Euthanasia is ok. Person should have the right to die.

[Mannyfit75]

The forum member stated the following:

its only murder if its against the laws of the land. but that is soon changing. a person who is very ill and being tortured by illness should have the right to die. and the right to seek aid in dying.

I think this view is completely distorted. Euthanasia is immorally wrong and allows the killing of those suffering.

First let us defined what Euthanasia is I will cite the Catholic Answers Tract:

What is euthanasia?

Euthanasia, from the Greek words meaning “good death,” is something we do or fail to do that causes, or is intended to cause, death, in order to remove a person from suffering. This is sometimes called “mercy killing” (see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2277).

What is assisted suicide?

This refers to an act by which one person assists another in taking his own life. For example, a physician who engages in “assisted suicide” would, upon the patient’s request, provide the deadly drugs for the person to use.

What is the difference between “active” and “passive” euthanasia?

Active euthanasia refers to an action one takes to end a life, such as a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia refers to an omission, such as failing to intervene at a life-threatening crisis or failing to provide nourishment.

It is important not to confuse passive euthanasia with the morally legitimate decision to withhold medical treatment that is not morally necessary. Foregoing a treatment that we are not required to use is not euthanasia in any form and should not be called by that name, even if death is hastened as a result.

Does a person have the right to refuse treatments, or do we have to use every possible medicine and machine to keep him alive?

No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put him to death. We have a duty to care for and preserve life. But to what length are we required to go to preserve life? No religion or government requires us to use every possible means to prolong life. The means have traditionally been classified as either ordinary or extraordinary.

Ordinary means include any treatment or procedure that provides some benefit to the patient without excessive burden or hardship. Ordinary means must always be used.

Extraordinary means are those that present an excessive burden. Extraordinary means are optional. “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” (CCC 2278).

The distinction here is not between “artificial” and “natural.” Many artificial treatments are ordinary means in the moral sense, so long as they provide some benefit without excessive burden. Of course, whether a particular treatment is ordinary or extraordinary depends on the specific case, with all its medical details.

((Continue))

 

[Mannyfit75]

What about people who are unable to communicate?

What about them? That, indeed, is the question for the pro-euthanasia forces. People who cannot communicate are people. This gets to the heart of the problem. A person’s inability to function does not make his life less valuable. People do not become “vegetables.” Children of God never lose the divine image in which they were made.

A key distinction that needs to be made here is between a patient who is dying and one who is not. If the patient is dying, we try with all reasonable means to sustain life. As we have noted, some interventions are necessary and some are not. But if the patient is not dying, there is no question about whether to provide treatment. There is such a thing as a useless treatment, but there is no such thing as a useless life.

Must we always provide food and fluids to a patient?

When we come back from lunch, we do not say that we just had our latest medical treatment. Food and drink are a normal part of taking care of life and health, not an extraordinary intervention. As part of normal care, therefore, they are morally obligatory.

Food and water keeps us alive. Failing to feed someone introduces a new cause of death, namely, starvation.

Pope John Paul II addressed this question in the following words:
I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering (Address to the International Congress on Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas, March 20, 2004).

Shouldn’t politicians stay out of these personal decisions?

The first purpose of government is to defend and protect the lives of its citizens. Both euthanasia and assisted suicide contradict that fundamental purpose.

Pope John Paul II wrote that when the right to life is denied by a state, the state itself disintegrates:
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom (Evangelium Vitae 20).

 

[Mannyfit75]

Didn’t Mother Teresa assist people to die?

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta assisted many people in dying and helped many people to die: She was present to them, assuring them that they would not die alone; she helped them find the courage to face death, gave them the conviction that their dignity had not been lost, and offered them the serenity borne of receiving love from people and God. This is the legitimate meaning of “death with dignity” and “helping people to die.” This is the gospel response to the dying members of the human family. It is very different from killing them.

Should I sign a living will?

Living wills are both unnecessary and dangerous.

They are unnecessary because they propose to give rights that patients and doctors already possess. People already have the right to make informed-consent decisions telling their family and physicians how they want to be treated if and when they no longer can make decisions for themselves. Doctors are already free to withhold or withdraw useless procedures that provide no benefit to the patient. Some people fear that medical technology will be used to torture them in their final days, but it is more likely that the “medical heroics” people fear are the very treatments that will make possible a more comfortable, less painful death.

