Euthanasia Question

[mapleoak]

This is a debate i have frequently with my fiancé and we have yet to come to an agreement.

If we take assisted suicide for the moment though. If someone is in such extreme amounts of pain that they want to end their life. This option should be available to them. You have no right to tell them they must suffer because Christ did. It should really be about personal choice. Most christans would never choose this option as i believe suicide is a sin (correct me if im wrong). So the argument for religion doesnt really apply, as the people choosing to die are doing so in accord with their own beliefs.

I think that if the person is able to make the choice to end their life, a panal of doctors agree their is nothing they can do to allieviate long term suffering. This doesnt mean being stuffed full of pain meds and lying in a hospital bed by the way. Thats another form of sufering. At leaste it would be for me knowing that i was putting my loved ones through that.

In other words if I stub my toe, then I should be free to end my life if I consider a stubbed toe to be extreme pain and no one can tell me I need to just grin and bear it. Further, why stop there? If I don’t believe I should have to suffer the drudgery of every day life (which btw a city slicker may find my way of life truly to be an unbearable burden) I should be able to end the misery. Even further, suppose my religious beliefs don’t require a doctor to agree to the degree of pain I say I am suffering.

I think that if the person is able to make the choice to end their life

I think that if the person is able to make the choice to end their life, then they are not responsible enough to be making their own decisions.

They should be allowed to end their own life, in a safe and controled manner.

a square circle.

 

[mapleoak]

However to force your religious beliefs on others on this matter is hardly fair, as you might end up being wrong, forcing that person to suffer for nothing. It should be about choice. We should all have the choice if we ascribe to a certain religious belief and having other people forced on us isnt fair. If people who are termainly and want to die they should be allowed to.

That is as silly as saying, “I can do whatever I want, as long as I call it what I believe”.

I will probebly generate a lot of hate by saying this but i have to anyway. Their are worse ways to die than crusafixtion. Who are you to say christ suffered more or less than someone else?

Such as?

 

[happymommy]

Im pretty sure the origin posters example of Radaiation sickness would be worse than crusafixtion. Im not saying that anyone sufferes more or less, i have no idea how much Christ suffered or how little.

well, I’ve never had to go through either of them, I wouldn’t be able to say which is worse!

And yes i am willing to bet my eternal soul on their being no god.
how very sad for you then.

Where would you rather people ended their life if not in a hospital ? Because you cannot stop it from happening if thats what the person decides. In this country i pay my taxes which pay for the hospital i have as much of a right to end my life their in a comfortable enviroment rather than in a dingy basement with a rope.
I’d rather they didn’t end their life at all, but allow it to happen the way that it is going to. But I too pay taxes for the hospital and feel that they should do nothing to help someone take their own life!

You do not support assisted suicide and euthanasia because of your religious beliefs, which is fine, I really have no issue with this. But to force other people to adhere by them is terrible. I woudn’t try to euthanise anyone because i felt that i would be saving them suffering when they clearly didnt want it. So why do you feel the need you must do the reverse of this.

It’s good to know you wouldn’t do it if they didn’t want you too. It’s not my choice to make them suffer. Taking a life, be it your own or someone elses, is wrong.
So I’m not suppose to force my beliefs on you, but it’s okay for you to force yours onto me. And the same hospital that I pay taxes for, is just suppose to do what you want. I see. So those of us with faith and beliefs should just sit back and let those who don’t believe in God, make all the choices for us? I don’t think so! That’s how this country got into the mess that it’s in. We took God out of everything and let those without a conscience step in.And we have lost respect for life.

So let me ask this. Where do you draw the line? Is it just for the terminally ill people. Or does the include perhaps people hooked up to lifesupport due to an accident, they have brain damage and can’t make the choice for themselves. Do we just turn it off? I have an infant niece that was born with a terrible heart. Should they not have operated on that, we still don’t know what kind of life she will have. She did suffer and will have to have more surgeries. Should we keep her from that suffering
Do you see where this really starts to get fuzzy and people can slowly start to have rights taken away. If you allow one group of people to end their lives, well then, shouldn’t it be okay to “help” someone that won’t really have a very good life anyway, why not just end their suffering before it begins. It could get very scary!

