Why is it that Catholics want assisted suicide to be illegal?

[Regular_Atheist]

I recently read an article about Terry Pratchett, an author whom I am very fond of. He wants the right to take his own life, as he is suffering from Alzheimer’s. The article was very old, but it did get me thinking about the actual reasons why someone would not necessarily oppose assisted suicide, but would want it to remain illegal. If you wouldn’t want to force your religion upon someone using legislation, why prevent them from ending their own life? The majority of those people are going to die unsaved anyway.

I understand that Catholics strongly oppose assisted suicide, and that the majority would want it to remain illegal. Why?

 

[catholictiger]

I recently read an article about Terry Pratchett, an author whom I am very fond of. He wants the right to take his own life, as he is suffering from Alzheimer’s. The article was very old, but it did get me thinking about the actual reasons why someone would not necessarily oppose assisted suicide, but would want it to remain illegal. If you wouldn’t want to force your religion upon someone using legislation, why prevent them from ending their own life? The majority of those people are going to die unsaved anyway.

I understand that Catholics strongly oppose assisted suicide, and that the majority would want it to remain illegal. Why?

because it is immoral and because someone shouldn’t be able to help someone take their life . Its like being an accomplice to Murder.

It is wrong for someone to take their own life even if someone is in extreme pain or serious illness. God is the Author of Life and Death taking this into your own hands is wrong.

 

[manualman]

Because humanity is NOT simply a loose association of individuals. We are a community that is deeply intertwined. Culture matters and affects us all. When a culture adopts a view that human life has no value if/when it reaches the point where it has no utility, we are ALL impoverished and endangered.

Laws are ALWAYS an imposition of morality and philosophy. It’s the nature of the beast. Name one law that isn’t, I dare you.

Given the above, we must recognize that allowing doctors to actively kill someone who requests it is an action that formally embraces the philosophy that human life is NOT inherently sacred and precious, that’s it’s only precious if the individual meets some “quality of life” criteria. We aren’t willing to adopt that stance.

 

[Neildown]

Because, as a nation and as individuals within this nation, there are certain principles we’re obligated to uphold. One of those principles is the right to life. If you want to die then you have the freedom to do that on your own time, but 1 - I believe the human person is more than an animal, and consequently possesses a dignity in living until natural death. More specifically, as a nation, our focus should be on making people’s lives better, not making them shorter. That being said though, I don’t think people should believe they are entitled to a painless life. 2 - I’m not contributing tax money for people to intentionally end their stay here - the idea is absolutely ludicrous. 3 - Death comes naturally: again, I’m not paying for something that’s inevitably going to happen, and I’m not supporting something that degrades the human person. Furthermore, if most humans before us have died without legal medical assistance, I don’t see why we need to legislate easy death now. I’m quite fine with the knowledge that I’ll die at some point - perhaps even in a very long, painful way. Pain is part of life, I’m sorry to say - so people just need to get used to it.

Sorry if that sounds cruel or insensitive - I don’t intend to sound that way - but it’s fairly true.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I recently read an article about Terry Pratchett, an author whom I am very fond of. He wants the right to take his own life, as he is suffering from Alzheimer’s. The article was very old, but it did get me thinking about the actual reasons why someone would not necessarily oppose assisted suicide, but would want it to remain illegal. If you wouldn’t want to force your religion upon someone using legislation, why prevent them from ending their own life? The majority of those people are going to die unsaved anyway.

I understand that Catholics strongly oppose assisted suicide, and that the majority would want it to remain illegal. Why?

Suicide is self-murder. We believe that only God has the right to decide when each of us dies, and it is not appointed to us to end our own lives, nor to help someone else commit self-annihilation.

 

[empantarhei]

because it is immoral and because someone shouldn’t be able to help someone take their life . Its like being an accomplice to Murder.

It is wrong for someone to take their own life even if someone is in extreme pain or serious illness. God is the Author of Life and Death taking this into your own hands is wrong.

Because humanity is NOT simply a loose association of individuals. We are a community that is deeply intertwined. Culture matters and affects us all. When a culture adopts a view that human life has no value if/when it reaches the point where it has no utility, we are ALL impoverished and endangered.