Living wills are also dangerous because they try to predict the future. We do not know in advance what form of sickness or disease we may be afflicted with in the years ahead. We do not know what treatments we will need or what will be available. We do not know if we will need a respirator indefinitely or perhaps for just a few hours to get back to normal health.

Moreover, if the living will indicates that one does not want “to be kept alive by medications” or “artificial means,” what does that mean? An aspirin is medication, is it not? Drinking through a straw is artificial. People can construe meanings for these words that the signer of the document never intended.

What are the alternatives to a living will?

A safer route is to appoint a health care proxy who can speak for you in those cases when you are not able to speak for yourself. The proxy should be a person who shares your moral convictions and will be able to apply them to specific medical situations that may arise for you in the future. The “Will to Live” is a document whereby you can appoint a proxy and expressly indicate your desire for life-sustaining treatment if the need arises. Contact Priests for Life for a “Will to Live” consistent with the laws of your state.

Fr. Frank Pavone wrote this article:

He is founder of the Missionaries of the Gospel of Life, a new society of apostolic life dedicated to the formation and training of priests, deacons, brothers, and seminarians who will devote themselves fully to the proclamation of the gospel of life. He is also the national director of Priests for Life, an officially approved association of Catholic clergy who give special emphasis to the pro-life teachings of the Church.

The source of the Article is: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea1.asp

 

[AgnosTheist]

I rejoice in my suffering for if I do suffer, I suffer with Jesus Christ. For Jesus Christ himself suffer much during his Crucification.

well sufferring from a religious persecution is one thing, suffering from an illness is another. most people see the former as a service to god. on the other hand most people see the latter as a punishment from god.

It is not moral torture.

i mean ‘mortal’.

How do you justify who cannot speak for themselves and want to live? Do you want to kill them too?

euthanasia is only valid if its a full consent from the recipient.

 

[Mannyfit75]

well sufferring from a religious persecution is one thing, suffering from an illness is another. most people see the former as a service to god. on the other hand most people see the latter as a punishment from god.

They are the same since Jesus ask us to take up our suffering. We encourage people who are dying that they aren’t alone when they die. We don’t assist in ending their life. A doctor job is to preserve life not take it away.

Since when did mankind made himself that it is his sole right to take a life of an innocent? The last time I check God is the sole authority of life, not man.

euthanasia is only valid if its a full consent from the recipient.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom (Evangelium Vitae 20).

Euthanasia can never be validated. Suppose you were the one suffering and didn’t want to die, and your love want put an order to cut off your life support, and you can’t speak for yourself because you are vegetated state what then?

 

[AgnosTheist]

They are the same since Jesus ask us to take up our suffering.

Jesus healed the sick. The kind of suffering that he mentioned was social oppression.

Since when did mankind made himself that it is his sole right to take a life of an innocent? The last time I check God is the sole authority of life, not man.

why not? in the bible God approved a man’s idea to kill people. Like When Samson became a suicide bomber, so to speak…committed suicide by bringing down the building on top of him & killing enemy civilians in the process. it was a large structure so obviously there were innocent people in there. folks who were just doing their job. It was Samson’s idea and God liked it.

Jonah tried to kill himself by jumping off the boat. But he was rebuked, not for the suicide attempt, but from running away from his duty.

Where did christians get the idea that suicide is wrong?

Euthanasia can never be validated. Suppose you were the one suffering and didn’t want to die, and your love want put an order to cut off your life support, and you can’t speak for yourself because you are vegetated state what then?

thats not the euthanasia i approve of. unless the person is mentally dead already. in that case its a common medical procedure to cut off life support.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Jesus healed the sick. The kind of suffering that he mentioned was social oppression.

He did heal the sick and it was meant as a sign that he is indeed the Son of God. Paul often spoke that we must suffer and be willing do die for our faith. Just as Jesus died for his Church, the husband should die for his wife.

How about single Christians? They ought to suffer. That is why many of the died for the faith when Pagan Rome persecuted them.

Physical illness which modern science cannot cure, a person should be given a catch to live. No man has the right to take a life when one is seriously ill.

why not? in the bible God approved a man’s idea to kill people. Like When Samson became a suicide bomber, so to speak…committed suicide by bringing down the building on top of him & killing enemy civilians in the process. it was a large structure so obviously there were innocent people in there. folks who were just doing their job. It was Samson’s idea and God liked it.

