That euthanasia should be accepted and allowed
#51
(09-18-2010, 08:49 AM)MetallicaFan Wrote:
(09-14-2010, 08:21 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: If there is a God, and if it was God's authority that willed us into existence, then it is by His authority that we exist. If it is only by His authority that we exist, there is no reason to think we have the authority to will ourselves out of existence.

Well clearly there is that assumption as he gave us will over ourselves and sent his son to tell us to act in all ways as loving as possible. Since euthanasia is a willed act and is in the way of love it should be accepted.

You should consider your statement in light of mine to see that yours does not disprove what I said; it but contradicts it in the name of conforming to it.

My post treats of God's will and authority - an authority we cannot override by some excuse that in disobeying it we are actually following it (to love our neighbor).

Please consider this again:
God's will sustains our every breath. If there is a God, and if it was God's authority that willed us into existence, then it is by His authority - and no-one else's - that we exist. If it is only by His authority that we exist now, and we are not allowed to disobey His authority, then we do not have the authority to use our free will to will ourselves out of existence. Such a thing would be to freely use our will against His, which is actively willing our present existence. This is contra the purpose for which we were endowed with free will.
Reply
#52
(09-18-2010, 03:38 PM)Underdog Wrote: Christ and His Church do not expect us to heroically suffer our last days in agonizing pain; nor are we expected to consent to painful or expensive treatments.  We may be heavily sedated and our pain managed in such a way that not only do we not feel much, but also we succumb to death more quickly; morphine drip being turned up for a cancer patient is an example of this.  It is not suicide or euthanasia to refuse painful or expensive treatments like chemotherapy or amputation.  Yet, we do not turn our backs on those who cannot tolerate those treatments...we help them to live out their last days in as comfortable a manner as possible by managing their pain.

One of the reasons why choosing euthanasia for oneself ahead of time is not a good idea...like in the case of Terri Schaivo...is that we may find ourselves in a situation in which someone says, "Well, she didn't want to live out her days like that...so let's pull the plug," and yet at that moment we may be thinking "how lucky I am to be alive!" and not be able to rescind our death order.  It's shallow to think that the way we are now is the way we should always be...so that if some tragedy strikes us we feel utterly degraded...consider ourselves worthless...consider our life not worth living...and so despair and wish for death...which is a very different frame of mind from being in terrible pain and just wanting it to end.  That kind of thinking leads us to believe that others think and feel the same way...that should a loved one suffer a trauma (such as a brain injury) and be left paralyzed we may project our own imagined desires upon that person...and either assume or encourage that person to choose death over a life we consider not worth living.

When my sister had her brain hemorrhage, my initial reaction was disappointment that she had been saved from death's hand.  I figured that if I were in her shoes, I would not want to live out my days as a quadriplegic...so she must not either.  Over 16 years later, I am amazed at my sister's drive to live.  She may be a working mind trapped inside a damaged body, but she has persevered...and is even happy!  She laughs and loves...and I think she is at least a testament to how these two things make life worth living...and how much of a mistake it would have been to have willfully ended her life years ago.


What a beautiful post, Underdog!
Reply
#53
My father, who was an MD (but not a Catholic,) died of lung cancer in 1988. He told us toward the end that he did not want heroic measures to prolong his life--he asked only for hydration and nutrition.  Death came to him peacefully. My uncle by marriage decided to starve himself rather than to live with Parkinson's. This was horrifying. My aunt didn't try to dissuade him. 
Reply
#54
If I'm not mistaken we are allowed to be sedated to take away our pain but not to hasten death which if this action is taken without the patients knowledge is murder, and with it is suicide. Death has no dignity it is a complete and utter end to the body.
tim
Reply
#55
(09-24-2010, 12:09 PM)timoose Wrote: If I'm not mistaken we are allowed to be sedated to take away our pain but not to hasten death which if this action is taken without the patients knowledge is murder, and with it is suicide. Death has no dignity it is a complete and utter end to the body.
tim

We may be given/receive pain meds that take away our pain...without the direct intention of causing death.  That does not mean that if we are terminal we must shun pain meds or even a dosage that assuages our pain yet indirectly leads to a quicker death...since it is the pain management that we aim for, not death.
Reply
#56
(09-24-2010, 12:31 PM)Underdog Wrote:
(09-24-2010, 12:09 PM)timoose Wrote: If I'm not mistaken we are allowed to be sedated to take away our pain but not to hasten death which if this action is taken without the patients knowledge is murder, and with it is suicide. Death has no dignity it is a complete and utter end to the body.
tim

We may be given/receive pain meds that take away our pain...without the direct intention of causing death.  That does not mean that if we are terminal we must shun pain meds or even a dosage that assuages our pain yet indirectly leads to a quicker death...since it is the pain management that we aim for, not death.

That is how I understand it, too.  If the dose to remove pain is such that it may cause death, it is permitted because we aren't intending to kill but we need to remove the pain.  Just like some surgery is risky and may cause death but we still do it because the alternative - a long lingering death - is a greater evil.

Reply
#57
Okay, I see that now, it is not intended. What is intended is to lessen the pain and hastening of death is not the intention. Thanks
tim
Reply
#58
Euthanasia, or suicide in other words, is fleeing from the cross that Christ has given to that particular person for his sanctification. No one has the right to decide to end his life because he no longer wants to live. It is presumptuous and wrong. And indeed, the pains of hell are much worse than anything which can be endured here, and they are eternal. It is better to cling to Christ than to jump into the pit of despair. Christ delivers, despair does not.
Reply
#59
I was surprised to learn how reasonable the Church's position on this is, listening to Fr. Ripperger of the FSSP recently.  The mainstream belief seems to be that Catholics insist on keeping people alive as long as possible, no matter what it takes.  But that's not true at all, according to Fr. R.  We're required to provide ordinary means, which he says covers food and water, but we're not required to submit to procedures that won't make the person better and are only intended to extend life, or that will cause excess pain, or that would bankrupt the family.  He even said that it's okay to use high levels of painkillers if they're needed, even if they might hasten death, as long as that's not the goal.

Of course, none of this gives anyone else the right to make those choices for you, and it doesn't mean you can intentionally overdose.  But apparently you do have the right to refuse just about anything beyond nutrition and water, unless there is reason to believe it will cure you without causing undue hardship on your family.  I should have known the Church's position would be much more nuanced and reasonable than most people think.
Reply
#60
(10-08-2010, 01:59 PM)Mhoram Wrote: I was surprised to learn how reasonable the Church's position on this is, listening to Fr. Ripperger of the FSSP recently.  The mainstream belief seems to be that Catholics insist on keeping people alive as long as possible, no matter what it takes.  But that's not true at all, according to Fr. R.  We're required to provide ordinary means, which he says covers food and water, but we're not required to submit to procedures that won't make the person better and are only intended to extend life, or that will cause excess pain, or that would bankrupt the family.  He even said that it's okay to use high levels of painkillers if they're needed, even if they might hasten death, as long as that's not the goal.

Of course, none of this gives anyone else the right to make those choices for you, and it doesn't mean you can intentionally overdose.  But apparently you do have the right to refuse just about anything beyond nutrition and water, unless there is reason to believe it will cure you without causing undue hardship on your family.  I should have known the Church's position would be much more nuanced and reasonable than most people think.

Yes, the Church merely prohibits one from willfully terminating his own life as an immediate effect of deliberate positive action without the consent of God's will.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)