Laws are ALWAYS an imposition of morality and philosophy. It’s the nature of the beast. Name one law that isn’t, I dare you.

Given the above, we must recognize that allowing doctors to actively kill someone who requests it is an action that formally embraces the philosophy that human life is NOT inherently sacred and precious, that’s it’s only precious if the individual meets some “quality of life” criteria. We aren’t willing to adopt that stance.

I absolutley agree, previously, and now with my understanding of the CCC. With that in mind, my heart still goes out to those suffering unmercifully, who, through no fault of their own (I am talking serious illness) are that desperate to make the pain stop, for some, even with prayers of “God, please just take me,” that, in their pain-wracked minds and bodies, go unheeded. I understand the why in this case, but I am not in agreement with assisted suicide.

 

[St_Francis]

I recently read an article about Terry Pratchett, an author whom I am very fond of. He wants the right to take his own life, as he is suffering from Alzheimer’s. The article was very old, but it did get me thinking about the actual reasons why someone would not necessarily oppose assisted suicide, but would want it to remain illegal. If you wouldn’t want to force your religion upon someone using legislation, why prevent them from ending their own life? The majority of those people are going to die unsaved anyway.

I understand that Catholics strongly oppose assisted suicide, and that the majority would want it to remain illegal. Why?

This is no more a question of forcing religious beliefs on others than is having laws against slavery.

 

[Tigg]

The majority of those people are going to die unsaved anyway.

How could you possibly know this? We are not privy to the state of another’s soul.

 

[Brendan]

This is no more a question of forcing religious beliefs on others than is having laws against slavery.

Exactly,

I wonder how many proponents of personal freedom in the form of assisted suicide would support the ability to sell one’s self into slavery.

 

[empantarhei]

How could you possibly know this? We are not privy to the state of another’s soul.

Nor are we privy to the personal tornent of those souls, who are so desperate that suicide under any means is considered. They need our prayers

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Because humanity is NOT simply a loose association of individuals. We are a community that is deeply intertwined. Culture matters and affects us all. When a culture adopts a view that human life has no value if/when it reaches the point where it has no utility, we are ALL impoverished and endangered.

Laws are ALWAYS an imposition of morality and philosophy. It’s the nature of the beast. Name one law that isn’t, I dare you.

Given the above, we must recognize that allowing doctors to actively kill someone who requests it is an action that formally embraces the philosophy that human life is NOT inherently sacred and precious, that’s it’s only precious if the individual meets some “quality of life” criteria. We aren’t willing to adopt that stance.

Not at all. I do not see how ending someone’s suffering is treating life as worthless. Does a momentousness amount of suffering or being forced to live like a vegetable count as life? Is there any life there that is of value? I do not believe it is life itself that has value, but what that life consists of. Can the person living that life live a happy existence? Can they be made better? If not, what value is there in that life? Why do they need to suffer if they’re only going to die anyway?

Oh, and for the record, what do you think would happen if we allowed assisted suicide?

Because, as a nation and as individuals within this nation, there are certain principles we’re obligated to uphold. One of those principles is the right to life. If you want to die then you have the freedom to do that on your own time, but 1 - I believe the human person is more than an animal, and consequently possesses a dignity in living until natural death. More specifically, as a nation, our focus should be on making people’s lives better, not making them shorter. That being said though, I don’t think people should believe they are entitled to a painless life. 2 - I’m not contributing tax money for people to intentionally end their stay here - the idea is absolutely ludicrous. 3 - Death comes naturally: again, I’m not paying for something that’s inevitably going to happen, and I’m not supporting something that degrades the human person. Furthermore, if most humans before us have died without legal medical assistance, I don’t see why we need to legislate easy death now. I’m quite fine with the knowledge that I’ll die at some point - perhaps even in a very long, painful way. Pain is part of life, I’m sorry to say - so people just need to get used to it.

Sorry if that sounds cruel or insensitive - I don’t intend to sound that way - but it’s fairly true.

Yet some people are suffering deeply, many of whom are suffering due to incurable illnesses. It is considered by many to be cruel to not allow people to take their own life.