We don’t get to choose who lives and dies and there is a reason for that. None of us are qualified to make that call! It’s not up to us.

 

[jmcrae]

I think that if the person is able to make the choice to end their life, a panal of doctors agree their is nothing they can do to allieviate long term suffering. This doesnt mean being stuffed full of pain meds and lying in a hospital bed by the way. Thats another form of sufering. At leaste it would be for me knowing that i was putting my loved ones through that. They should be allowed to end their own life, in a safe and controled manner.

Wait until you’re actually there before categorically deciding that you’d rather be murdered than experience pain.

Unlike how it’s shown on TV, death is not a peaceful process of falling asleep - not even for those who die in their beds. In my experience, people keep on fighting, right to the last breath.

 

[Squishy]

The simple answer to this is their isnt one. There are people on both sides of the debate.

For those of you quoteing me and saying should we do it for a stubbed toe i do think i included a panal of doctors in the quote you made. I dont a panal of doctors would agree for assisted suiside for your stubbed toe. The slippery slope argument is valid i believe and it would always be a concern. Which is why if this was allowed it would have to be closly monotered and strict rules put in place. I draw the line at assisted suicide. Though doctors turn the life support off on people routinly

Im not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. Im not asking that unwilling people help others die. Im just asking that everyone has the option that if they are terminally ill and in a great deal of pain. That they be allowed to end their life comfortably when they choose. Rather than when their body eventually gives in to the drugs that they are using to keep the pain away. Which is often the case.

Wait until you’re actually there before categorically deciding that you’d rather be murdered than experience pain.

Unlike how it’s shown on TV, death is not a peaceful process of falling asleep - not even for those who die in their beds. In my experience, people keep on fighting, right to the last breath.

I have watched someone die over a period of months in hospital. It was slow and very painful for them and the rest of the femily. If i was in the same position i know what i would choose.

We don’t get to choose who lives and dies and there is a reason for that. None of us are qualified to make that call! It’s not up to us.

We dont, and its really not up to use nor should it ever be. However when the only outcome is death in a terrible slow and painful manner we should get to choose to avoid this, we all have the free will to choose this. Why deny people that choice. Not even god would do that.

 

[Cristiano]

This is a debate i have frequently with my fiancé and we have yet to come to an agreement…

I am glad that you are discussing this kind of things. A lot of engaged couples do not like to touch serious topics before marriage, and then they pay it later.

…If we take assisted suicide for the moment though. If someone is in such extreme amounts of pain that they want to end their life. This option should be available to them…

I think that you should start by separating the “assisted” from the “suicide” issues. When you put them together you probably end up accepting one ('assisted") just because you feel that you made a case for the other (“suicide”).

…You have no right to tell them they must suffer because Christ did. It should really be about personal choice. Most christans would never choose this option as i believe suicide is a sin (correct me if im wrong). So the argument for religion doesnt really apply, as the people choosing to die are doing so in accord with their own beliefs.

As a Christian I have a right and an obligation to tell them so. As Christian we have the primary responsibility to make our best for everybody to go to heaven. Salvation is not just an individual thing, it is a common task. For example when a Catholic gets married he/she commits to do his/her very best to help the spouse to go to heaven.

I think that if the person is able to make the choice to end their life…

This is called free will, and free will does not mean that you can do as you please without consequences. It means that you have the choice of choosing between good and evil.

I think that if the person is able to make the choice to end their life, a panal of doctors agree their is nothing they can do to allieviate long term suffering. This doesnt mean being stuffed full of pain meds and lying in a hospital bed by the way. Thats another form of sufering. At leaste it would be for me knowing that i was putting my loved ones through that. They should be allowed to end their own life, in a safe and controled manner.

Are saying that you are putting a family through something because of your suffering? If so then you are wrong. The family members put themselves in that situation through acceptance, and getting involved.

