Wash. state woman 1st death under new suicide law

[apromisemade]

And so it is incredible to me that those favoring such legislation present the sham that the person making the decision is making an informed, free choice. It is precisely because one recognizes the duress and emotion involved that the law must obviate the decision to end one’s life by prohibiting it.

What about it is not “informed” or “free?” This particular woman wanted to end her life on her own because she wanted to die while she was still even capable of being mentally informed and free. It’s not like anybody is pressuring these people to end their lives. My best friend lives in Washington and his mother chose die to at home on her own with hospice care shortly after she got ovarian cancer and was being kept in a nursing home. My friend and the rest of his family sure as heck didn’t tell his mother she needed to die as quickly as possible so they wouldn’t have to pay for her healthcare. I find the implication that people would do such a thing rather outlandish.

It’s not like people are lining up to commit suicide like this, and they have to be cleared by a doctor before they can even consider it.

 

[Biggie]

What about it is not “informed” or “free?” This particular woman wanted to end her life on her own because she wanted to die while she was still even capable of being mentally informed and free. It’s not like anybody is pressuring these people to end their lives. My best friend lives in Washington and his mother chose die to at home on her own with hospice care shortly after she got ovarian cancer and was being kept in a nursing home. My friend and the rest of his family sure as heck didn’t tell his mother she needed to die as quickly as possible so they wouldn’t have to pay for her healthcare. I find the implication that people would do such a thing rather outlandish.

It’s not like people are lining up to commit suicide like this, and they have to be cleared by a doctor before they can even consider it.

So on the one hand you say that a person cannot understand the mental state of a person confronted with a death diagnosis until you’ve been there and on the other you say that the day the person receives the diagnosis is just another day like any other. No, I think you recognize the person is under duress . What makes you think a person makes a free and informed choice under duress?

And are you naive? If you find the implication that abuses of all sorts are on the table in euthanasia regimes outlandish, let me really shock you. I didn’t mean to imply it; I meant to say it outright. Of course it is open to abuses of all types. See post #18 where Cluny says it better than I can.

Finally, since when does a doctor granting permission to kill oneself or another constitute due diligence? Or relieve anyone of guilt? It’s a medical degree, not a beatification.

 

[apromisemade]

So on the one hand you say that a person cannot understand the mental state of a person confronted with a death diagnosis until you’ve been there and on the other you say that the day the person receives the diagnosis is just another day like any other. No, I think you recognize the person is under duress . What makes you think a person makes a free and informed choice under duress?

I said nothing of the sort. You make it sound like these people are making split second decisions in a state of panic. Doctor assisted suicide is a layered and regulated process. I am from Washington, I read the pamphlet, I know everything that is involved in it.

And are you naive? If you find the implication that abuses of all sorts are on the table in euthanasia regimes outlandish, let me really shock you. I didn’t mean to imply it; I meant to say it outright. Of course it is open to abuses of all types. See post #18 where Cluny says it better than I can.

Cluny made a hypothetical projection about something that could happen. Not something that is happening. Or in my opinion is likely to ever happen. People aren’t allowed to do this just because they feel like it or because they can’t support themselves financially anymore.

Finally, since when does a doctor granting permission to kill oneself or another constitute due diligence? Or relieve anyone of guilt? It’s a medical degree, not a beatification.

I’m sure a doctor would have a better idea of how long someone would have left to live than a priest.

 

[Biggie]

Instead of a pamphlet, read a book. “The Nazi Doctors”, Robert Jay Lofton, Basic Books, 2000, USA.

Cluny made a hypothetical projection about something that could

happen. Not something that is happening. Or in my opinion is likely to ever happen. People aren’t allowed to do this just because they feel like it or because they can’t support themselves financially anymore.

If you think it is hypothetical and not historical, I would offer your opinion is not informed.

I’m sure a doctor would have a better idea of how long someone would have left to live than a priest.

Return to the top. Read it. Then come back.

 

[apromisemade]

Instead of a pamphlet, read a book. “The Nazi Doctors”, Robert Jay Lofton, Basic Books, 2000, USA.

.

If you think it is hypothetical and not historical, I would offer your opinion is not informed.

Return to the top. Read it. Then come back.

What evidence do you have that it’s historical and not hypothetical. If it’s the (name removed by moderator)ut of just another one of the many people who invokes the ethos of the holocaust to try to prove a point then I think nothing more needs be said.