Samson killed those who oppressed the Israelite from their oppressors. These men whom he killed were living immoral lives and serve pagan gods. God was pleased that Samson kill them because they oppressed his chosen people.

Jonah tried to kill himself by jumping off the boat. But he was rebuked, not for the suicide attempt, but from running away from his duty.

He was rebuke by God.

Where did christians get the idea that suicide is wrong?

Thou shall not kill. That is the basis why suicide is wrong.

thats not the euthanasia i approve of. unless the person is mentally dead already. in that case its a common medical procedure to cut off life support.

They have no right to take life period. Life begins at conception and ends at natural death.

Consider these truths:

It is a myth that most terminally ill people seek suicide.

“According to available data, only a small percentage of terminally ill or severely ill patients attempt or commit suicide” (9).

It is a myth that single events cause people to end their lives.

“Contrary to popular opinion, suicide is not usually a reaction to an acute problem or crisis in one’s life or even to a terminal illness. . . . Instead, certain personal characteristics are associated with a higher risk of . . . suicide” (11).

It is a myth that requests for suicide represent a person’s true desires.

“Like other suicidal individuals, patients who desire suicide or an early death during a terminal illness are usually suffering from a treatable mental illness, most commonly depression” (13).

It is a myth that terminal illness has to involve unmanageable pain.

“Taken together, modern pain relief techniques can alleviate pain in all but extremely rare cases” (40).

 

[AgnosTheist]

He did heal the sick and it was meant as a sign that he is indeed the Son of God.

The bible had other creative methods, beside healing the sick, by which jesus showed his power. But he healed the sick anyway, proof that illness is not the cross that he was referring to.

Samson killed those who oppressed the Israelite from their oppressors. These men whom he killed were living immoral lives and serve pagan gods. God was pleased that Samson kill them because they oppressed his chosen people.

The point is, Samson was allowed to commit suicide. Right? That means its tolerable sometimes.

He was rebuke by God.

for trying to commit suicide?

Thou shall not kill. That is the basis why suicide is wrong.

you are using the wrong translation. original hebrew is ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’. Every jew will tell you that. Theres a big difference.

It is a myth that most terminally ill people seek suicide.

I did not say otherwise.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The bible had other creative methods, beside healing the sick, by which jesus showed his power. But he healed the sick anyway, proof that illness is not the cross that he was referring to.

Any trials on earth is a cross. That include illness.

Consider these passages:

Matt. 10:38 - Jesus said, “he who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Jesus defines discipleship as one’s willingness to suffer with Him. Being a disciple of Jesus not only means having faith in Him, but offering our sufferings to the Father as He did.

Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34 - Jesus said, “if any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” Jesus wants us to empty ourselves so that God can fill us. When we suffer, we can choose to seek consolation in God and become closer to Jesus.

Luke 9:23 - Jesus says we must take up this cross daily. He requires us to join our daily temporal sacrifices (pain, inconvenience, worry) with His eternal sacrifice.

Luke 14:27 - Jesus said, “whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” If we reject God because we suffer, we fail to apply the graces that Jesus won for us by His suffering.

John 7:39 - Jesus was first glorified on the cross, not just the resurrection. This text refers to John 19:34, when Jesus was pierced on the cross by the soldier’s lance.

John 12:24 - unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone and bears no fruit. Jesus is teaching that suffering and death are part of every human life, and it is only through suffering and death that we obtain the glory of resurrection.

Rom. 5:2-3 - Paul says that more than rejoicing in our hope, we rejoice in our sufferings which produces endurance, character and hope. Through faith, suffering brings about hope in God and, through endurance, salvation.

Rom. 8:17 - Paul says that we are heirs with Christ, but only if we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with Him. Paul is teaching that suffering must be embraced in order to obtain the glory that the Father has bestowed upon Jesus.

Rom. 8:18 - the sufferings of the present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. We thus have hope that any sufferings we or others endure, no matter how difficult, will pale in comparison to the life of eternal bliss that awaits us.

The point is, Samson was allowed to commit suicide. Right? That means its tolerable sometimes.

He didn’t commit suicide. He cause the two pillars to fall, but that was not suicide.

for trying to commit suicide?

Yes.

You are using the wrong translation. original hebrew is ‘Thou shalt not commit murder’. Every jew will tell you that. Theres a big difference.

Thou shall not murder also includes killing yourself. Why do you advocate suicide? If you permit murderers to kill us randomly.

