Euthanasia

[Rogerteder]

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

I dont think it has. What if the person says," I dont think human life will be devalued by this. It will be more valuable. The person won’t suffer, and be a burden on his family. If he freely consents then a doctor can help him he die. This can only occur if the person freely consents and is mentally competent etc… etc… etc…".
Why is it wrong? Why should it be illegal (based on this above argument) for a doctor to help a patient if that is what the patient wants?

 

[rpp]

I dont think it has. What if the person says," I dont think human life will be devalued by this. It will be more valuable. The person won’t suffer, and be a burden on his family. If he freely consents then a doctor can help him he die. This can only occur if the person freely consents and is mentally competent etc… etc… etc…".
Why is it wrong? Why should it be illegal (based on this above argument) for a doctor to help a patient if that is what the patient wants?

This question has most certainly been answered. Here is my earlier answer.

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.

UrbanHermit also very eloquently answered the question as well.

 

[blessedtoo]

I dont think it has. What if the person says," I dont think human life will be devalued by this. It will be more valuable. The person won’t suffer, and be a burden on his family. If he freely consents then a doctor can help him he die. This can only occur if the person freely consents and is mentally competent etc… etc… etc…".
Why is it wrong? Why should it be illegal (based on this above argument) for a doctor to help a patient if that is what the patient wants?

“What if the person says” is not an argument. Make an argument FOR assisted suicide if you can - but your current approach displays an unwillingness to engage in honest debate.

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.

BTW- urban-hermit’s response gave both a secular/ethical answer as well as a “religious” one. All the bases have been covered.

 

[Fran65]

BUT, what if a person asks, “Why cant a doctor help me die if I want him too?”

No one has the right to put another person into that position. Even if at that point in time it were to be (a) legal and (b) personally supported by the Doctor there are long term consequences for the person administering the drug/method for killing.

You have made that person responsible for your death. Psychologically and emotionally there may come a time when they experience deep and enduring guilt and regret because of your request. Women who have chosen abortion often regret and mourn thier lost child, even if they chose and sought the abortion. There is no reason to suppose that Doctors who kill would feel any differently in many cases. You are asking them to carry that burden for the rest of their life - whether they know it or not.

Socially, others will regard that Doctor differently and they will be treated differently by those they meet and their family and friends.

Professionally, you are asking a Doctor to become someone who deliberately ends life, not someone who supports health and wellbeing.

Spiritually (even if *you *don’t believe in God) that person will face the consequences for killing unless they convert and sincerely confess which would involve the guilt and regret referred to above.

Pax
Karen

 

[urban-hermit]

I dont think it has. What if the person says," I dont think human life will be devalued by this. It will be more valuable. The person won’t suffer, and be a burden on his family. If he freely consents then a doctor can help him he die. This can only occur if the person freely consents and is mentally competent etc… etc… etc…".
Why is it wrong? Why should it be illegal (based on this above argument) for a doctor to help a patient if that is what the patient wants?

Roger, I think this question comes more into focus if you personalize it. Instead of thinking of an abstract hypothetical situation, think of a person you know and care about in this situation. Because we ARE talking about people here, which is important to remember and easy to forget.

There are some people who probably really do want to kill themselves. Some of them are not even terminally ill. Sometimes we have to simply tell somebody “no, you can’t”. Strike that! People hate to hear that. So… it’s probably smarter to tell your best friend with cancer that, while you do respect his choices, you cannot participate in helping him kill himself because it is entirely possible that he will have some very meaningful experiences, even during this time of pain and suffering. He may not understand, but he will know that you care when you help him find the best options for pain management, help him get his estate in order, help him reconcile with any estranged relatives, help him reconcile with God, etc. etc.

If we put personal autonomy above what is best for all concerned (public policy), there is no logical reason to deny a depressed person who is adamant that he wants to kill himself.

 

[Biggie]

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?”

I do not agree with the apathy or indifference inferred in the first part of the original statement or the response, but as to the hypothetical question, the reason is because it debases the medical profession, corrupts the hippocratic oath, destroys public trust of the doctor and reduces the dignity of medicine - which is a danger to all and an injury to society.

 

[rpp]

I do not agree with the apathy or indifference inferred in the first part of the original statement or the response, but as to the hypothetical question, the reason is because it debases the medical profession, corrupts the hippocratic oath, destroys public trust of the doctor and reduces the dignity of medicine - which is a danger to all and an injury to society.

It has also actually lead the state run Oregon Health Plan to refuse to treat people with certain life-threatening diseases but instead will only pay for assisted suicide. This is well documented.

 

[Biggie]

It has also actually lead the state run Oregon Health Plan to refuse to treat people with certain life-threatening diseases but instead will only pay for assisted suicide. This is well documented.

You are referring to the doctor’s or medicine? Case in point - doesn’t surprise me. Once trust is broken anything is possible and history backs that up.

 

[rpp]

You are referring to the doctor’s or medicine?

