Thoughts on "Death with Dignity" bills and acts

  • Thread starter Thread starter jvickers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jvickers

Guest
I know this has been in four different discussions, but they are all pretty old. Two Georgia Democrats have recently put forth a “Death with Dignity” bill. I read the entire bill and have more than serious concerns with it as it simply looks like enabling suicide. It’s not even close to hospice or palliative care. What do others think since more and more states appear to be legalizing this movement?
 
Last edited:
Could you link to the bill or summarize it? Not knowing what it actually says makes it hard to discuss. Thanks!
 
jvickers said:
What do others think since more and more states appear to be legalizing this movement?
Click to expand...
I think that they are hijacking the word Dignity. By calling this bill the “Georgia Death with Dignity Act,” they mean to make it sound virtuous.

Of course, dignity is good. I mean, who would argue for death with indignity? But these bills and laws are not so much about human dignity. They are all about personal choice (liberty, self-determination), which many people today see as the highest good.

I am not sure how to effectively argue against this. How could we show others that natural death has greater dignity? How could we convince them that sufferings may be borne with dignity? How could we convince them that living out a terminal and/or progressive illness is dignified?
 
Last edited:
Beryllos said:
How could we convince them that sufferings may be borne with dignity?
Click to expand...
I’m curious to hear more about this perspective. Is this common Catholic teaching? Much of the criticism I’ve seen of Mother Theresa, for example, uses this “suffering is not inherently bad” perspective.
 
It is a well-known Catholic idea, but I may not be the best one to tell about it. For one thing, I do not have much pain. I think the key is that Christ suffered for our salvation. We are joined to him by his human nature and through the Eucharist. Therefore we may join him in our sufferings, bring our sufferings to the Cross (or as I think of it, “hang out” with him on the Cross). Catholics often speak of offering our sufferings like a sacrifice, and offering them for the salvation of souls. These are considered meritorious forms of suffering.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know. I was wondering the same thing. I will try to look these things up in the Catechism, …

… but not right now. 😴
 
In a sense, these bills deny Christ inasmuch as they deny the redemptive power of suffering. But, the US is a post-Christian nation, so this should surprise exactly no one. I find it strange, but not really, that everything the devil desires is sweepng the nation like widlfire. In Washington state, you can compost your loved ones in the back yard - even in your vegetable garden.

We must be near the end.
 
The underlying premise of the bill is that, upon learning of a six-month terminal prognosis, a medical physician, upon request from the patient and with the agreement of another medical practitioner, can prescribe a “life-ending” prescription for an amount of medicine that the person, then, ingests, to end their lives. There are hoops to jump through, but that’s the gist of the bill when you distill it. For an example, see the link above, page 2, lines 25-27 to understand what I am talking about.

My question is how this is not considered suicide?
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
redemptive power of suffering
Click to expand...
I think your sky-is-falling view is a bit dated (i.e. a couple thousand years now).

But I’m curious how you justify these words. Same question I asked above, is all end of life suffering redemptive? (and how do you square this with the idea of hell?..eternal suffering)
 
Let’s just say that I am connected to the spiritual realm at times. If you are not, then ask about it!

As to suffering: “You can pay me now or pay me later.”

Gross oversimplification, but Christians know the meaning and purpose of suffering. All other religions (and no religions) try to avoid it, sublimate it or relegate it to an abstraction.
 
po18guy said:
“You can pay me now or pay me later.”
Click to expand...
I’m genuinely trying to understand this thought process.

Is this statement correct? “God requires suffering before death as a form of payment.”

Also, when you say “later” I presume you mean hell. Does this mean the “payment” can never be completed (ie eternal)?
 
  1. God does not require suffering.
  2. Suffering is, however, unavoidable.
  3. It is the universal human experience.
  4. The Christian faith teaches that Christ suffered on our behalf.
  5. We also know that, through our baptism, we have been incorporated into the Body of Christ on this earth.
  6. As members of His Body, our suffering may be put to good use, just as His was.
 
I’m now curious why you didn’t answer my questions. I’ll ask them again. If you could answer them directly I’d appreciate it.

Prematurely ending suffering before death is the topic of the OP. You said “you can pay me now or you can pay me later”. Is suffering Before death (without prematurely ending it) the “payment”?

And is the “pay me later” hell?
 
WillPhillips said:
Same question I asked above, is all end of life suffering redemptive?
Click to expand...
Still working on it. The Catechism has very little on redemptive suffering, but found an Apostolic Letter by Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, which looks relevant. It is quite long, and at this hour I have a tendency to fall asleep while reading, but I may be able to provide a summary in the next day or so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top