Or are you saying that you are putting a family member in the position of suffering? If so you are wrong too! You are not causing their suffering, if you did not exist they would be in the same situation.

 

[happymommy]

Why deny people that choice. Not even god would do that.

Yes, He would!

Thou shall not kill. There is no sentance after that, that says, unless they are really in pain, then go ahead!

 

[jmcrae]

I have watched someone die over a period of months in hospital. It was slow and very painful for them and the rest of the femily. If i was in the same position i know what i would choose.

My point is that it wouldn’t be any less painful or less terrifying to be murdered, than to die naturally.

The reason it takes so long to die naturally is because the person is literally hanging on for dear life. They don’t want to die. The terrible suffering and agony is the result of the battle that that person is waging against death - they take laboured painful breath after laboured painful breath, because they don’t want to stop breathing. But when they are ready to let go, they will - and then they will die on their own. They won’t need any help.

 

[mapleoak]

For those of you quoteing me and saying should we do it for a stubbed toe i do think i included a panal of doctors in the quote you made. I dont a panal of doctors would agree for assisted suiside for your stubbed toe.

And if my beliefs were that I don’t need a doctor to agree with whether I am in enough pain? Who are you to force your beliefs on me?

The slippery slope argument is valid i believe and it would always be a concern. Which is why if this was allowed it would have to be closly monotered and strict rules put in place.

Who makes these rules and based on what system of morality?

I draw the line at assisted suicide.

Okay then. It is based on your authority.

Though doctors turn the life support off on people routinly

Turning off life support may or may not be murder. Just as burying a coffin with someone inside may or may not be murder.

Im not trying to force my beliefs on anyone. Im not asking that unwilling people help others die. Im just asking that everyone has the option that if they are terminally ill and in a great deal of pain.

What does terminally ill have to do with it? Is it because they are supposedly guaranteed to die? Everyone is guaranteed to die, why make being terminally ill a criterion?

That they be allowed to end their life comfortably when they choose.

And how much more comfortable than choosing to die while completely pain free? Why wait till ‘misery’ sets in?
When decisions of morality are not based on truth, all arguments crumble.

 

[magdelaine]

FWIW, I am against euthanasia. There are so many ill effects that spread from society approved legalized killing, whether it be of those at the beginning or the end of their life, that I do not and would not condone it.

However, my question was more of a “coup de grace” type… I feel I would have a very difficult time doing a “mercy” killing…and this is for a reason. However, putting myself in the shoes of someone watching her child fall apart from the inside out? It just makes me wonder if there is ever a special dispensation for those who are truly “the walking dead”.

For anyone thinking that legalized euthanasia is a good thing, please consider reading this non-religious breakdown of why it is not:

The Case Against Euthanasia

But a civilised society is defined by how it treats its most vulnerable. As one French biologist put it, “I have the weakness to believe that it is an honour for a society to desire the expensive luxury of sustaining life for its useless, incompetent, and incurably ill members. I would almost measure society’s degree of civilization by the amount of effort and vigilance it imposes on itself out of pure respect for life.”

Just like gay “marriage”, euthanasia has far reaching effects on society beyond what you think should be your “right”.

 

[Tietjen]

Im sorry to hear about your mother, and believe me i know the same pain you do. However to force your religious beliefs on others on this matter is hardly fair, as you might end up being wrong, forcing that person to suffer for nothing. It should be about choice. We should all have the choice if we ascribe to a certain religious belief and having other people forced on us isnt fair. If people who are termainly and want to die they should be allowed to.

I will probebly generate a lot of hate by saying this but i have to anyway. Their are worse ways to die than crusafixtion. Who are you to say christ suffered more or less than someone else?