I am referring to the insurance plan that pays for treatment.

In Oregon, physician assisted suicide is legal. Oregon also has a form of socialized health care called the Oregon Health Plan. It is a government run health insurance plan for low income people. The act the created the OHP also prevented those who are covered by it, or their families, from filing lawsuits.

A couple of years ago, the Oregon Health Plan changed it policies. It is now the policy of the Oregon Health Plan not to pay for treatment for a person if their illness, such as cancer, is such that the the five-year survival rate is 5% or less. In these cases, the Oregon Health Plan will only pay for pallitive care until there is a diagnosis is that the person is likely to die in less than 6 months. At that time, the plan will only pay for physician assisted suicide. As we are talking about low income people here, this forces them to commit suicide, even if they wanted treatment in the first place and do not want to kill themselves.

So far, there have been no pulicized cases of private insurance comapnies or HMOs doing this.

THAT is the result of making euthanasia legal.

Case in point - doesn’t surprise me. Once trust is broken anything is possible and history backs that up.

Absolutely correct.

By the way, I have been told, but I do not know if this indeed is true, that for more than 20 years doctors no longer take the Hippocratic oath, they no longer take a vow to “first, do no harm”.

 

[Biggie]

Dear RPP - News to me … but again, not surprised at all if true.
By the way, what is it about Oregon? I have never understood it.

 

[rpp]

Dear RPP - News to me … but again, not surprised at all if true.
By the way, what is it about Oregon? I have never understood it.

I moved to Oregon in 1991, long before I converted to the Catholic Church. I was an atheist then.

I moved here for a few reasons, mountains, volcanoes, ocean, forests and desert all within a three hour drive from my home.

I also wanted to get out of the Bible Belt and Oregon practically has signs posted at the border “Christians no welcome”. So being an atheist, I fit right in. We also have had a series of granola eating, pot-smoking, baby-killing, sodomizing, greenies for mayors and governors. In fact the former mayor of Portland had an aide who went to Afghanistan after 9/11 to fight for the Taliban. He is now serving a life sentence in federal prison on terrorism charges.

This place is just weird. There are a few other people on this forum from Oregon and the Northwest, they will confirm this as well.

Oh, I should add that if you are a soldier, while the governors of Washington and Oregon pay lip service to men in uniform, and so do the local newspapers, it is not advisable for a soldier to be in uniform in public anywhere in Portland, Seattle and the larger cities on the western side of the state.

 

[Biggie]

I moved to Oregon in 1991, long before I converted to the Catholic Church. I was an atheist then.

I moved here for a few reasons, mountains, volcanoes, ocean, forests and desert all within a three hour drive from my home.

I also wanted to get out of the Bible Belt and Oregon practically has signs posted at the border “Christians no welcome”. So being an atheist, I fit right in. We also have had a series of granola eating, pot-smoking, baby-killing, sodomizing, greenies for mayors and governors. In fact the former maoyr of Portland had an aide who went to Afghanistan after 9/11 to fight for the Taliban. He is now serving a life sentence in federal prison on terroism charges.

This place is just weird. There are a few other people on this forum from Oregon and the Northwest, they will confirm this as well.

Then you are giving vital witness under persecution. I thought Portland was the problem. How does the Church fare under such circumstances?

 

[rpp]

Then you are giving vital witness under persecution. I thought Portland was the problem. How does the Church fare under such circumstances?

Well, not too bad. The Archbishop of Portland, John Vlazny, does not get much attention in the secular press.

During the height of the sex-abuse scandal, our archdiocese was the first in the nation to file for bankruptcy. A big part of that was because in 2000 the state legislature passed a law completely eliminating the statue of limitation on sex abuse lawsuits brought against *Christian *churches, schools or clergy only. All other organizations like non-Christian private schools, public schools, Islamic mosques, for profit businesses, etc. government agencies, were exempt from this law and the statue of limitations remained in force. In the case of public schools, were made completely exempt from sex abuse civil lawsuits.

The Church played a role in opposing the vote to make “medical marijuana” legal, but not as significant. Unfortunately, that law passed as well. However the Church here played a role in defeating a subsequent vote that would have expanded the marijuana law.

During the campaigns to make physician assisted suicide legal, the The Archbishop and the Catholic Church played a central role in opposing it. At that time, I was an atheist and I now very much regret the fact that I supported it at that time. The abuses that have crept in are horrible. And, of course, my conscience is now in line with Church teachings.

Most recently the Church played a large role in trying to get a parental consent for abortion law passed, but that failed. Our Archbishop has also been very vocal in opposing a new law recognizing “same-sex civil unions” (gay marriage with a different name) and an anti-discrimination law that is so broad that the full impact has not been felt, but it will require introducing 2nd and 3rd grade children in public schools to be taught about homosexuality while the same prevents heterosexual issues from being discussed until the 5th grade.

Sometimes I wonder if I commit the grave sin of supporting an immoral business or activity when I pay my state taxes.