Pratchett argues that the treatment given to those suffering from Alzheimers is cruel and dehumanizing. He states; “I am certain no one sets out to be cruel, but our treatment of the elderly ill seems to have no philosophy to it. As a society, we should establish whether we have a policy of life at any cost.” He doesn’t believe that remaining alive will be any better than being dead.

You seem to acknowledge that fact that we could potentially stop these people suffering, but seem content with it because ‘it just happens’. That isn’t the kind of logic you would apply in any other situation. Do you refuse to donate money to countries suffering from famine due to the fact that suffering is a part of life?

This is no more a question of forcing religious beliefs on others than is having laws against slavery.

How so? I am not asking as to why Catholics refuse to accept systematic euthanasia of unwilling innocents. No, I’m talking about willing, consenting suicide.

 

[twoshoes]

I recently read an article about Terry Pratchett, an author whom I am very fond of. He wants the right to take his own life, as he is suffering from Alzheimer’s. The article was very old, but it did get me thinking about the actual reasons why someone would not necessarily oppose assisted suicide, but would want it to remain illegal. If you wouldn’t want to force your religion upon someone using legislation, why prevent them from ending their own life? The majority of those people are going to die unsaved anyway.

I understand that Catholics strongly oppose assisted suicide, and that the majority would want it to remain illegal. Why?

I 'm a Eurchuristic minister to a local nursing home. One of the residence I serve is in the Alzheimer’s Unit. At first look you would ask why do they suffer, if you look deeper, you find the answer. In my experience we all suffer throughout our lives. Should I commit suicide because I lost my darling daughter, I suffer still today, NO. We all have a purpose, even those in Alzheimer Units, they help each other, there families help them, the doctors and nurses help them. We are here for more than ourself. God put us here for each other. It’s a Grace to except help as much as it is to give help.

There’s an old Polish man who sets with his wife ever time I’m there. I make the sign of the Cross in Latin and he in Polish, it lightens his day. It’s beautiful the way he takes care of his wife, I’ve never seen Love between a man and a woman this great. He needs her as much as she needs him. Help each other in life, not into death. Mother Theresa had a saying I love," See the face of Jesus in thoses you serve".

 

[Neildown]

Yet some people are suffering deeply, many of whom are suffering due to incurable illnesses. It is considered by many to be cruel to not allow people to take their own life.

This is why we opt to help people live out the last parts of their lives in the greatest comfort possible, short of injuring them. This I should have stressed in my first post.

argues that the treatment given to those suffering from Alzheimers is cruel and dehumanizing. He states; “I am certain no one sets out to be cruel, but our treatment of the elderly ill seems to have no philosophy to it. As a society, we should establish whether we have a policy of life at any cost.” He doesn’t believe that remaining alive will be any better than being dead.

Why does the man believe suicide needs to be legal in order for him to do it?

You seem to acknowledge that fact that we could potentially stop these people suffering, but seem content with it because ‘it just happens’. That isn’t the kind of logic you would apply in any other situation.

More specifically because I believe it is not our business to end other people’s lives and that life in and of itself is precious in God’s eyes - and I think it’s precious to most others as well. We should make it our business to comfort these people in their death (which is quite possible with modern medicine), but wilfully killing someone to end their suffering is not a legitimately moral option - life isn’t something to be tossed away by request. If an individual wants to be fatalistic about pain and suffering, that’s usually their personal prerogative; there are people who realize the value of their existence and there are those who take it for granted. As individuals and as a society, I believe it is in our best interest to uphold our values in favour of protecting human life in all forms and doing our greatest to help those who suffer - especially those with mental illness.

Obviously Catholics and non-Catholics have differing viewpoints on what is or is not moral. Catholics don’t believe suffering makes it right to kill an innocent person. Pain is part of life, and we accept that fact, though we are free to alleviate it where we can. We can’t cross the line by breaking a law to accommodate that though.

Do you refuse to donate money to countries suffering from famine due to the fact that suffering is a part of life?

Suffering is a part of life insofar as we can’t alleviate it within God’s will - which mainly discludes the intentional killing of innocent human beings.

 

[St_Francis]

How so? I am not asking as to why Catholics refuse to accept systematic euthanasia of unwilling innocents. No, I’m talking about willing, consenting suicide.

It is wrong for people to kill other people (except in self-defense or if they are guilty of a heinous crime).