Squishy,

With all due respect, as I do not mean to suggest that you are somehow naive, but perhaps your lack of understanding what our faith and dogmas mean to us has influenced you into the misconception that Catholics may be wrong when it comes to dogma. This is simply not possible. So your suggestion that,
"… to force your religious beliefs on others on this matter is hardly fair, as you might end up being wrong, forcing that person to suffer for nothing."
First, we don’t not “force” our beliefs on another by saying that we will not take part in killing them. How would that be “forcing” our beliefs on them? However, you appear to be suggesting we should set aside our dogmas and beliefs and kill against our will. Who is “forcing” who?

As for your last paragraph concerning the Crucifixion… there may certainly be more painful ways to die than to have your children hate and despise you so much that they beat the flesh off of your bones. They embed thorns on your head. They spit on you and mock you as they force you to carry your own instrument of death and torture. They take iron spikes and drive them through your hands and feet and then raise you up so that gravity can slowly tare tendons and muscles as you struggle to breath. Finally, after hours, you breath your last as you suffocate & drown because you no longer have the strength physically to continue. All the while, your Children are laughing and dividing up your clothing for themselves. Hmmm… Speaking for myself here, I can think of no worse way to go than to have those I love do this to me; but maybe I’m just strange.

Oh, and I do not “hate” you. God bless.

 

[RobHom]

I guess that is my question, though. If a person is literally the walking dead, and if there isn’t the ability to offer relief from suffering the way that it would be in the event that something like a nuclear event happens…

Within our society…that is not an acceptable option.

Or I guess the same question could be applied on the battlefield. Buddy is shot, there’s no help available, he’s begging for “mercy”. This is still wrong, correct?

Speaking as one who has served in combat: When we are in combat, engaging the enemy, we have medics with us, or people who are trained to administer first aid, and they carry morphine, and we are trained morally that we are to do literally everything that we can do for our brothers in arms. We do not leave our brothers behind, nor do we kill a brother…we do all that is possible to save their life. We will commit many assets even more men to save one… It is not our way to sacrifice one of our own. To do so is to betray all that we hold sacred. Our sincerest belief is “Death before dishonor”!

Or what if a person is brain damaged and cannot eat or fend for himself and herself. You can’t take him or her with you, so it’s either let that person die slowly of starvation and dehydration, or a pillow over the face for a quick “end”.

In our society, this is not an acceptable option.

These are extreme situations, for sure, but that is what I’m wondering about.

Extreme situations require extreme solutions, but those solutions must be “moral” and “right”…not convenient.

I will give you an example, one that is outside of a combat setting, … A highway patrolman came upon a wreck where a man was trapped in his car, car on fire…gas tank leaked, flames prevented saving him…man was screaming in pain. HP officer shot the man putting him out of his misery…ended up in prison for 3rd degree murder. Why? Because it is not an acceptable option in our society…because it is not for us to play God…

 

[Squishy]

Ok, a lot to reply here to so ill see if i can make an effort and adress everyonr

Squishy,

With all due respect, as I do not mean to suggest that you are somehow naive, but perhaps your lack of understanding what our faith and dogmas mean to us has influenced you into the misconception that Catholics may be wrong when it comes to dogma. This is simply not possible. So your suggestion that,
"… to force your religious beliefs on others on this matter is hardly fair, as you might end up being wrong, forcing that person to suffer for nothing."
First, we don’t not “force” our beliefs on another by saying that we will not take part in killing them. How would that be “forcing” our beliefs on them? However, you appear to be suggesting we should set aside our dogmas and beliefs and kill against our will. Who is “forcing” who?

Im sorry if you misunderstood what i was saying. I would never condone forcing someone to kill against their will. And if euthanaisa/assisted suicide became a reality i would expect most doctors to be unwilling to perform it. I was refering to the fact that religious beliefs are what most people here are arguing the point as to why it should be illegal.

 

[Squishy]

And if my beliefs were that I don’t need a doctor to agree with whether I am in enough pain? Who are you to force your beliefs on me?

This is why we have regulations and laws that are not based on a particular belief system.

Who makes these rules and based on what system of morality?

Societys. With 6 billion people in the world and very few common beliefs. Basing a morality system on a particular religion is not a very wise idea. (however I tend to agree with most christain morals)

Okay then. It is based on your authority.