 

[Biggie]

What evidence do you have that it’s historical and not hypothetical. If it’s the (name removed by moderator)ut of just another one of the many people who invokes the ethos of the holocaust to try to prove a point then I think nothing more needs be said.

Man, how do you shake that “ethos of the holocaust” when you are advocating physician assisted suicide? That is definitely one ethos too many.

But the knowledge that it was the physicians in one of the most developed countries in the world who promoted, developed and carried out the programs leading to the holocaust and the holocaust itself, that it was the physicians who ran the concentration camps and that the basis of the entire enterprise was that there is such a thing as a life that has become too burdensome to be lived - no, no that should not give us pause. And that is definitely not history.

 

[apromisemade]

Man, how do you shake that “ethos of the holocaust” when you are advocating physician assisted suicide? That is definitely one ethos too many.

But the knowledge that it was the physicians in one of the most developed countries in the world who promoted, developed and carried out the programs leading to the holocaust and the holocaust itself, that it was the physicians who ran the concentration camps and that the basis of the entire enterprise was that there is such a thing as a life that has become too burdensome to be lived - no, no that should not give us pause. And that is definitely not history.

It is history. But it’s completely irrelevant. The people who were killed in concentration camps didn’t exactly have a choice about the matter. There is a subtle difference between conducting human experiments on and poisioning to death a person against the will of said person and a full functioning human that has cancer formally requesting the ability to die in peace in the comfort of their own home surrounded by loved ones.

 

[thereseozi]

I just read this on the Ask An Apologist Forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=341185

Don’t we have a right to choose when we die?
Why don’t we have the right to choose how and when we die ?

Hi,

Context is always necessary in order to understand anything. Nothing exists without a context, i.e., the situation in which it exists. Our context begins with our origin. We didn’t think ourselves us. God did. It is He who created us and who sustains us in existence. He is keeping our hearts beating at every moment. For us to cease to exist, He wouldn’t have to do anything; He would have to STOP doing what He is doing.

Since He alone gives us life, He alone has the right to take it. Our existence is all about Him!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Biggie]

It is history. But it’s completely irrelevant. The people who were killed in concentration camps didn’t exactly have a choice about the matter. There is a subtle difference between conducting human experiments on and poisioning to death a person against the will of said person and a full functioning human that has cancer formally requesting the ability to die in peace in the comfort of their own home surrounded by loved ones.

But it began with infants, the aged infirm and institutionalized insane. All were afforded medical opinions their situation was hopeless and in each of thousands of cases a meticulous medical exam by a physician was documented.

Part of the point there was that were they capable of full cognizance, they would not wish to live as they were living. That you cannot see the relationship does not render it completely irrelevant. You, however, have a cancer patient near extremis as “full functioning” when you know very well much there is not functioning as it should. And yet in these straights you are content to pronounce the person’s judgment sound and the physician’s motives pure.

Nothing prevents your patient from dying at home surrounded by loved ones. Your patient wants more - to chose the time and manner of that death and that cannot ordinarily morally be within the patient’s purview.

 

[apromisemade]

But it began with infants, the aged infirm and institutionalized insane. All were afforded medical opinions their situation was hopeless and in each of thousands of cases a meticulous medical exam by a physician was documented.

Part of the point there was that were they capable of full cognizance, they would not wish to live as they were living. That you cannot see the relationship does not render it completely irrelevant. You, however, have a cancer patient near extremis as “full functioning” when you know very well much there is not functioning as it should. And yet in these straights you are content to pronounce the person’s judgment sound and the physician’s motives pure.

Nothing prevents your patient from dying at home surrounded by loved ones. Your patient wants more - to chose the time and manner of that death and that cannot ordinarily morally be within the patient’s purview.

You say it is immoral on the part of the patient to chose the time and manner of their death. I say the greater immorality would be to prolong the patients suffering unecessarily if it is againt their wish.

There in lies the rub.

The other key issue is weather or not the patient if fully capable of making an informed and sound decision with regard to their own life at that point in their illness.

I know in the ER doctors are permitted to administer care* against* the will of the patient if it is determined the patient is not in a clear and coherent state of mind.

The same principle would apply here. Basic medical protocol and restrictions placed on the law would prevent the doctor from perscribing the lethal drugs if the patient was considered incapable of making the informed decision. And there’s nothing to say they wouldn’t be. I’ve seen interviews with people who are preparing to commit doctor assisted suicide, often times you wouldn’t even know at first glance that they were dying, let alone consider them mentally incapacitated.

