Euthanasia

[Rogerteder]

Question: Please respond–If someone were to say," I believe that if someone has terminal cancer and they choose to end their life I believe they should be able to. They arent bothering anyone. If they want to they should be able too. "

Your responses will be appreciated. THANKS!!!

 

[LilyM]

They aren’t bothering anyone? Of course they are. We are all created by God, in His image and likeness and for His purposes. Even our suffering and illness has purpose - Christ showed that with His own sufferings.

Who are we to tell God that He created something that was unimportant or without purpose? Their taking of their own lives, or having their lives taken for them, surely bothers God if no-one else.

If our lives have meaning and purpose in God’s eyes then it is for Him to tell us when that purpose is achieved and we should die then and not a moment sooner.

Course that’d only work for those who believe in God.

 

[rpp]

Here in the state of Oregon, we have both legal euthanasia as well as a form of socialized medicine called the Oregon Health Plan. Recently, a woman with cancer was told that the Oregon Heath Plan would not pay for her cancer treatment but it would pay for her to be euthanized. Essentially they were trying force her to kill herself.

That is just one danger of legal euthanasia. There have been other cases, much less publicized, where family member forced their ill and elderly parents to agree to euthanasia.

It is wrong to end one life prematurely. While a person is free to decline medical treatment, food and water cannot be withheld. Suicide is always wrong. Committing suicide, even to avoid the pain of terminal illness, is always wrong. There is much redemption in suffering.

 

[mammallama]

A few years ago I discovered I had breast cancer.My own mother died from bc at 53.Well anyway that sort of thing makes a person think about end of life issues.We are called upon to offer up our sufferings to God to lessen the suffering of others.To choose an un-natural death to avoid pain is a sin of the highest degree.Many saints actually asked God to give them the pain of others or to take on suffering for the sake of the poor souls in purgatory.Something to ponder the next time you have a really bad headache

 

[Rogerteder]

Listen folks I undersand what the Church teaches and all that, but what if the person doesnt believe in the Church. He says “You say that there is value in suffering, but I dont believe that, and if the person wants to die I say allow him too. Why is it wrong?”

 

[mammallama]

Listen folks I undersand what the Church teaches and all that, but what if the person doesn’t believe in the Church. He says “You say that there is value in suffering, but I don’t believe that, and if the person wants to die I say allow him too. Why is it wrong?”

So if the person isn’t interested in religious reasons against suicide are you asking from a strictly ethical perspective?

 

[Trishie]

That’s a very painful question sometimes, isn’t it. The Commandment, “thou shalt not kill” stands, painful as it is sometimes.

As Catholics we are obliged to use ordinary means to assist and heal the sick, we aren’t obliged to use extraordinary means. Frequently the medical profession uses extraordinary means, bless them!

 

[LilyM]

Listen folks I undersand what the Church teaches and all that, but what if the person doesnt believe in the Church. He says “You say that there is value in suffering, but I dont believe that, and if the person wants to die I say allow him too. Why is it wrong?”

Firstly because they don’t see or believe in something doesn’t make it untrue. They may never have seen or believe in outer Mongolia, but it exists whether or not they even know about it let alone believe in it.

Secondly - from a purely humanist perspective life has an inherent value, the American Constitution for one enshrines the right to life.

Clearly that life by mere virtue of its existence has a value, and that value is not just to the individual, and not just dependent on how much the individual values their own life or the lives of others - otherwise such a broad right to life wouldn’t be in the Constitution.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Re euthanasia/suicide, it is assumed by many that it means an end to the suffering. What proof do they have of that? What if it is the gateway to eternal suffering? I would want a definitive answer to that before I choose that doorway.

To often it is chosen not to relieve the suffering of the patient but the suffering of his family and caregivers. They aren’t worried about what comes next for him.

 

[blessedtoo]

Listen folks I undersand what the Church teaches and all that, but what if the person doesnt believe in the Church. He says “You say that there is value in suffering, but I dont believe that, and if the person wants to die I say allow him too. Why is it wrong?”