I did not say otherwise.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The Church has a precise definition of euthanasia. John Paul II describes it as “an act or omission which of itself or by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering” (Evangelium vitae [Ev], 1995, n. 65). Now perhaps the first question is, whose death, whose suffering? The reference here is to the death of innocent persons who suffer, or are believed to suffer, because they are handicapped, sick or dying. There’s a bit of a wrinkle. It’s not just about people who are dying; it’s about causing the death of people who may only be disabled or who may simply have a chronic malady. Was Tracy Latimer dying? No, she was disabled. Was her death euthanasia? Yes, it was.

Now look at the phrase “causes death.” Here we are talking about a moral decision to kill, or to choose death for, an innocent person. In other words we are talking about what the Church means by the term “murder”– which is also what the term traditionally means in the English language: to inflict death upon an innocent person. Euthanasia, then, is a species of murder.

The Church’s teaching about murder is, and has always been, starkly simple and clear. Murder is murder. Murder is always wrong–whether the motive is to relieve suffering, or for any other motive, regardless of the circumstances. Why? Because murder, and thus euthanasia, violates the love and justice owed to both God and man. Human life is a gift from God who remains its sovereign; man has no right to deliberately destroy what belongs to God (Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 2277, 2260, 2258, 2280). Moreover, the deliberate killing of an innocent person attacks the dignity and right to life that everyone has as an image of God and as a sacred being set apart by the Creator from all earthly creatures (Gen 1:26-28, 2:19-20).

According to Pope John Paul, these truths about why murder is wrong are revealed by our faith, but they are also discernible by human reason. Murder is prohibited by both revealed law (accessible to faith) and by natural law (accessible to reason) (Ev, n. 57).

Not only is all murder, and therefore all euthanasia, wrong; it is gravely wrong. Why? Because “human life–which it destroys–is the basis of all (human) goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society” (Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980, I).

In the 20th century the popes have taught explicitly about the evil of euthanasia since Pius XII. However, it is Pope John Paul II who has issued the Church’s most formal declaration ever regarding the morality of euthanasia. In his encyclical Evangelium vitae he stated:

“In harmony with the Magisterium of my predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written law of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium” (n. 65).

Talk about not evading the issue!

Active euthanasia and euthanasia by omission

So we know the Church looks upon euthanasia as murder and as something gravely immoral. But we still have not quite sorted out when something is euthanasia or not. Let us look at the definition– where euthanasia is defined as “an act or omission.” The definition implies that there are two basic forms of euthanasia. I shall refer to these as “active euthanasia” and “euthanasia by omission” (or passive euthanasia). These are terms that have been used by various Catholic bishops, theologians, and philosophers. However, the Church does not have a universal terminology at this point. Nevertheless, the concepts which these terms try to express are set forth in Church teaching.

Active euthanasia is much easier to comprehend than euthanasia by omission. In active euthanasia, the moral agent causes death by positive action which includes physically inflicting a lethal measure such as with a drug or weapon. Robert Latimer hooked up his truck exhaust so that it would poison his daughter. That was active euthanasia.

It is important to distinguish active euthanasia from certain forms of pain relief that can resemble it. It is possible to administer medication where the purpose is to control pain; for instance, pain associated with cancer. However, the foreseen but unintended side effect of the medication may be to hasten death. Does that mean a physician who administers such pain relief is killing the patient? Clearly not. The intent of such an action is to relieve pain; death is not intended or chosen. Furthermore, relieving pain is certainly a morally licit act. Of course, if a physician uses more medication than necessary to control pain, and thereby brings about death, he would be killing the patient.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This distinction–between killing someone, on the one hand, and doing an act which may simply be good medical care even if its unintended side effect may hasten death–is well founded in Catholic teaching from Pius XII onward. It is often called the principle of double effect. But it is important to note that this same distinction is also well founded in the traditional ethics and laws of our society.

Some ethicists nowadays, however, try to fudge the distinction. They claim that pain relief associated with palliative care is frequently no different from active euthanasia at all, since death is hastened in both cases. Of course, that is a very good argument if you want to justify euthanasia. But it is not very good ethics otherwise, because it overlooks the different intentionalities at work in these two moral choices. In one case the intent is to relieve pain; in the other the intent is to bring about death.

What about euthanasia by omission? First of all, everyone knows that it is possible to kill someone by denying them the means of life as well as by inflicting some lethal measure upon them. Starvation is an obvious example. Now euthanasia by omission can include starvation, but it can encompass other denials of the means to life. In general, in euthanasia by omission, death is caused by deliberately avoiding the use of morally obligatory life-preserving means.