It would be wrong for doctors to kill patients, even if the patients want them to, because the doctor would be committing a wrongful act.

The analogy with slavery is not only do we reject people’s being forced into slavery, we reject people’s selling themselves into slavery.

Not at all. I do not see how ending someone’s suffering is treating life as worthless.

It is putting the ending of suffering over life. It would be like blowing up your car because it needs to have the oil changed every three months (a very imperfect analogy offered only to show the reversal of priorities.)

Does a momentousness amount of suffering or being forced to live like a vegetable count as life? Is there any life there that is of value?

First let me explain that people are not “forced” to live because they do not die. They are not “forced” to live because we do not murder them.

Second, they are not “living like vegetables.” Notice how the use of the language in our culture has affected your thinking! Their comatose state in no way reduces their humanity in the way implied by the use of our language.

For me to “kill” a carrot is in no way equivalent to a doctor’s killing a human being who happens to be in a long-term comatose state.

I do not believe it is life itself that has value, but what that life consists of.

Well, here is the crux of the problem, then. (I’d smile, but this is too serious a topic.) Your foundational idea differs from a Catholic foundational idea. Your name indicates you are an atheist; you do not believe in God; therefore, you do not see life as a gift from our Creator.

If you see life as a random event with no connection to anything, then naturally you would view it from a utilitarian point of view. If life does not “give value” to its “owner,” then life can be discarded.

The problem, even from a utilitarian point of view, is that without life, there is nothing in this world. To throw away one’s life is to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Can the person living that life live a happy existence? Can they be made better? If not, what value is there in that life? Why do they need to suffer if they’re only going to die anyway?

You bring up two kinds of people: those who are in reduced states of consciousness and those who are suffering.

The first are not suffering, so it makes no difference to them. The only reason to murder them would be to “relieve the suffering” of *others, *no?

As to others who are suffering, Catholic teaching is that we must care for the patients and reduce their pain. In our society (US), we have such a fear of causing addiction that patients are allowed to live in pain rather than be appropriately treated for that pain.

In fact, Catholic teaching about pain is that if a person is dying of their physical problem, pain must be alleviated lest they fall into despair. If the level of pain is so great that there is even a very strong likelihood that the painreliver dose would kill the patient, one is still permitted to give the medication. (Altho as it turns out, it is rare for this to be the case.)

Yet some people are suffering deeply, many of whom are suffering due to incurable illnesses. It is considered by many to be cruel to not allow people to take their own life.

…Snip…

You seem to acknowledge that fact that we could potentially stop these people suffering, but seem content with it because ‘it just happens’. That isn’t the kind of logic you would apply in any other situation. Do you refuse to donate money to countries suffering from famine due to the fact that suffering is a part of life?

We do not bomb the nation to reduce suffering, do we?

In all cases, relief of suffering is very important; however, relief of suffering is not the only thing. It is also important not to murder people, to instead use appropriate measures to relieve their mental suffering as well.

Oh, and for the record, what do you think would happen if we allowed assisted suicide?

One of the main results I would see is a lack of mental/emotional care of patients. Rather than support which would encourage them to live, we would see a reduction of that help, which would save so much money both immediately and in the long term. Overall, an increase in suffering.

 

[St_Francis]

From the words of Terry Pratchett in the article Realistic Atheist linked to above (blue) with comments by me in black:

We are being stupid. We have been so successful in the past century at the art of living longer and staying alive that we have forgotten how to die. Too often we learn the hard way. As soon as the baby boomers pass pensionable age, their lesson will be harsher still. At least, that is what I thought until last week.

I find it ironic that in this time of better health care, we now have calls for doctors to murder their patients or to become accomplices in the suicide of their patients. We now have better treatment plans and better options for pain relief than ever before, and yet now is the time when these calls come.

(Note: Catholics do not have a problem with withdrawal of extraordinary care, so that if all that is keeping a person alive is machines like ventilators and some other form of treatment, it is all right to stop or even decide not to start medical treatment. Catholic teaching does not require that one die all tied up with tubes and what have you. I wanted to clarify that my comments are related to an act performed for the purpose of causing one’s own or another’s death.)