I’ve known of people who become sick and there is a chance that they might survive with treatment, but they chose instead to let the disease overtake them and accept death because they don’t want to but the physical, mental, and financial strain on themselves or their loved ones.

Here’s some food for the thought…

Scenario 1:

A man is diagnosed with cancer of the bone marrow. There is not cure and any treatment that might buy him time would be painful and expensive. Multiple physicians tell him the disease will eventually kill him, it’s just a question of how soon. He choses to take some time to visit his favorite places, spend time with his loved ones, and enjoy life while he is able and die in his childhood home with his family rather than be confined to a hospital bed for his final days.

Scenario 2:

A man is in a car crash. He is rushed to the hospital with critical injuries and the doctors put him on life support. After a few weeks the doctors tell the mans family he is not improving and given the length of time the chance that he will wake up is zero, and at that point he is only going to get worse. The family makes the decision not to drag it out any longer and requests the life support to be turned off.

Or even Scenario 3:

My brother, before going to Iraq on his first tour of duty, signs some paperwork stating that in the event he is injured to the point of being unable to breath on his own, he does not wish for his life to be sustained and for the life support to be turned off.

Honestly, I don’t really see any fundamental difference between the three.

 

[Biggie]

You say it is immoral on the part of the patient to chose the time and manner of their death. I say the greater immorality would be to prolong the patients suffering unecessarily if it is againt their wish.

Well, no, it wouldn’t be the greater “immorality”. You are holding the patient’s will as supreme.There is the small matter of God’s will. It is obviously God’s will the patient live because - he is still alive.

There in lies the rub.

The other key issue is weather or not the patient if fully capable of making an informed and sound decision with regard to their own life at that point in their illness.

I know in the ER doctors are permitted to administer care* against* the will of the patient if it is determined the patient is not in a clear and coherent state of mind.

The same principle would apply here. Basic medical protocol and restrictions placed on the law would prevent the doctor from perscribing the lethal drugs if the patient was considered incapable of making the informed decision. And there’s nothing to say they wouldn’t be. I’ve seen interviews with people who are preparing to commit doctor assisted suicide, often times you wouldn’t even know at first glance that they were dying, let alone consider them mentally incapacitated.

I’ve known of people who become sick and there is a chance that they might survive with treatment, but they chose instead to let the disease overtake them and accept death because they don’t want to but the physical, mental, and financial strain on themselves or their loved ones.

I do not share the worshipful reverence for medical professionals you evidence. I will continue to maintain there is no reasonable certainty a person would make the same decisions in the same manner after a fatal diagnosis as he would before. The difference is brought about in part by the duress exerted by the circumstance.

Here’s some food for the thought…

Scenario 1:

A man is diagnosed with cancer of the bone marrow. There is not cure and any treatment that might buy him time would be painful and expensive. Multiple physicians tell him the disease will eventually kill him, it’s just a question of how soon. He choses to take some time to visit his favorite places, spend time with his loved ones, and enjoy life while he is able and die in his childhood home with his family rather than be confined to a hospital bed for his final days.

Scenario 2:

A man is in a car crash. He is rushed to the hospital with critical injuries and the doctors put him on life support. After a few weeks the doctors tell the mans family he is not improving and given the length of time the chance that he will wake up is zero, and at that point he is only going to get worse. The family makes the decision not to drag it out any longer and requests the life support to be turned off.

Or even Scenario 3:

My brother, before going to Iraq on his first tour of duty, signs some paperwork stating that in the event he is injured to the point of being unable to breath on his own, he does not wish for his life to be sustained and for the life support to be turned off.

Honestly, I don’t really see any fundamental difference between the three.

Obviously you don’t see the difference. There is one nonetheless. Your three scenarios are not comparable. In the second and third, you are referring to extraordinary means to preserve life, which are not morally required.

The first scenario, however involves the active termination of the patient’s life. To see the two as the same is a lapse in moral judgment.

Each and every one of us is going to die. Why, arguing with your morality, would you prefer to allow a person with a terminal illness to end his life and prohibit a person from ending his life who no longer wished to live? These “protections” you are relying on are protections against what? The moral distinction you are making between the two is arbitrary, pays lip service to suffering awarding “privileges” to one suffering over another, and fails to account for mental anguish, which, I’m sure you would admit, can be equally demeaning and debilitating.