No one is stopping a terminally ill person from taking their own life.

What they want is HELP to do it. They want a LAW which states that a doctor must assist in a person’s suicide. And they want society to agree that it’s okey dokey.

Tell the person who asks this question that no one is stopping them from taking their life. But don’t involve doctors, lawyers, the law and the rest of society in order to do it.

 

[Newbie2]

Question: Please respond–If someone were to say," I believe that if someone has terminal cancer and they choose to end their life I believe they should be able to. They arent bothering anyone. If they want to they should be able too. "

Your responses will be appreciated. THANKS!!!

I would say:

1. Why limit it to cancer? Suppose someone is depressed, for whatever the cause…isn’t mental anguish just as painful as physical pain? Migrane headaches are excruciatingly painful. Is it OK for them to off themselves as well?
2. As has been posted, nobody is stopping them. The undeniable slippery-slope has already been established, it would seem, in the republic of Oregon.
3. We have a long way to go in terms of improving pain control for terminal patients, and efforts need to be directed there.
4. We’re all terminal. Why not off ourselves before we get old and infirmed? Arthritis hurts, and if we live long enough, we’ll all get it.

 

[rpp]

Listen folks I undersand what the Church teaches and all that, but what if the person doesnt believe in the Church. He says “You say that there is value in suffering, but I dont believe that, and if the person wants to die I say allow him too. Why is it wrong?”

There are people who do not agree with the Church’s teaching on a good number things like theft and murder. Should we decriminalize theft and murder just because some people do not agree with the Church.

When a person commits suicide, they are doing great harm to their friends and family. And they are doing something that cannot be undone.

As we have seen in Oregon, once it is made legal, people will find a way to force or coerce others into suicide, even against their will.

 

[Rogerteder]

No one is stopping a terminally ill person from taking their own life.

What they want is HELP to do it. They want a LAW which states that a doctor must assist in a person’s suicide. And they want society to agree that it’s okey dokey.

Tell the person who asks this question that no one is stopping them from taking their life. But don’t involve doctors, lawyers, the law and the rest of society in order to do it.

I dont think you are correct in your opinion. I dont think they are saying they want a law that says a doctor MUST(your word). They are supporting a law that would at least ALLOW (big difference) a doctor(if he wants) to assist(in the death) if the patient wants the doctor to. Why is that wrong? PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY----IF YOU CANT DO IT THEN JUST DONT ANSWER–

 

[Newbie2]

I dont think you are correct in your opinion. I dont think they are saying they want a law that says a doctor MUST(your word). They are supporting a law that would at least ALLOW (big difference) a doctor(if he wants) to assist(in the death) if the patient wants the doctor to. Why is that wrong? PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY----IF YOU CANT DO IT THEN JUST DONT ANSWER–

Methinks “can” or “allow” is a stepping stone to “must”.

Why is that wrong, you ask? Well…check out this portion of the modern version of the Hyppocratic oath:

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

(My emphasis)

Second, do you really want your physician to have that power? What happens when the insurance companies (or, God forbid, our federal government) start calling all the shots…no pun intended. Medical decisions will be strictly financial.

Joe Blow is past his prime, and he’s really sick. It doesn’t make fiscal sense to spend $300 a month on his cardiac medication. It’s much cheaper to let him die. Oh, he’s feeling really poorly? Let’s just off him now.

IF, and I disagree that this should ever be allowed to come to pass, but IF society ever accepts active euthanasia, AT THE VERY LEAST death should not come at the hands of those who are the healers; there is too great a chance for a conflict of interest.

I firmly believe in the slippery slope of euthanasia.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. …

Why is that wrong, you ask? Well…check out this portion of the modern version of the Hyppocratic oath:

Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

(My emphasis)
. . .

I think that very few physicians practicing today took the Hyppocratic Oath. It was being phased out several years ago. While yeou refer to the modern version. I think it is being continuously updated to include permit the newest - abortion, etc. It will be easy enough to include euthanasia, if it isn’t in there already.