I took assisted suicide because for me its a lot more black and white than euthanasia.

Turning off life support may or may not be murder. Just as burying a coffin with someone inside may or may not be murder.

Turning off a life support machine is euthanasia. You dont mean burying people alive i hope? I dont really understand the second part of this. Are you suggesting burying people alive might not be murder? Or that burying dead people somehow is ?

What does terminally ill have to do with it? Is it because they are supposedly guaranteed to die? Everyone is guaranteed to die, why make being terminally ill a criterion?

Im not. I dont have an issue if you want to go and kill yourself now. I would probebly advice against it but in the end its your choice. However i dont think you should be allowed to use tax payers resorces for it.

And how much more comfortable than choosing to die while completely pain free? Why wait till ‘misery’ sets in?
When decisions of morality are not based on truth, all arguments crumble.

When they are based on 1 persons idea of TRUTH, then yes. Try finding the balance when everyone has their own idea of what TRUTH is.

 

[Squishy]

Yes, He would!

Thou shall not kill. There is no sentance after that, that says, unless they are really in pain, then go ahead!

Are you saying their is no exception to the rule? Im fairly sure that the very people he gave those commandments to all broke that very rule you quoted. At the behest of god.

 

[Squishy]

My point is that it wouldn’t be any less painful or less terrifying to be murdered, than to die naturally.

The reason it takes so long to die naturally is because the person is literally hanging on for dear life. They don’t want to die. The terrible suffering and agony is the result of the battle that that person is waging against death - they take laboured painful breath after laboured painful breath, because they don’t want to stop breathing. But when they are ready to let go, they will - and then they will die on their own. They won’t need any help.

I think you are confusing someones, wishes for their bodys natural precondisioned response. A body will continue to do what it has for eveyday of its existence which is fight in an alien enviroment to stay alive.

 

[Squishy]

I think that you should start by separating the “assisted” from the “suicide” issues. When you put them together you probably end up accepting one ('assisted") just because you feel that you made a case for the other (“suicide”).

What i was trying to get across by ‘assisted suicide’ was the doctor prepairing the right drugs to painlessly end the patients life. With the patient self administering them.

As a Christian I have a right and an obligation to tell them so. As Christian we have the primary responsibility to make our best for everybody to go to heaven. Salvation is not just an individual thing, it is a common task. For example when a Catholic gets married he/she commits to do his/her very best to help the spouse to go to heaven.

I understand the spouse issue. Due to what getting married into a catholic famely entails. However dont expect everyone to agree with your percieved rights and obligations. As not everyone shares your religious beliefs

This is called free will, and free will does not mean that you can do as you please without consequences. It means that you have the choice of choosing between good and evil.

But it does allow you to make the desicions in the first place. And not everyone believes the consequences that you do.

Are saying that you are putting a family through something because of your suffering? If so then you are wrong. The family members put themselves in that situation through acceptance, and getting involved.

Or are you saying that you are putting a family member in the position of suffering? If so you are wrong too! You are not causing their suffering, if you did not exist they would be in the same situation.

Having a famely member who you love and cherish wasting away in a hospital bed is a terrible thing. Its a real strain on the family. Both financialy and emotionaly. Im not saying this is a reason to ‘kill off’ the said family member but its something i would take into consideration if i was deciding to end my own life.

 

[fix]

This is why we have regulations and laws that are not based on a particular belief system.

Societys. With 6 billion people in the world and very few common beliefs. Basing a morality system on a particular religion is not a very wise idea. (however I tend to agree with most christain morals)

Is it wise to base it on moral relativism?

 

[Squishy]

Is it wise to base it on moral relativism?

Good question. But as we base our legal systems around this i think it would be the only way.

 

[fix]

Good question. But as we base our legal systems around this i think it would be the only way.

I do not think the legal system is based on that. The system is run by persons who bring all sorts of understndings to their job.

What we need are more people with a proper understanding of human nature and the moral law.