Certainly, arguing from your moral stance, if I did not wish to live because I could not bear the circumstances of my life, I should be allowed to have the relief of a medically assisted suicide as well so that I could properly and hygienically say adios before taking off.

 

[apromisemade]

Certainly, arguing from your moral stance, if I did not wish to live because I could not bear the circumstances of my life, I should be allowed to have the relief of a medically assisted suicide as well so that I could properly and hygienically say adios before taking off.

The two are distinctly different. I was suffering when I broke my arm, but no doctor or feeling person is going to let me kill myself over it, because it is treatable. Leukemia, on the other hand, is not. Depression is treatable, difficult life circumstances are managable, but there are some medical disease and some stages of certain medical illnesses which equal death, period. As I said before, medical and psycological evaluations are required, at least in Washington, before doctor assisted suicide is even a possibility. It’s not like PetMeds where they just bring it to your door.

Bottom line, these people are not chosing death over life.

They are going to die one way or the other.

The “extraordinary means” you refer would sooner or later become a necessity and ultimately futile. If someone becomes terminally ill, their opinion about what to do with their fading life does not trump Gods will, but it certainly trumps yours.

 

[Biggie]

The two are distinctly different. I was suffering when I broke my arm, but no doctor or feeling person is going to let me kill myself over it, because it is treatable. Leukemia, on the other hand, is not. Depression is treatable, difficult life circumstances are managable, but there are some medical disease and some stages of certain medical illnesses which equal death, period. As I said before, medical and psycological evaluations are required, at least in Washington, before doctor assisted suicide is even a possibility. It’s not like PetMeds where they just bring it to your door.

Bottom line, these people are not chosing death over life.

They are going to die one way or the other.

The “extraordinary means” you refer would sooner or later become a necessity and ultimately futile. If someone becomes terminally ill, their opinion about what to do with their fading life does not trump Gods will, but it certainly trumps yours.

You are reverting to anecdotes, and an anecdote simply provides a subjective perception of a single instance. It does not comprise a principle and actually proves nothing. You continue to take refuge in medical and psychological evaluations, yet these are in the end mere opinions. They can be contradicted, and even if joined by other opinions constitute a consensus of opinion. But opinion nonetheless.

I don’t believe you have provided a coherent response as to why depression, for example, should not within your framework be permitted a death decision. It is treatable to an extent by pharmaceuticals, but those drugs alter a person’s personality and, by your logic, the patient no longer presents as he did, and as he may wish to be perceived by his loved ones. Is there a moral distinction in your lexicon between allowing a chronically depressed person facing a lifetime of medication to kill himself and a terminally ill cancer patient facing a lifetime of pain killing medication to kill himself? What is the morality that makes one wrong and the other right?

Finally, I am not sure you are getting the point as to extraordinary means. We need not morally take extraordinary measures to keep a person alive. A breathing machine fits this criteria. It is a matter of the common sense discernment of God’s will, not my will. In this event, God has expressed his implied will that a person’s life has ended since natural means of sustaining life do not avail him. By the same principle, as to the terminally ill, God’s implicit will is that he live - because he is still alive.

 

[apromisemade]

You are reverting to anecdotes, and an anecdote simply provides a subjective perception of a single instance. It does not comprise a principle and actually proves nothing. You continue to take refuge in medical and psychological evaluations, yet these are in the end mere opinions. They can be contradicted, and even if joined by other opinions constitute a consensus of opinion. But opinion nonetheless.

You say these evaluations are just opinions. Okay, what’s you’re point?

I don’t believe you have provided a coherent response as to why depression, for example, should not within your framework be permitted a death decision. It is treatable to an extent by pharmaceuticals, but those drugs alter a person’s personality and, by your logic, the patient no longer presents as he did, and as he may wish to be perceived by his loved ones. Is there a moral distinction in your lexicon between allowing a chronically depressed person facing a lifetime of medication to kill himself and a terminally ill cancer patient facing a lifetime of pain killing medication to kill himself? What is the morality that makes one wrong and the other right?

Depression is treatable but even without treatment will not inevitably lead to death. Certain diseases will, unequivocally and beyond a shadow of a doubt, lead to physical death. No questions asked. The difference between a person suffering from depression and a person suffering from terminal cancer is that the latter *will die ultimately die from their disease *.