 

[Biggie]

I dont think you are correct in your opinion. I dont think they are saying they want a law that says a doctor MUST(your word). They are supporting a law that would at least ALLOW (big difference) a doctor(if he wants) to assist(in the death) if the patient wants the doctor to. Why is that wrong? PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY----IF YOU CANT DO IT THEN JUST DONT ANSWER–

Please read “The Nazi Doctors”, Robert Jay Lofton, Basic Books, 2000, USA

The world has historically gone down this road, and there is no reason now to believe that if you begin at the entrance to the road you arrive at another destination today than you did yesterday.

You will recall that the original destination was the holocaust and the entryway was the mercy killing of handicapped infants performed by doctors who considered their activity consistent with the hippocratic oath.

 

[blessedtoo]

I dont think you are correct in your opinion. I dont think they are saying they want a law that says a doctor MUST(your word). They are supporting a law that would at least ALLOW (big difference) a doctor(if he wants) to assist(in the death) if the patient wants the doctor to. Why is that wrong? PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY----IF YOU CANT DO IT THEN JUST DONT ANSWER–

Hey, guess what? I did answer DIRECTLY:

Please respond–If someone were to say," I believe that if someone has terminal cancer and they choose to end their life I believe they should be able to. They arent bothering anyone. If they want to they should be able too. "

If they want to end their lives, no one is stopping them.

If YOU can’t refrain from rude commentaries on the responses you are given, perhaps you should not address them at all.

 

[urban-hermit]

This whole issue is falsely framed as a matter of personal autonomy (“why won’t you let me kill myself?”), when it is really a matter of public policy.

Listen folks I undersand what the Church teaches and all that, but what if the person doesnt believe in the Church. He says “You say that there is value in suffering, but I dont believe that, and if the person wants to die I say allow him too. Why is it wrong?”

You’re asking why it’s wrong. That must mean you care if it is wrong, so … well, it’s wrong because God won’t like it. It’s displeasing to God. If the person doesn’t believe in God, then it’s still wrong, but the person just doesn’t know it. He’ll find out shortly after he kills himself.

As a matter of personal autonomy in the U.S.A., if you want to kill yourself, you just go kill yourself. This is not a “human right” and you do not qualify for government assistance to kill yourself if you are too sick to do so on your own. The reason why is not so much discrimination against the sick and despairing, but ethical considerations that have to take into consideration the greatest good for the most people.

As a matter of public policy, we don’t encourage or facilitate suicide. The state has an official position that being alive is good, even when we are feeling bad. And that participating in the killing of another person is wrong, even if they request it.

If we make laws that say doctors can prescribe lethal drugs as a valid treatment, that will mean assisting in a person’s suicide will be considered an acceptable treatment for disease as a matter of public policy. Culturally this would devalue human life and place sick people at risk, especially those who don’t have family to advocate for them in their time of illness or incapacitation. I am sure you are aware that it is much, much cheaper to kill a person - or “assist them in committing suicide” - than it is to pay for the drugs they will need to remain alive and pain-free for however long they have left to live.

If you are really asking about Euthanasia laws such as the one they unfortunately have in Oregon and the virtually identical proposed law we are going to be voting against here in Washington in a few months, it is important to understand that these are ASSISTED SUICIDE laws, not “death with dignity” laws as they have been described by the proponents of death. These laws are deeply flawed. For more information, visit this website:

internationaltaskforce.org

 

[Rogerteder]

Hey, guess what? I did answer DIRECTLY:

If they want to end their lives, no one is stopping them.

If YOU can’t refrain from rude commentaries on the responses you are given, perhaps you should not address them at all.

Yes if they want to end their lives no one can stop them, I understand that. BUT, what if a person asks, “Why cant a doctor help me die if I want him too?”

 

[blessedtoo]

Yes if they want to end their lives no one can stop them, I understand that. BUT, what if a person asks, “Why cant a doctor help me die if I want him too?”

That question has also been DIRECTLY answered by the always eloquent urban-hermit (see above).