I hate the term ‘assisted suicide’. I have witnessed the aftermath of two suicides, and as a journalist I attended far too many coroners’ inquests, where I was amazed and appalled at the many ways that desperate people find to end their lives.
Suicide is fear, shame, despair and grief. It is madness.

But it is suicide! Suicide is the act of taking one’s own life. To strip out some suicides and make them sound better than the ones we don’t approve of is an affront to truth.

Those brave souls lately seeking death abroad seem to me, on the other hand, to be gifted with a furious sanity. They have seen their future, and they don’t want to be part of it.

And what is wrong with their future that they would engage and ask others to engage in acts of murder? Either they are unwilling to accept that they would require care before their natural death, or the care is deficient in some way–lack of pain relief has already been cited, but there is also what might be called lack of an attitude of selflessness–if the caregivers’ attitudes give the patients the idea that caring for them is burdensome or problematical, then naturally a patient’s mind would turn to the alleviation of another’s suffering.

But for me, the scandal has not been solely that innocent people have had the threat of murder hanging over their heads for committing a clear act of mercy. It is that people are having to go to another country to die; it should be possible to die with benign assistance here.

But the act of mercy would be to care for the patient, not to finish the patient off. The act of mercy would be to help the patient to alleviate the pain and deal with the helplessness and other difficulties.

You do not have to read much social history, or move in medical circles, to reach the conclusion that the profession has long seen it as part of its remit to help the dying die more comfortably.
Victorians expected to die at home, undoubtedly assisted by the medical profession.

There is a difference between helping someone to be reasonably comfortable as they die and deliberately killing them. How much of the latter went on in Victorian times is very hard to say.

…Snip…

There used to be a term known as ‘mercy killing’. I cannot believe it ever had any force in law but it did, and still does, persist in the public consciousness, and in general the public consciousness gets it right.

Euthanasia *is *literally “happy death.” The term mercy killing is simply a euphemism for a certain type of murder. And sure people have understood the impulses behind committing this type of murder, but just because one understands the motive doesn’t make it somehow better.

We would not walk away from a man being attacked by a monster, and if we couldn’t get the ravening beast off him we might well conclude that some instant means of less painful death would be preferable before the monster ate him alive.

Hmmm, we can kill the victim but have no way of stopping the beast… odd scenario.

And certainly we wouldn’t tuck it up in bed with him and try to carry on the fight from there, which is a pretty good metaphor for what we do now,

Analogies are by their nature imperfect: just because something is like something else in some way doesn’t make it the same thing. We should do our best to alleviate the suffering of a patient, to reassure the patient of his continued worth and humanity, not kill him because we have so inadequately helped him that he cannot see how to go forward.

…Snip…
Who could say that is bad? Where is the evil here?

Murder? That someone takes a human life for a disproportionate reason?

But, of course, important points are being made in this debate. Currently, people say they are worried about the possibility of old people being ‘urged’ by greedy relatives into taking an early death.
If we cannot come up with a means of identifying this, I would be very surprised.

Oh, right. Like no one has ever been ripped off by a good con artist, no one has ever married someone who was only after their money, or any number of things along those lines.

Continued below…

 

[St_Francis]

… continued from above

In any case, in my experience it is pretty impossible to get an elderly person to do something they do not wish to do. They tend to know their own mind like the back of their hand, and quite probably would object to this being questioned.

Yes, it is true that probably most of the elderly Pratchett has known were like this. But when this issue came up in the US, people more likely to be vulnerable to any abuse of the law were much more against legalizing the murder or collusion in suicide of patients.

There needs to be, for the safety of all concerned, some kind of gentle tribunal, to make certain that requests for assisted death are bona fide and not perhaps due to gentle persuasion.

See above. We can’t keep people from dying or suffering from Alzheimer’s, but he expects to be able to come up with a panel which will be able to read minds.

…Snip…

I know that last September Baroness Warnock was quoted, or possibly misquoted, as saying the very elderly sick had a ‘duty to die’, and I have seen people profess to fear that the existence of a formalised approach to assisted dying could lead to it somehow becoming part of national health policy.

He is being naive; I guess he missed this article.