Finally, I am not sure you are getting the point as to extraordinary means. We need not morally take extra-natural measures to keep a person alive. A breathing machine fits this criteria. It is a matter of the common sense discernment of God’s will, not my will. In this event, God has expressed his implied will that a person’s life has ended since natural means of sustaining life do not avail him. By the same principle, as to the terminally ill, God’s implicit will is that he live - because he is still alive.

But it is up to the person with the illness if they are going to accept it as Gods will that they die a slow, painful, and debilitating death. Plenty of people in Washington and Oregon chose to let nature take its course even if there is a chance they might live with treatment, while others are chosing to exercise this new freedom. The statement that it’s Gods will “is that he live-because he is still alive” is kind of redundant. Under that logic, *anything *could be the will of God.

The terminally ill person is going to die. There is no inherent harm in hastening the inevitable, other than it might not be the will of God, but very fact that a person is still breathing is not enough to make that inference. The person could go through an intense regime of medicine and months of draining medical procedures, but the result would be the same.

A person could accept their suffering as the will of the Almighty and endure until the end, or they could take their life into their own hands and end it in a way that gives them peace and closure, either way, it is their choice.

 

[Biggie]

You say these evaluations are just opinions. Okay, what’s you’re point?

That an opinion is no basis on which to kill.

Depression is treatable but even without treatment will not inevitably lead to death. Certain diseases will, unequivocally and beyond a shadow of a doubt, lead to physical death. No questions asked. The difference between a person suffering from depression and a person suffering from terminal cancer is that the latter *will die ultimately die from their disease *.

And the depressed person will surely die. So the moral line for you is that one person will die sooner?

But it is up to the person with the illness if they are going to accept it as Gods will that they die a slow, painful, and debilitating death. Plenty of people in Washington and Oregon chose to let nature take its course even if there is a chance they might live with treatment, while others are chosing to exercise this new freedom. The statement that it’s Gods will “is that he live-because he is still alive” is kind of redundant. Under that logic, *anything *could be the will of God.

The terminally ill person is going to die. There is no inherent harm in hastening the inevitable, other than it might not be the will of God, but very fact that a person is still breathing is not enough to make that inference. The person could go through an intense regime of medicine and months of draining medical procedures, but the result would be the same.

A person could accept their suffering as the will of the Almighty and endure until the end, or they could take their life into their own hands and end it in a way that gives them peace and closure, either way, it is their choice.

Well it is up to us all in the end if we are going to accept God’s will. Any of us might opt for suicide. That is not to say it is neutral in God’s eyes or the pursuit of it is in any way moral.

The inherent harm is in the implication of jurisprudence and medicine in the active killing of individuals, a harm and a threat to society.

The basic moral problem with your position is that you want the law and medicine to codify there is a time in life that is of no value, and at that point in time (whether at the beginning or the end) there is a means in which a person can be made to die. If the value of life is based on its quality and a third party can make that determination, no life is safe. (But then we’ve covered this.)

 

[apromisemade]

That an opinion is no basis on which to kill.

And the depressed person will surely die. So the moral line for you is that one person will die sooner?

Call it mere opinion if you want. But if a person with eight years of post-secondary education, three to five years of supervised residency training, and maybe and internship or a fellowship program thrown in there, says that someone is going to die of their cancer or what not, I’ll take them at their word for it.

In a purely technical sense, cancer kills, depression doesn’t. You don’t need a medical degree to figure that one out.

Well it is up to us all in the end if we are going to accept God’s will. Any of us might opt for suicide. That is not to say it is neutral in God’s eyes or the pursuit of it is in any way moral.

The inherent harm is in the implication of jurisprudence and medicine in the active killing of individuals, a harm and a threat to society.

The basic moral problem with your position is that you want the law and medicine to codify there is a time in life that is of no value, and at that point in time (whether at the beginning or the end) there is a means in which a person can be made to die. If the value of life is based on its quality and a third party can make that determination, no life is safe. (But then we’ve covered this.

At least we can agree on something, that accepting something as Gods will and basing your life around it is a choice that has to be made by each individual. You cannot force anyone to accept something as the will of God, especially when it comes to matters of their own life.

As far as the implications this law will have on the “value of life.”

I guess that remains to seen.

 

[Biggie]

At least we can agree on something, that accepting something as Gods will and basing your life around it is a choice that has to be made by each individual. You cannot force anyone to accept something as the will of God, especially when it comes to matters of their own life.

As far as the implications this law will have on the “value of life.”

I guess that remains to seen.