 

[Rogerteder]

I dont think the argument has been answered. I think it is very real that people(in society) say people, if they want, should be able to kill themselves (and Doctors can assist them if they so choose to comply) and why is that wrong? you can say “life is devalued” etc etc etc—but that is all “what you say”–some may not believe that-----so "why is it wrong if I wanna kill myself, and I ask a doctor to assist me, I am not bothering anyone but me. WHY CAN’T I?

 

[mammallama]

Roger…IF you want to off yourself and can find a doctor to help you do it then you CAN commit suicide.You shouldn’t do it You mustn’t do it but you CAN do it.So don’t ask 'WHY CAN’T I? Heck you don’t even need a doctor,drink a bottle of Red Devil Lye…

Why do you persist in arguing with folks who have already pointed out why it is morally and ethically wrong. Quoting you here…“but that is all “what you say”–some may not believe that–”
Why are you even here in this forum if these opinions mean nothing to you.Are you hoping that someone here can convince you yourself not to commit suicide?

 

[Biggie]

Well, not too bad. The Archbishop of Portland, John Vlazny, does not get much attention in the secular press.

During the height of the sex-abuse scandal, our archdiocese was the first in the nation to file for bankruptcy. A big part of that was because in 2000 the state legislature passed a law completely eliminating the statue of limitation on sex abuse lawsuits brought against *Christian *churches, schools or clergy only. All other organizations like non-Christian private schools, public schools, Islamic mosques, for profit businesses, etc. government agencies, were exempt from this law and the statue of limitations remained in force. In the case of public schools, were made completely exempt from sex abuse civil lawsuits.

The Church played a role in opposing the vote to make “medical marijuana” legal, but not as significant. Unfortunately, that law passed as well. However the Church here played a role in defeating a subsequent vote that would have expanded the marijuana law.

During the campaigns to make physician assisted suicide legal, the The Archbishop and the Catholic Church played a central role in opposing it. At that time, I was an atheist and I now very much regret the fact that I supported it at that time. The abuses that have crept in are horrible. And, of course, my conscience is now in line with Church teachings.

Most recently the Church played a large role in trying to get a parental consent for abortion law passed, but that failed. Our Archbishop has also been very vocal in opposing a new law recognizing “same-sex civil unions” (gay marriage with a different name) and an anti-discrimination law that is so broad that the full impact has not been felt, but it will require introducing 2nd and 3rd grade children in public schools to be taught about homosexuality while the same prevents heterosexual issues from being discussed until the 5th grade.

Sometimes I wonder if I commit the grave sin of supporting an immoral business or activity when I pay my state taxes.

Stick it out. Go the distance. Seems like they need you there, and you were put there for a reason!

 

[Nino]

…and Terris maiden name was Schindler…a name associated for all time for SAVING innocent lives…and sadly her plug was pulled…for the ‘good’ of all of course. Notice how certain caring words are always used by the mercy …‘mercy’ killers…like ‘choice’…does the father have a choice…or the devloping baby…no just the temporary host has that ‘choice’ to kill it…sorry I mean terminate the pregnancy!!! Its all asopian language…as to be called ‘square’ was changed by our masters to mean…from fair and honest to outdated and naive…to further enhance FDRs ‘new’ deal…and thus push back into the outdated cowboy range Theodore Roosevelt and his Square Deal…now we are deluged constantly with buzz words that cause us to react like one of Pavlovs mutts …on cue…darn where is my dish…

 

[Fran65]

I had no idea that it in Oregon some plans will only pay for physician assisted suicide in some cases. That is abhorrent.
And provides another reason to fight to keep the NHS in the UK. (where I live).

Roger,
But you are bothering other people than you by asking another person to become involved. You presumably want them involved for three reasons 1) To make sure you die and avoid the consequences of a ‘failed’ suicide. 2)To make the suicide attempt as painless and quick as possible (for you) and 3) To have someone there with you so that you are not completely alone. None of them justify involving someone else in your decision to die. If you are thinking along those lines, please get help.

Karen

 

[wabrams]

I dont think the argument has been answered. I think it is very real that people(in society) say people, if they want, should be able to kill themselves (and Doctors can assist them if they so choose to comply) and why is that wrong? you can say “life is devalued” etc etc etc—but that is all “what you say”–some may not believe that-----so "why is it wrong if I wanna kill myself, and I ask a doctor to assist me, I am not bothering anyone but me. WHY CAN’T I?

Read what you typed; you can’t have someone else kill you and it not bother anyone: it bothers (perhaps over time) the physician that facilitates it.

 

[Rogerteder]

Read what you typed; you can’t have someone else kill you and it not bother anyone: it bothers (perhaps over time) the physician that facilitates it.

You people are amazing. I am looking for arguments. Do not read anything into my questions because you guys are way off the mark with your inuendos.

Ok now, if the Physicians wants to help it may or may not bother him. But if he wants to be that doctor and the patient agrees why cant they put him to death.