There are two types of omission here: withholding means not yet in use, and withdrawing means already in use. The means of life that could be withheld or withdrawn as part of euthanasia include medicines, technical devices, and surgery, as well as ordinary measures of nursing care–like keeping a room at a safe temperature. If you hide Granny’s heart pills so that she will have a heart attack and die, because you figure she is better off dead, that is euthanasia. If Granny is bedridden and you turn off the heat in the middle of the winter and she freezes, that is also euthanasia, if you are trying to put her out of her suffering.

Ordinary and extraordinary means

This kind of distinction between two kinds of means–ordinary, that which if denied involves homicide, and extraordinary, that which if denied does not involve homicide–is centuries old in the Church, and remains valid today.

Yet we still have not answered the questions, when are means ordinary and when are they extraordinary? Simply put, means are ordinary when they are useful and not gravely burdensome. They are extraordinary when they are not useful or else are gravely burdensome.

How do we know when a means is useful or not, burdensome or not? The answer is in an amazing faculty that God has given to every rational person: judgement. Sorry, but there are no short-cut lists that we can hand out, listing all the ordinary medicines, surgical procedures, and medical technologies on one side and all the extraordinary means on the other side. Yet our contemporary consumer instinct is to demand: Okay, kidney dialysis, respirator, CPR–ordinary or extraordinary? The Catholic answer is: Sorry, you’ve got to give more information about the patient’s situation. Only then is an answer possible.

If a person living in a rural area needs kidney dialysis but has to travel a huge distance to an urban centre once a week, that’s a serious burden, which makes it extraordinary. If someone is recovering from chest surgery and needs a respirator for a few days, that is probably ordinary treatment since it would be useful and not much of a burden. If the heart of a young healthy person has stopped because of suffocation and can easily be restarted through CPR–that is ordinary treatment for the same reasons. If another person is frail, terminally ill, and close to death, CPR is extraordinary because the relative usefulness is doubtful.

Please note: You cannot just say that whatever is artificial– machinery, medicines, surgery–is automatically extraordinary and is purely optional from a moral standpoint. It is actually quite natural for us human beings to use artificial means of varying sorts to sustain our lives. When we can do so without undue burden, we have a moral obligation to employ the means; otherwise we are being negligent in not caring for the good of human life that God has given us.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Another point of Catholic teaching is that, in deciding whether a given medical means of life may be omitted, the focus is on whether the treatment is futile or burdensome; it is never a question of deciding whether the person’s life is futile or burdensome.

Here is where quality of life assessments about people who are disabled or chronically ill can lead to pro-euthanasia decisions. In other words, if people are denied life-preserving medical treatment not because the treatment is useless or burdensome, but because it will preserve the life of someone who is thought to be better off dead, you have a case of not only discrimination but euthanasia. A good example is when children born with Down’s syndrome have died after being denied routine surgery to remove bowel obstruction.

In the view of some respected Catholic thinkers, the heart of the euthanasia mentality–whether we are talking about active euthanasia or euthanasia by omission–is this idea that some people are better off dead and it is acceptable to make them dead.

A right to die

Let me say something about the question of consent, refusal of treatment, and advance directives. But before doing so, I want to mention three things about euthanasia.

First, some Catholic moralists have usefully categorized euthanasia as being voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. It is voluntary when a person consents to be killed by another person; it is non-voluntary when the person being killed is incapable of consenting (e.g., a child or an unconscious patient); it is involuntary when the person being killed objects to it.

The second thing I want to note is the similarity of assisted suicide to voluntary euthanasia. The difference is that in assisted suicide the one assisting helps another to take his or her own life by providing the lethal means, such as drugs, without actually administering the means; in voluntary euthanasia a second party administers the lethal means to the one being killed.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Ethically, assisted suicide is completely against the law of God because the person giving the victim a lethal drug or device is implicitly accepting the victim’s immoral decision to commit suicide (see Ev, n. 66). According to Catholic teaching, suicide or self-murder is gravely immoral for basically the same reasons that murder is wrong (ibid.).