We’re really not agreeing, though. The law, as morally constructed, prohibits in this case, it does not force. To turn the phrase as you have is the same semantics useful to abortionists and rightfully so since the same immorality underlies both. We need not wait to see the effect such views, laws and proponents have on the value of life. We are witnessing it as the very first days and months of life, then the very last lose their meaning.Can it be long before the days and months in between for the select losers in society are understood to be of no value?

Do you really think it’s unlikely? Think, if history does not serve you. How unlikely would it have seemed even fifty years ago that our laws and our people would be willfully and legally killing children in the womb, experimenting at the expense of living human embryos, involving lawyers and doctors in legal mercy killing? It would have been thought impossible not that people are capable, but impossible that America is capable, our society built on laws and in the flower of its professions. And yet here we are.

 

[apromisemade]

We’re really not agreeing, though. The law, as morally constructed, prohibits in this case, it does not force.

There is nothing in this law prohibiting people from dying on their own if that is what you are reffereing to.

To turn the phrase as you have is the same semantics useful to abortionists and rightfully so since the same immorality underlies both. We need not wait to see the effect such views, laws and proponents have on the value of life. We are witnessing it as the very first days and months of life, then the very last lose their meaning.Can it be long before the days and months in between for the select losers in society are understood to be of no value? **Do you really think it’s unlikely? **

Yes I do actually.

Think, if history does not serve you. How unlikely would it have seemed even fifty years ago that our laws and our people would be willfully and legally killing children in the womb, experimenting at the expense of living human embryos, involving lawyers and doctors in legal mercy killing? It would have been thought impossible not that people are capable, but impossible that America is capable, our society built on laws and in the flower of its professions. And yet here we are.

No more unlikely than it would’ve seemed that the Europeans would massacre and enslave the entire native population of the Americas in the name of glory, God, and gold because they considered them barbaric heathens at best, animals at worst, and a mere impediment to the will of God that they conquer the known world.

No more more unlikely than we, America, permitting the buying, selling, and enslavement of human being for our own economic gain even after the revolution.

No more unlikely than entire communities of Japanese-Americans being forced into prison camps inside their own homeland for no discernable reason other than they shared the same ethnicity as someone they’d never known or met.

You make it sound like heinous acts against the dignity of humanity is something new. People have not changed. We humans will always have the capacity to look at our fellow man and consider them somehow lesser than ourselves for whatever the reason. That’s not going to go away. It is one of the more unfortunate realities of being human.

It is moral to try to prevent needless death. But when imminent death is unavoidable, and the person in question wants to end it peacefully, I don’t feel it is my right to tell that them that they can’t.

 

[kentuckyliz]

I am a donor to the International Anti Euthanasia Society and used their Health Care Power of Attorney document to express my wishes, rather than the boilerplate Advance Directives/Living Will offered by my state, which gives hospitals and doctors carte blanche. They don’t know me!

My sister does, though. I feared she might be a little utilitarian in her reasoning, being a farmer, an Episcopalian, and due to some opinions about situations that she has expressed in the past. However, she had HCPOA for my dad and had to make decisions last summer. I gained confidence in her process through that. (She convened the adult family members–me, my SIL and through her my bro on the phone, and we consulted with Hospice, the true dying process experts. Our decision process was thorough, conscientious, by consensus, and we all have peace about it. We made sure it respected my father’s finely tuned Catholic conscience and moral reasoning.)

I do not let ANYONE but my sister legally make any health care decisions for me if I am unable. Period. I suggest you all make the same arrangements, given the changes that are coming.

FOCA + PAS + electronic medical records + gummint health care = disaster that any not totally healthy person should fear and dread

My dad died of complications of advanced Parkinsons disease. He knew he was dying, due to his last words before he totally lost his speech upon entering the hospital the last time, two weeks before his death. It took us longer to figure out what was going on and what to do.

Catholic morality says you do not deny nutrition or hydration–which we heard a lot about during the Terry Schiavo (sp?) case. However, that was not suitable for my dad’s case. Due to the loss of speech/swallowing motor control, he could not take his L-dopa and his loss of motor control accelerated. His throat and stomach were out of control. He got pneumonia from food coming back up into his throat and him aspirating it into his lungs. The doctor wanted to know if we wanted to put in a feeding tube, without offering any opinions or outlooks on either decision. The hospice nurse pointed out that he would be nourished, but his motor control problems were still there, so it would be likely that he would regurgitate and aspirate the tube-fed nourishment anyway, causing greater pain and suffering.

