HBO Documentary

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rascalking
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rascalking

Guest
I’m watching an HBO doc on Oregon’s Death with Dignity law.

It’s always been a teaching of the church that, **while I agree with the teaching, ** it’s heartbreaking to watch people suffer. It is, without question, a very difficult teaching to accept/learn from.

My question is-Has anyone else seen the documentary? Did it change anyones mind?

It broke my heart to see people in pain, but it was also chilling to see people end their lives on camera.
 
Rascalking said:
I’m watching an HBO doc on Oregon’s Death with Dignity law.

It’s always been a teaching of the church that, **while I agree with the teaching, ** it’s heartbreaking to watch people suffer. It is, without question, a very difficult teaching to accept/learn from.

My question is-Has anyone else seen the documentary? Did it change anyones mind?

It broke my heart to see people in pain, but it was also chilling to see people end their lives on camera.
Click to expand...
I am seriously skeptical the guy really did “it” during that opening sequence. (Not a spoiler, as this opening sequence was openly discussed in a lot of reviews.) I would have liked it a lot better if it had only focused on one person - and one family - instead of essentially skipping around to different people. It’s hard to feel compassion for someone you only ‘know’ for a few minutes. And that lady was so annoying - “We’re not selling them this-! We’re only giving them a choice-!” - constantly apologizing and justifying her volunteering. I would have liked it better if she was less apologetic about what she’s doing. Which is why I liked the HBO Kervorkian movie much better - you knew exactly where he stood. This docu, albeit a docu, I didn’t like as much because everyone was wavering and it didn’t seem like they were all on death’s door.
 
havana1 said:
I am seriously skeptical the guy really did “it” during that opening sequence. (Not a spoiler, as this opening sequence was openly discussed in a lot of reviews.) I would have liked it a lot better if it had only focused on one person - and one family - instead of essentially skipping around to different people. It’s hard to feel compassion for someone you only ‘know’ for a few minutes. And that lady was so annoying - “We’re not selling them this-! We’re only giving them a choice-!” - constantly apologizing and justifying her volunteering. I would have liked it better if she was less apologetic about what she’s doing. Which is why I liked the HBO Kervorkian movie much better - you knew exactly where he stood. This docu, albeit a docu, I didn’t like as much because everyone was wavering and it didn’t seem like they were all on death’s door.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen the other one you mention, and after this, I’m not sure I want to. I always knew HBO was militantly leftward, but this love affair with death really freaks me out.
 
I recommend you watch/listen to some of the material from Father John Corapi on suffering. It is hard to watch but we need to look to our real role models for examples.

Our Mother Mary stood at the foot of the cross while her Son died.

I feel it is our duty to stand by those we love in those last moments. We may provide some comfort and protect them from the last battle with the evil one. The suffering they undergo may have a purpose too. It may be what is needed to get them or someone else to heaven.

By the way, we are a happy family that no longer has cable tv or satellite tv coming into the house. We do not even have local antennas. This should tell you what I think of HBO.
 
Samuel63 said:
I recommend you watch/listen to some of the material from Father John Corapi on suffering. It is hard to watch but we need to look to our real role models for examples.

Our Mother Mary stood at the foot of the cross while her Son died.

I feel it is our duty to stand by those we love in those last moments. We may provide some comfort and protect them from the last battle with the evil one. The suffering they undergo may have a purpose too. It may be what is needed to get them or someone else to heaven.

By the way, we are a happy family that no longer has cable tv or satellite tv coming into the house. We do not even have local antennas. This should tell you what I think of HBO.
Click to expand...
I have HBO for the boxing. If you live without that stuff-groovy. I couldn’t live without sports.

Again, just to repeat myself-*I accept the teachings of the church on assisted suicide/death with dignity/whatever you want to call it. *

If you want to embrace suffering, I won’t stop you. I’d prefer not to do that while my loved ones die.
 
I have not seen it yet, but we spent over a month discussing it in a medicine and morality course so I’m very interested. Could you give a quick list of the major points they make for someone without HBO?
 
NoMoreGames said:
I have not seen it yet, but we spent over a month discussing it in a medicine and morality course so I’m very interested. Could you give a quick list of the major points they make for someone without HBO?
Click to expand...
The thesis is basically that people should be allowed to end their own lives when they want to without interference from the state.

The filmmakers had zero interest in providing a voice for the other side of the debate.

The stories about the sick people, were, clearly heartbreaking. It was very difficult to watch.
 
We were supposed to retire (eventually) to Oregon which is my wife’s home state, but because to of this and the fact that “they (health insurance/providers) kill old people” (my words), in other words drag their feet and (IMO) wait for them to die rather than treat their illness’, we will be looking else where, like Washington State (the only state on the west coast that doesn’t tax your retirement, btw).