My third point is that the main argument against Catholic teaching on euthanasia is one of radical individual autonomy. According to this view, individuals have a fundamental human right to make personal choices about matters of life and death. Suicide, assisted suicide, and voluntary euthanasia are all considered as part of a continuum, all being ways of exercising “freedom of choice” and a “right to die.” This viewpoint tends to be totally fixated on and obsessed with the fact of choice, to the point of indifference about whether the choice is good or bad for the person.

Catholic morality upholds free will, but sees it as an instrumental good, subject to moral norms concerning the ultimate good of the human person. The Catholic understanding of human dignity is very rich compared to the autonomy-is-all-that-counts type of approach.

The question of consent

I return now to the questions of consent, refusal of treatment, and advance directives. Catholic teaching says that a competent patient is responsible for his or her own life and health and makes the final decision about the medical treatment received (Pope Pius XII, Address to International Congress of Histopathology, 13 September 1952). That means the patient has a basic right to consent to, and a right to refuse, medical treatment. So there is a legitimate sphere of patient autonomy.

Morally, however, the rights to consent and refuse are qualified. Persons do not have a right of consent to what is intrinsically evil such as euthanasia. Nor do they have a right to refuse ordinary life-preserving treatment, since that would be equivalent to committing suicide.

Care-givers have a moral obligation to respect patient autonomy, and should ordinarily not impose treatment against a patient’s wishes. However, they must also refrain from doing what is immoral, which means they must not accede to a patient’s wish when the patient is asking the care-giver to do what is immoral. If the patient asks the care-giver to carry out euthanasia or assisted suicide, the care-giver must refuse. This moral requirement can be especially difficult for the care-giver when the patient is refusing ordinary treatment that is already being administered.

If the patient is asking the care-giver to withdraw ordinary lifepreserving treatment in order to end suffering, the care-giver is being asked to participate in euthanasia by omission–something the care-giver must never do. Take the patient I mentioned earlier–the one recovering from chest surgery and on a respirator for a few days, which is ordinary treatment under the circumstances. Suppose the patient is having emotional problems and sees this as an opportunity to make a quick exit from life and asks the doctor to pull the plug. The doctor sympathizes and pulls the plug; the patient dies. That is euthanasia by omission. What the doctor should do in such circumstances is try to get the patient help for his emotional difficulties so as to remove the suicidal wish.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Advance directives

Advance directives can be ways for the formerly competent patient to express his or her reasonable wishes regarding medical treatment. Catholic doctrine is not firmly established on the matter of advance directives. But the bishops who have made statements tend to say that care-givers should honour these directives when they are validly executed and when they do not conflict with Catholic morals.

However, I must note that there are two basic forms of advance directive: the durable power of attorney, or health care proxy, where the patient names another person to make decisions about treatment in the event of incompetence; and the living will, where the patient makes advance decisions about particular treatments they want or do not want. Catholic bishops have been quite favourable about the former, but quite negative about the latter type of directive. There are many problems associated with living wills. I would say that the most serious is that they easily lend themselves to being vehicles for euthanasia by omission.

We come to the question of Catholic teaching on euthanasia and the law. For the Church, a law prohibiting murder is indispensable for the common good as well as for the individual good; it must be enacted. Moreover, equity demands that everyone be protected from murder impartially. Consequently, it could be contrary to the right to life and to equity to permit the killing by euthanasia of the sick, dying or disabled, even in the case of voluntary euthanasia (Catechism, nn. 2273, 2237; Ev nn. 71-72).

For Pope John Paul II, so flagrantly inhuman and unjust is euthanasia, so detrimental to the common good, that its legalization can never be morally justified, even by appeal to majority will within a democratic system (Ev, nn. 68-71). And a law authorizing euthanasia or abortion, he says, is completely lacking in binding moral force and must be resisted (Ev, nn. 72, 73).

 

[AgnosTheist]

Any trials on earth is a cross. That include illness.

then why does the catholic church allow the treatment of illnesses? if illnesses were meant to be crosses on your shoulders, why cant you just bear it naturally? leave it to god to heal you naturally or miraculously. instead you and your sick priests & popes go around this through artificial medications and surgery.

He didn’t commit suicide. He cause the two pillars to fall, but that was not suicide.

Judges 16:30
*Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived. *
Thats a crystal clear suicide. The intent and the action proves it.

Thou shall not murder also includes killing yourself. Why do you advocate suicide? If you permit murderers to kill us randomly.

Murder is unlawful killing. If euthanasia is allowed under the law then its not murder anymore.