Another point was the hydration–Catholic morality says you don’t deny hydration. However, whenever Dad was hydrated through IV, his lungs would flood and it caused pain and breathing difficulty (even with Lasix). If they didn’t hydrate, he could breathe more comfortably but his potassium levels would go out of whack. There was no perfect solution. The hospice nurse explained that in the dying process, dehydration causes a release of endorphins that makes the dying person feel really good and comfortable. I didn’t know that before. Another bit of evidence of the incredible genius of God’s creation, don’t you think?

In Dad’s case, nutrition and hydration would have been torture and would only delay the imminently inevitable.

The hospice nurse was the only person who would tell us straight out that Dad was dying. After she explained the dying process and the effects of our medical interventions, I concluded, Dad is trying to die and we keep getting in the way.

So I made it clear to my sister, don’t deny nutrition and hydration if I’m Terry Schiavo, but it it is causing me harm and pain, like Dad’s situation, and I’m not asking for food or water, then go ahead and stop it.

I watched my Mom’s final furlong, dying of horrible cancer pain. I couldn’t even touch her–it caused her pain. I’ve had three cancers, and I’m facing the possibility of the fourth…just about a 20% chance, but I’ll find out for sure in June. One of my previous cancers leaves behind an untreatable, low, stable cell count in my bloodstream, so it’s a chronic condition for me, really. I think it’s more likely that I’ll die doing adventure sports…being struck by lightning out sculling or refereeing at a rowing regatta…or hit by a coal truck while out cycling. But if my outdoorsiness and adrenaline junkie sports habits don’t get me, I really feel like it will be the cancer. And I told my sister (HCPOA) that I dread the pain I saw Mom go through.

Don’t tell me Jesus went through it so I should do it too. His torture lasted one day. Mom’s lasted for months. Don’t tell me to suck it up.

I told my sister to make sure I’m getting adequate pain meds to control the pain, even if the unintended secondary side effect is that it’s enough to kill me. So be it. If it’s inhumane to let an animal suffer like that, why do we insist that it’s moral to let a human suffer like that? That’s whack.

I do not want to kill myself, and won’t even if I get more diagnoses of cancer or mets. (Cancer doesn’t kill you, mets does.) I want to live each day to the fullest and cherish the time I have here. If I have confidence that my sister will ensure I’m not tortured in pain lacking the meds I need in the end, I’m cool with that.

And so is the Church, btw. In moral reasoning, it’s primary motives and unintended secondary consequences. Just like it’s OK to give an abortion to a woman who needs it to save her life (such as with an ectopic pregnancy), even if a child is aborted in the process as an unintended secondary side effect. It’s OK to medicate as needed to control pain even if the unintended secondary side effect is enough of a dose to cause death (typically by suppressed respiration).

Yeah, I’ve thought through all this stuff in an incredibly personal way, because I have skin in the game. This isn’t hypothetical for me. And yet it squares with Catholic morality if you know it well enough. It’s a lot more nuanced than most folks realize.

And if I’m wrong, I entrust myself to God’s mercy, because it’s His representatives that helped me work this all out.

 

[Biggie]

No more unlikely than it would’ve seemed that the Europeans would massacre and enslave the entire native population of the Americas in the name of glory, God, and gold because they considered them barbaric heathens at best, animals at worst, and a mere impediment to the will of God that they conquer the known world.

No more more unlikely than we, America, permitting the buying, selling, and enslavement of human being for our own economic gain even after the revolution.

No more unlikely than entire communities of Japanese-Americans being forced into prison camps inside their own homeland for no discernable reason other than they shared the same ethnicity as someone they’d never known or met.

You make it sound like heinous acts against the dignity of humanity is something new. People have not changed. We humans will always have the capacity to look at our fellow man and consider them somehow lesser than ourselves for whatever the reason. That’s not going to go away. It is one of the more unfortunate realities of being human.

It is moral to try to prevent needless death. But when imminent death is unavoidable, and the person in question wants to end it peacefully, I don’t feel it is my right to tell that them that they can’t.

Needless to say, you sound a little alienated from your own legacy. Without engaging in an ancillary debate, let’s just say not all share your historical viewpoint, and those who do not would not consider this a serious recount of the American epoch. Silly, in fact, both in accuracy and perspective.

But you seem to think you are on the side of the “little guy” - by killing him. Interesting.