Ooops…got a little off topic. :o
 
CatholicFireman said:
We were supposed to retire (eventually) to Oregon which is my wife’s home state, but because to of this and the fact that “they (health insurance/providers) kill old people” (my words), in other words drag their feet and (IMO) wait for them to die rather than treat their illness’, we will be looking else where, like Washington State (the only state on the west coast that doesn’t tax your retirement, btw).

Ooops…got a little off topic. :o
Click to expand...
Dude! Don’t you dare retire to Oregon! I’ll kick your butt myself if you do that!
 
During the course I was in, we focused on morality from a non religious view (ie if we through it was wrong, we had to come up with a reason beyond “God said so”). From this aspect, the issue was still incredibly complex. For this reason, it was beneficial to have a law that allowed, but never forced the option (on doctors or patients).

From this class, I have formed the opinion that laws should exist to protect rights, not enforce morality. This is due the vast diversity of moral theories (all impossible to prove empirically). Independent of if I feel the concept of euthanasia is moral or not, I feel the law is a good one to have. As for showing the other side of the debate, the law is not forcing any one to do anything, so I’m not sure what the debate in this case would be (assuming laws existed to protect rights).
 
CatholicFireman said:
“they (health insurance/providers) kill old people” (my words), in other words drag their feet and (IMO) wait for them to die rather than treat their illness
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that this is simply untrue. The exact same level of treatment is available and given in this state as in all of the others.
 
NoMoreGames said:
I would like to point out that this is simply untrue. The exact same level of treatment is available and given in this state as in all of the others.
Click to expand...
Tell that to my father-in-law. May he rest in peace. :signofcross:

If they feel you are not “viable” they decide what treat you may or may not receive.

Oh and yes, he was viable.
 
NoMoreGames said:
During the course I was in, we focused on morality from a non religious view (ie if we through it was wrong, we had to come up with a reason beyond “God said so”). From this aspect, the issue was still incredibly complex. For this reason, it was beneficial to have a law that allowed, but never forced the option (on doctors or patients).

From this class, I have formed the opinion that laws should exist to protect rights, not enforce morality. This is due the vast diversity of moral theories (all impossible to prove empirically). Independent of if I feel the concept of euthanasia is moral or not, I feel the law is a good one to have. As for showing the other side of the debate, the law is not forcing any one to do anything, so I’m not sure what the debate in this case would be (assuming laws existed to protect rights).
Click to expand...
I have my BA in English with a minor in philosophy, so I spent alot of time arguing this stuff in class, over beers with my friends, etc-I miss those times, when face to face argument was not only a passion, but vital to survival!

Like I said before, I support the church teaching. Having said that, if your heart does not break over watching people suffer, your a sick person.
 
CatholicFireman said:
Tell that to my father-in-law. May he rest in peace. :signofcross:
Click to expand...
Not to pry, but could you expand on how his care was diminished by the dwda specifically? The overall evidence may say one thing, but individual cases can always vary.
 
NoMoreGames said:
Not to pry, but could you expand on how his care was diminished by the dwda specifically? The overall evidence may say one thing, but individual cases can always vary.
Click to expand...
That’s none of our buisness.
 
Rascalking said:
I have my BA in English with a minor in philosophy, so I spent alot of time arguing this stuff in class, over beers with my friends, etc-I miss those times, when face to face argument was not only a passion, but vital to survival!

Like I said before, I support the church teaching. Having said that, if your heart does not break over watching people suffer, your a sick person.
Click to expand...
So your internal debate is essentially between church teaching and compassion for fellow human beings?

And I miss that class very much already, even though it ended less than a month ago 😃
 
Rascalking said:
That’s none of our buisness.
Click to expand...
It could add a very interesting aspect to the discussion. I politely asked, if they choose not to, that’s totally fine. I just assumed that if they were comfortable mentioning it, they might be willing to share it a little more deeply.
 
NoMoreGames said:
So your internal debate is essentially between church teaching and compassion for fellow human beings?
Click to expand...
No, because the church teaching is compassionate. No where does the church say people must be suffering and agonizing in pain. In fact, I think it states that you can give the person drugs to stay pain free, as long as you don’t kill them.

My issue is more of a standard one for most honest American Catholics. Should church law/dogma be enforced by the state?
 
NoMoreGames said:
It could add a very interesting aspect to the discussion. I politely asked, if they choose not to, that’s totally fine. I just assumed that if they were comfortable mentioning it, they might be willing to share it a little more deeply.
Click to expand...
I know you politely asked. I wasn’t saying anything negative about you. Just saying it’s none of our buisness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top