal injection, that is wrong.

Peace,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top