C
catharina
Guest
Redemptive suffering is of great value.
It might be for one self or for any (many) others.
It is not for any of us to end a life!
- Status
It might be for one self or for any (many) others.
It is not for any of us to end a life!
L
LilyM
Guest
In fact in the case of Terri Schiavo, if memory serves it was the opposite. It was Terri’s husband, the advocate of assisted suicide, who was the one who proposed the INdignity and INhumanity of slowly starving her to death (denying food and liquids to her).
By the way, it is equally possible for people to assist in the suicide of others who are for selfish reasons. They can do so because they no longer want to see or deal with the basic and unavoidable fact of human suffering. Or to gain an inheritance the sooner. Or for lots of other selfish reasons.
Plenty of times they in fact have no way of knowing what the suffering person themselves would prefer. How does the poster who euthanased their dog know that the dog would rather be dead? All he or she knew was that he or she preferred not to see the dog suffering.
When it comes down to it, none of us really know that WE would rather be dead until we’re actually in that situation. The instinct for life is quite strong in many people, and sometimes it’s those you least expect who find that life instinct to be stronger than their fear of suffering and pain when the crunch comes.
J
JDaniel
Guest
I think Spock was talking about the girl that was put down by starvation, in Tampa, FL, a few years ago. Very famous case. Very twisted.
God bless,
jd
P
PoliSciProf
Guest
I just thought of a fictional case: In the film The Sand Pebbles Holman (Steve McQueen) shoots and kills a Chinese shipmate of his who is being brutally tortured and who calls out “kill me.” Does Holman have “diminished responsibility” for answering the call of the person being tortured? Does the suffering victim have “diminished responsibility” for calling for help in hastening his end? If the suffering victim had the chance to hasten his own demise, would he have had "diminished responsibility? Is the Church suggesting that in cases like this, the mortal sin is mitigated? Must Holman let “natural death take its course?” Your comments please.
P
PAboy57
Guest
completely out of the realm of natural. now in the torture scenario and i would do the same thing. just like the movies with barbarians and the women have knives in case the men don’t hold down the fort.
also remember with torture there is no making the individual comfortable!!!
also remember with torture there is no making the individual comfortable!!!
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes it is heartbreaking to watch, I watched my Father slip into the mists of Alzheimer’s and eventually die in 2006, and now I am watching my own dear wife enter those same mists…
I know all too well about people suffering and losing their dignity…
and yet the things that I have learned from my parents in their battle - the things I have learned from caring for my wife are things that can only be counted as gifts from God.
I can only pray that whenever adn however my time comes I will have the same courage these great people have shown to me…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
This is a good position to take. It will stand you in good stead if and when you are ever faced with something that might blurr the line…
Peace
James
C
catharina
Guest
I can’t imagine such a circumstance
since I’ve already faced such situations often.
The worst of the worst: suffering and dying babies.
In every case, I and others were able to discover
something that soothed, calmed and comforted them.
As simple as a morning sponge bath with
great gentleness in action, soothing touches
before moving a baby into a new position,
quiet singing/rocking, bundling, cradling.
It might be hardest seeing babies and
toddlers suffering - but incredibly, they do
accept comfort and soothing. This was
care given routinely and in a drug-free way.
It sounds too simple to have worked - but it did work.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Have people completely forgotten the role our suffering plays in salvation? While we do not want to see our loved ones in pain, suffering can bring us closer to God by uniting our suffering with the Cross.
S
Spock
Guest
Because that is the only legal way to do it.
Undeniably true. So we shall throw the baby out with the bathwater, just because someone “might” do it for selfish reasons?
You don’t “know” as a first hand experience. Of course you also don’t “know” if that dog “really suffers”, you only know that the dog exhibits a typical reaction we associate with pain in ourselves.
Yes, generally this could be true. We must trust the person’s explicit wish (if she made one) and follow her wish. That is what human dignity demands. To give her credit, that she knew what she was doing when she made her excplicit wish.
S
Spock
Guest
If someone explicitly states that she wants to suffer, in order to get closer to God, we must honor her wish. That is also part of the human dignity.
However, if she explictly asks to be put out of her misery, and begs for that needle with an overdose of morphine, then we must trust her as well. Just like in the first case it is not our place to override her wish, and alleviate her pain against her wishes, it is not our place to override her wish in the second case. Let’s be consistent.
It really would be playing God, to condemn someone to suffering in order to give her the opportunity to get closer to God - unless she specifically asks for it. It is only her decision to make not ours. If she wants it, fine, if she does not explicitly want it that is her business.
C
catharina
Guest
Simply, we do not have the right to take the life of another -
even if you really really really WANT to do so.
S
Spock
Guest
How do you define “right”? “Right” means that someone in power grants the subordinate weak ones the permission to act in certain ways free of repercussions.