 

[LilyM]

AgnosTheist - Christ took some very great physical sufferings onto Himself, obviously, and said His followers must take up their crosses in the same way and follow Him - are you then suggesting that we are exempt from accepting physical suffering when unavoidable, as He did?

More tellingly - He was the Son of God, of course He could have cured all the physically ill people of the WORLD in a single instant. Yet He chose not to do so.

He cured and raised some - usually to increase their own faith or the faith of those who witnessed those miracles, or in response to their faith-filled requests, not so much because He saw their physical suffering as an evil in itself.

Have a good read of John Paul 2’s *Salvifici Doloris *- it’s an excellent discussion of the Catholic understanding of pain and suffering.

 

[Mannyfit75]

then why does the catholic church allow the treatment of illnesses? if illnesses were meant to be crosses on your shoulders, why cant you just bear it naturally? leave it to god to heal you naturally or miraculously. instead you and your sick priests & popes go around this through artificial medications and surgery.

Medicine or medical science is meant to provide comfort, and perhaps even cure an sickness. Hospital derives from the word hospice which was run by religious nuns. We leave the sickness to God’s will alone. Only he, who is the author of life can take it away.

Judges 16:30

Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.
Thats a crystal clear suicide. The intent and the action proves it

.

There is a difference. Most suicide involve individuals who are depressed and isolated, and the world is against him. Samson himself wanted to kill the Philistines for killing his own family, his wife and his home. He wanted to bring justice that was brought against him. This is not suicide.

It is no different than a Soldier who jumps on a grenade to help his soldiers from being killed. He risk his own life so others may live.

Murder is unlawful killing. If euthanasia is allowed under the law then its not murder anymore.

Natural Law cannot change the Divine Law, which has been revealed to us by God through his Church. If euthanasia is legalized, murderers will call the right to kill because they feel it is their individual right to do so. Second, rapist will probably issue the same calling as well, because they feel it is their right to do so.

I suggest you read the article I just show you why it is wrong.

 

[LilyM]

AT - two things. Firstly treatment of illness is allowable. Prevention of suffering by legitimate means is allowable. Christ even prayed for the cup of his suffering to be taken away - if possible. There’s the rub.

If euthanasia had been a legitimate and permitted solution then why would He not have begged the soldiers at His crucifixion to spear Him to death straight away?

Secondly - the case of Samson isn’t a great argument. Does it say anywhere in scripture that God approved of Samson’s suicide, (though He may have approved of his killing of the pagan Philistines) - any more than He approved of Samson’s dalliance with Delilah? Samson is regarded as a hero - mainly for his earlier, legitimate, heroic conflicts with the Philistines

The heroes of the OT are frequently presented warts-and-all, as the heroes of the NT are too. So the mere fact Samson did this and it was recorded isn’t to be taken as complete endorsement of what he did.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

AT:

Even though you are a soi-disant ‘atheist cum agnostic,’ I can’t help but point out that your approaches on these threads are identical to non-denominational protestants. That is, you assume that the Bible is the how-to book for Christianity and you proof-text to support (?) your arguments.

So, before this recent incarnation of AT, were you brought up in a non-denominational ‘Christian’ tradition?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks

Robert

 

[AgnosTheist]

Medicine or medical science is meant to provide comfort, and perhaps even cure an sickness. Hospital derives from the word hospice which was run by religious nuns. We leave the sickness to God’s will alone. Only he, who is the author of life can take it away.

Cure is the primary objective of medical science. If illness was meant to be a cross, catholics should be banned from seeking the artificial cures offered by medical technologies. So its either that illness is not a cross, or catholics are not really encouraged in carrying their crosses.

There is a difference. Most suicide involve individuals who are depressed and isolated, and the world is against him.

Well Samson was isolated, and he did look pretty depressed.

Samson himself wanted to kill the Philistines for killing his own family, his wife and his home. He wanted to bring justice that was brought against him.

he already got his payment a thousand folds for the death of his wife. He killed so much more that it could no longer pass as ‘justice’.

This is not suicide.

From Webster:
Main Entry: sui·cide

1 a: the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind
He voluntarily took his own life, my friend.

It is no different than a Soldier who jumps on a grenade to help his soldiers from being killed. He risk his own life so others may live.

it wasnt the soldier who threw that grenade. thats the difference. and samson wasnt saving anybody’s life here. what he did was terrorism. killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Natural Law cannot change the Divine Law

But Christianity was never meant to enforce religious law.