The entire point of euthanasia is to end a life that has become intolerable, usually through some irreversible condition that will only involve deterioration, loss of dignity and increased suffering.
A life “that is intolerable” is still life. Anyone who can look beyond the scope of the physical world realizes that pain and suffering are temporary troubles, depending on whether or not you plan on going to heaven or hell. Since God commands us to respect life, we must do so to obtain heaven and to follow His will. The reason we can put an animal out of its misery (or kill it for food) but not a human is because humans have more than physical life to look forward to, and that life we look forward to (spiritual) is more important than our physical life. However, our physical life is ultimately what determines what our spiritual life will be like. That being said, we must use it to its fullest extent in order to extract from it the most benefit. Such suffering can be used as a means of obtaining grace for self and for others,* or* it can be rejected by those who simply refuse to do so during a long period of suffering, or those who wish for an easy way out via suicide.
It is certainly my hope that should I ever be in such a situation, the law will allow me the self-determination to end my life as and when I deem it appropriate, to the best of my powers.
It is my hope that, should I ever be in such a situation, I will muster the will and courage to live with my disability and help others through it. My personal ills should not hinder my obedience to God’s will and the aid of others, nor should it hinder my own happiness.
I also don’t believe it is valid to compare such self-directed action with state-sanctioned killing of the kind enacted by any totalitarian regime like that of the Nazis or the Soviets - that was based on government ideology, not on individual preference. Proper euthanasia laws would allow for differences of religion or creed or personal desire, and would not demand that any individual relinquish their life against their will.
The difference between God’s will and not-God’s-will is the difference between life and the absence of life. What do you suppose is the repercussion of choosing “absence of life”?
All life is equal, but some life is more equal than others…
I never said all life is equal. You would be putting words in my mouth there. There is a definitive difference between physical life, spiritual life, and spiritual indwelling. All are sacred, but to varying degrees and for varying purposes.
What of those humans who sincerely believe (as I do) that we have no more to gain by continuing in an existence of agony and indignity?
Those humans simply bypass the opportunity to use the situation for a better outcome. Those people are also capable of choosing whether or not they are living in indignity. Dignity is more an act of the will than a result of physical appearance or feeling.
Doesn’t forcing such persons to continue to live violate certain freedoms, as freedom of religion (more so in the US than in Australia, but even so…)?
Any way of elaborating on that one?
I certainly do not believe that other animals are less sacred, however that is meant, than humans.
Then your beef would be with the Church’s official doctrine, not me.
If respecting the life of a dog, for example, means ending that life when it has become one of unbearable suffering, why do we not extend the same compassion to humans?
Animals’ misery cannot be utilized for their own benefit or the benefit of others because 1) they have no free will - thus they cannot deliberately offer their sufferings for a greater benefit. That being said, since they cannot, through their own freedom of choice, willingly offer their sufferings, it is more-or-less needless/useless suffering. 2) they haven’t a soul, at very least in the capacity of a human. As far we know, their lives most likely end here on earth. They have no greater goal to focus on in which suffering here would mean greater reward afterwards.
Humanity does not have the same priorities as animals however. Since we are both physical AND spiritual, with spiritual life being most important, we are required to look after the health of others and ourselves, because our spiritual life is dependant upon our physical life. Since God commands that physical life is to be respected, our obedience to that law filters into the outcome of our spiritual life.
Another fact that you need to take into consideration is that when we do help to preserve the lives of others or ourselves, comforting the person in agony is of great importance. We do not believe that we can just stick someone on life support and let them sit in a dark room without sun or company until they do eventually perish. Caring for and nurturing a person in life is just as important as preserving the life itself. It is also the will of the person in agony that is of the most importance in that issue. Even non-Christians have found peace in the agony of illness - it’s an act of the
will to be content with one’s place.
What is “the most appropriate fashion” in which to continue in pain, despair and indignity?
The most appropriate fashion in which to continue in pain, despair, and indignity is to stop doing all three by accepting pain for what it is, realizing that despair is inherently unreasonable and illogical (thus completely useless), and hold one’s spiritual self to a greater standard even when the body might not present a similar opportunity.
Our goal is to follow in the footsteps of Christ, which includes bearing our cross for others - not giving ourselves lethal injections before our own passion is to come.
Religious belief would seem to be a requirement to consider that there could be anything to be gained by such persistence in torment.
I disagree, based on my previous response, one post up ^. Even if it were true though, I don’t see how it would be flawed. God never said that His will and secular authority would consistently go hand in hand. That “requirement” is what led so many Romans to the Church after witnessing martyrs in the Coliseum.