I very much doubt this could be the case. We are a democracy and no democratic government is going to get anywhere with a policy of compulsory or even recommended euthanasia. If we were ever to end up with such a government, we would be in so much trouble that the problem would become the least of our worries.
But neither do I believe in a duty to suffer the worst ravages of terminal illness.

No, that could never happen in a civilized place like Germany England.

…Snip…

Life is easy and cheap to make.

Here is the essence of Pratchettt’s problem.

And why he thinks that once people start agreeing with him about this part, they won’t take it further is beyond me, esp given the evidence.

 

[vera_dicere]

I’m a registered nurse. I’ve worked in rest homes and elder care hospitals, and I’ve worked in acute hospital settings. The elderly so often tell me they feel like a burden, that theyr’e being a nusiance, that they feel they are wasting the time of everyone, of the doctors, nurses, their families, all that money. [despite having paid their taxes and fought for freedoms in war].

Most of them don’t want to die, they want to live and enjoy life, even in their limited capacity - but they feel that dying would be better for everyone else.

How have we reached a stage in society where we so deminish teh value of life that those who should be enjoying their final years with dignity and surrounded by family, think they’re better off dead?

People then have the gaul to rant about how much the elderly are living longer and how much money they’re costing us! A drunk driver’s actions end up costing the health care system more and no one talks about snuffing those idiots!

Euthaniasia is an abomination, its an offence against the dignity of the human person, its an insult against society itselft, and it demeans the value of those wonderful men and women who think its for the best.

If people with x condition want to die, fine, go do it, quietly, away from the public spot light if that’s what you want because when you make it a public song and dance all you’re doing is endangering the lives of the weak and vulnerable who one day, might find themselves without a say in their “end of life choices”.

And generally when I hear of people suffering from whatever aliment, who want to die, its usually because they’re getting terrible pallative care. That’s no excuse for them to be murdered.

 

[empantarhei]

If people with x condition want to die, fine, go do it, quietly, away from the public spot light if that’s what you want because when you make it a public song and dance all you’re doing is endangering the lives of the weak and vulnerable who one day, might find themselves without a say in their “end of life choices”.

And generally when I hear of people suffering from whatever aliment, who want to die, its usually because they’re getting terrible pallative care. That’s no excuse for them to be murdered.

Couldn’t agree more. But doing it quietly and away from the spotlight is in itself feasible; not affecting anyone is another matter. That’s my other concern.

 

[manualman]

Not at all. I do not see how ending someone’s suffering is treating life as worthless. Does a momentousness amount of suffering or being forced to live like a vegetable count as life? Is there any life there that is of value? I do not believe it is life itself that has value, but what that life consists of. Can the person living that life live a happy existence? Can they be made better? If not, what value is there in that life? Why do they need to suffer if they’re only going to die anyway?

Oh, and for the record, what do you think would happen if we allowed assisted suicide?

You make my point for me. You’ve already crossed over to the other side in which human life is NOT precious precisely because it is human life, but only that human life which meets a certain utilitarian threshold is precious. We’ve been down this road before in history. It’s a Pandora’s box of destruction and chaos. The moment a culture permits the value of human life to be judged by it’s usefulness or potential for pleasure, barbarism always follows. It’s a basic consequence of fallen human nature.

Suffering is to be alleviated if we can within means that respect the inherent dignity of the person. The fact that a person drools, soils his underpants and can’t remember his loved ones anymore does NOT negate his human dignity. We forget that at our dire peril.

 

[Sarcelle]

You make my point for me. You’ve already crossed over to the other side in which human life is NOT precious precisely because it is human life, but only that human life which meets a certain utilitarian threshold is precious. We’ve been down this road before in history. It’s a Pandora’s box of destruction and chaos. The moment a culture permits the value of human life to be judged by it’s usefulness or potential for pleasure, barbarism always follows. It’s a basic consequence of fallen human nature.

Suffering is to be alleviated if we can within means that respect the inherent dignity of the person. The fact that a person drools, soils his underpants and can’t remember his loved ones anymore does NOT negate his human dignity. We forget that at our dire peril.

I’m afraid that a utilitarian view of human life is part and parcel of the culture of death. There are less young people supporting the increasing number of senior citizens because of abortion and contraception. It is not surprising that as the Baby Boomers enter old age in increasing amounts, euthanasia is now being touted as right and good.