Euthanasia - Your Personal Views

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drinkgasoline
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Drinkgasoline said:
Why do you consider that sinful?
Click to expand...
Because in either case, man is playing God. To end a person’s life, or to keep a person alive who would die naturally, without things like breathing machines, is basically acting like God. We are not God.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Because in either case, man is playing God. To end a person’s life, or to keep a person alive who would die naturally, without things like breathing machines, is basically acting like God. We are not God.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that also mean that antibiotics, vaccinations, or connecting premature infants to breathing machines while using steroids to get their lungs to develop is also playing God? Historically it seems that claims that one is “playing God” have been nothing more than strong personal opinion. Ever heard this aphorism:

“If God had meant for man to fly he would have given him wings.”
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Wouldn’t that also mean that antibiotics, vaccinations, or connecting premature infants to breathing machines while using steroids to get their lungs to develop is also playing God? Historically it seems that claims that one is “playing God” have been nothing more than strong personal opinion. Ever heard this aphorism:

“If God had meant for man to fly he would have given him wings.”
Click to expand...
I knew you would say that, but I believe there is a fine line between playing God and helping to heal people. A person that is totally on life support in a coma isn’t really alive, IMHO. However, just because a person is old and feeble and in pain, is no reason to kill them.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
I knew you would say that, but I believe there is a fine line between playing God and helping to heal people. A person that is totally on life support in a coma isn’t really alive, IMHO. However, just because a person is old and feeble and in pain, is no reason to kill them.
Click to expand...
That line is going to vary from one person to another. It’s not something that I think can be well defined and will still come down to personal opinion. At least until Yahweh decides to weigh in on it.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
It appears that one of the significant “positives” that you see in prolonging the life of some one in a deteriorating non-recoverable condition is from the concept of redemptive suffering. That’s something that seems to be specifically a Catholic concept (though I do think there’s some similar Muslim concept). It’s not something that is a part of all forms of Christianity and not necessarily part of the lives and teachings of various non-Christians. There too are also people that while identifying themselves as Catholic do not subscribe to the concept, such as the Catholic on the thread I referenced earlier.

So it seems that using redemptive suffering as a basis for not allowing someone to end their life and their suffering is using constraining some one to operating under the rules of a religion to which either she or he doesn’t fully subscribe or may not be following at all. There’s a question of whether or not this is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the USA constitution which allows some one freedom of and freedom from religion.
Click to expand...
True, I’m using Catholic teaching in my argument.

As a nation, religious views aside, I believe we should be one that respects life instead of treating it as a disposable resource. The fact that we have a large population should not make it reasonable to allow for the destruction of our own citizens, nor should the wishes of its citizens because of the fundamental principles we follow.

Our principles are basically, though not officially, based upon most of the general things held and proven to be good by mankind. That being said, right to life is one of those things. Death is more or less for the individual to decide on. Because, as a nation, we are about protecting life (granted, not in the fetal stage at this point because most Americans are still undecided as to whether or not it constitutes a living human) as opposed to ending it though, the government and/or state has no right to assist people in willingly killing themselves - it isn’t their business and no one should bear the responsibility of “lawfully” killing an innocent person under a nation which promotes the exact opposite.

Capital punishment (because I’m sure this issue would come up) is different in that it is sentenced and inflicted for the purpose of punishing a person or persons who have done extreme harm to the nation through the act(s) of grievous crime(s). Because that person has done a grievous wrong, the punishment of death, depending on the circumstances would be lawful for the fact that it is in keeping the public safe (from injury and death). The destruction of innocent life, however, is something we’ve always, at least as a people, been against - though bias, bigotry, sleazy politicians, and other flaws have blurred those lines from time to time.
 
Euthanasia in a case where the person does not make the decision is murder and should be prohibited as such. However, I think I as an adult, should be legally responsible for my own life. I should not be prohibited by law from ending it.

Just my opinion.
 
Bill_Martin said:
Euthanasia in a case where the person does not make the decision is murder and should be prohibited as such. However, I think I as an adult, should be legally responsible for my own life. I should not be prohibited by law from ending it.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic, you do know that suicide is a grave sin, don’t you?

“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
As a Catholic, you do know that suicide is a grave sin, don’t you?

“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.”
Click to expand...
I didn’t say suicide or assisted suicide is moral; just that it should not be illegal.
 
I can think of situations in which assisted suicide is justified. If someone feels their life is truly worthless, such as in the example given by the OP, I don’t see how anyone could argue against it. 🤷
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
Then why do you think it should be legal?:confused:
Click to expand...
Because the state should not be in a position to decide whether I live or die.

That does not mean I should choose suicide. It only means the state should not choose for me.
 
For me personally, I have advance directives in place that say no feeding tubes and no life support. And I am 43. After the Terri Schiavo thing, you cant be too careful when it comes to putting these things in writing and not just telling a family member about it.

So, as for the man that is locked in and can only move his eyes around…I would dread that happening to me. If I cannot feed myself or breathe on my own…let me die.

Good to put these things in writing now, while you still can.
 
Even if some believe we are biological units and nothing happens to us after we die except bodily decay then I can understand that view. However, it is not a view that should be accepted. The first principle a doctor should know is: “First, do no harm.” Doctors should not be involved in euthanasia at all. And my views, in my case, cannot deny the fact that I am Catholic. It would be like saying I’m personally against abortion but it’s OK if others choose it.

I am not and cannot separate who I am from my Catholic identity and serve two masters.

ncregister.com/daily-news/u.s.-bishops-target-physician-assisted-suicide

Peace,
Ed
 
Angelsflight said:
For me personally, I have advance directives in place that say no feeding tubes and no life support. And I am 43. After the Terri Schiavo thing, you cant be too careful when it comes to putting these things in writing and not just telling a family member about it.

So, as for the man that is locked in and can only move his eyes around…I would dread that happening to me. If I cannot feed myself or breathe on my own…let me die.

Good to put these things in writing now, while you still can.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree. That is what I was getting at. You aren’t choosing suicide or euthiasia, but you are choosing not to be given extraordianary medical heroics. There really is a difference.
 
I am against euthanasia. Suicide of any kind is a sin. Catholic teaching condemns euthanasia as a “crime against life”. The church regards any law permitting euthanasia as an intrinsically unjust law. Since direct suicide is morally wrong, it is also morally wrong to help someone commit suicide.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

**2277 ***Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded. *

2278 *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. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. *

**2279 ***Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. *

*“Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” * Blessed Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995
 
A_G said:
I am against euthanasia. Suicide of any kind is a sin. Catholic teaching condemns euthanasia as a “crime against life”. The church regards any law permitting euthanasia as an intrinsically unjust law. Since direct suicide is morally wrong, it is also morally wrong to help someone commit suicide.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.

**2277 ***Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. * Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2278 *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. Here one does not will to cause death; one’s inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected. *

**2279 ***Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged. *

*“Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.” * Blessed Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995
Click to expand...
Remember when I said it was a philosophical thread? Not just a “the Church says so” thread?

Anyway the man that I was originally talking about, Tony Nicklinson, has just been pronounced dead after refusing food.

bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19341722
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top