When you say that we do not have the “right”, I think you mean that God did not give us the “right” to do so. This is clearly not true. There are two exceptions: one is self-defense, and the other is a “just” war. If there are exceptions, then the rule is not absolute. Now you can rightfully say that the assisted suicide does not belong to these exceptions - and you would be correct.
This brings up the second problem. God does not speak to us. We don’t really know if there is a God at all. And we certainly cannot know what God’s views are, if he exists in the first place. I know you believe that God exists, and you also believe that the CC is the local authority for God. But that is simply your unsubstantiated belief, as far as I am concerned.
J
JRKH
Guest
Caterina,
Yours is a beautiful testimony. Thank you.
As to imagining circumstances that blur the line, unfortunately I have seen this.
In fact I have seen such circumstances debated here on CAF with the decision my family took being called wrong…
Yet the decision was taken after much prayer and consultation with a priest confessor.
I won’t provide any specifics on the circumstance nor will I offer andy other possibilities because, as I’m sure you know, playing “what ifs” only lead to a series of “yea buts”…
and we know how gummed up these typed of conversations can become…
My bottom line on these matters is to:
*]Learn the Church’s teaching on these matters.
*]Learn how your loved ones feels about extraordinarly measures etc. Do this early on.
*]Create a Living will - and respect the Living will’s of others.
*]If you find yourself in a situation where you are not sure what to do, speak with a trusted priest - preferably one who knows both you and your loved one.
*]And - as in all things - pray for guidance and for God’s Will in your life and in theirs.
If one truly does this, and accepts God’s will, and acts in Love, one can hardly go wrong.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Spock,
While I think that you do make a certain amount of sense from your secular position as an atheist, you must remember that this is a Catholic site and so we will speak from that viewpoint - the Catholic and Christian view. That Christian and Catholic view is looking at more than just the specific circumstances of the person’s suffering etc. We are looking at a larger picture that relates to the health and well being of the person’s soul in the next life.
In a sense it is not a question of “ending suffering” but one of being properly disposed to accept God’s will - even suffering - so as to be more perfectly purified and to attain, in God’s good time and not ours, the beatific vision.
The person you speak of who is in such pain that they “beg for that needle”, may be doing so out of dispair and dispair is not a good state in which to “meet ones maker”. My helping them in this means I could be helping them into hell. Again, not a good prospect and something for which I myself would have to answer when I meet my maker.
Now - just a word on consistancy----
before I returned to the church I had occasion to ponder this point. It always struck me as odd - and highly inconsistant that, in the U.S. it is perfectly legal to kill an unborn baby who had no say in it, but it is illegal for an adult to choose to end their own life…
From a purely secular viewpoint this is all messed up and, if anything, backwards.
Of course - Now that God has called me home to the Faith, I see great consistancy in the church’s position on these matters. Start of life and end of life - they are both in God’s hands and not ours.
Peace
James
S
Spock
Guest
At least we understand each other, even if we don’t agree.
I agree on the inconsistency. I see it, too. Fortunately we are moving in the right direction (as I see it, and I know you disagree) slowly, very slowly. In the most civilized country, the Netherlands, they are closer to the consistent stance on this matter. We shall get there, eventually.
I recall the saying of Winston Churchill: “You can trust the Americans to do the right thing - after they exhausted all the other possibilities”.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
No one except Gos has the right to determine when a life comes to an end, including our own. How can I make this seemingly ludicrous claim, that we do not own our own lives? Sacred Scripture:
I Cor 6:19-20
The immediate context is fornication, but the same principle apply to all sins against the body (like suicide and euthanasia). No human person has the right to destroy human life, even if that life is your “own”, because life is God’s and only He can decide when it is to end.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
It is actually irrational to neot accept the existence in God, but since discussions on atheism are temporarily banned, we really shouldn’t go there.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
The Netherlands allows euthanasia and encourages abortion…how is that the right thing?
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Yes. It is wrong in all cases. If you’re undergoing some horrid situation where you’re wondering, I will pray for your strength, and the strength of the sufferer.I do not support assisted suicide, but for the sake of debate; if life is extreme torment, then isn’t assisted suicide a merciful act?
I imagine a future where people with severe depression can have the option of going to a clinic and being put to sleep permanently. It will save resources and cut down on the population.Profit before people guys.
Sadly, we will most likely have our little Soylent Green centers, and people, (who by this time will not be regarded as much more than a nuisance if they’re over 60 anyway), can go be “put to sleep”. Oregon and Washington and several European countries are already doing it to some extent. It will start with abuses in the places that have it, which nobody will really feel are abuses, or pay much attention to. Then the rules will begin to slip on who can do it and when. Then on why. Then special “clinics” will start popping up. Then it becomes a panacea for the depressed, or elderly. Perhaps even an alternative to bankruptcy? An alternative to jail? To divorce? Then, just maybe the state may begin to find it a useful tool for some of the larger drains on social security and Medicare.
Let’s pray the Christ returns, or we come to our senses sometime before all this starts unfurling.
Peace to you,
Steven
- Status