Euthanasia

[James T]

I am against euthanasia for the reason that someone has to be the murderer.

Being a couple of yours closer to that age than I am you'll be first (possibly) to wish otherwise. Then again your end may be peaceful. And I say honestly, may your end be peaceful. I really dislike the idea of someone suffering on their death. I dislike the idea of causing someone's continued suffering on their death.

 

[Bargainfluger]

As far as voluntary euthanasia goes, are you for it or against it and WHY?

Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.

I'm for it. I see no reason to prolong a life filled with pain, misery, and hopelessness. However, the person who is being euthanised should have the last say, for the most part. I don't think I'd feel right if I pulled the plug on someone in a coma. I've never been in that situation before, though, so I'm not sure.

 

[BarbB]

Being a couple of yours closer to that age than I am you'll be first (possibly) to wish otherwise. Then again your end may be peaceful. And I say honestly, may your end be peaceful. I really dislike the idea of someone suffering on their death. I dislike the idea of causing someone's continued suffering on their death.

What about the very dignified (and painful) death of Pope John Paul II? It certainly taught me about "death with dignity" and character. He trusted God and God did not fail him.

As for painful deaths such as from cancer, groups like Hospice can almost eliminate pain.

 

[wagsbags]

What about the very dignified (and painful) death of Pope John Paul II? It certainly taught me about "death with dignity" and character. He trusted God and God did not fail him.

As for painful deaths such as from cancer, groups like Hospice can almost eliminate pain.

We're not talking about slaughtering every old person we're talking about the people that are either in a permanent vegetative state or will survive for quite some time in inconsolable, excruciating pain. You can only medicate away so much.

 

[Jetgirl]

As far as voluntary euthanasia goes, are you for it or against it and WHY?

Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.

I'm for it. Certianly for a person who is suffering from a horrific or terminal illness.

As for suicides due to depression etc... I have no idea. Do we really have the right to tell someone who really wants to die that they have to live? I'm completely divided on that one.

BTW: Huzzah for EMTs!! You guys rock.

 

[Jetgirl]

We're not talking about slaughtering every old person we're talking about the people that are either in a permanent vegetative state or will survive for quite some time in inconsolable, excruciating pain. You can only medicate away so much.

My grandmother was a good example of that. While she was dying from metastacized malignant melanoma, and was given only a few months to live, the doctor couldn't legally prescribe her any more pain medications because "she might become addicted".

When we did finally get her on something that helped the pain, it completely wiped away her personality. She was a zombie for a month, and you could tell it still was terribly painful, she was just too doped up to express much, then she died.

I, honestly, would rather go out back with the .45 than subject my family to having to deal with that.

 

[Danhalen]

I believe that only God should take life away, it is not our place to do so except in grave necessity. I also believe that better medical care and support for those in serious suffering is far more appropriate than murder. Human beings have an intrinsic and undeniable dignity and value-each and every one, throughout their lives. Therefore I believe it is wrong to kill human beings other than in just war, necessary self-defense or the death penalty in places and situations where it is impossible to keep society safe from a dangerous criminal.

Peace.

Do you also believe that God is the only one that should give life? Where do you draw the line between keeping someone alive and letting them die? Before feeding tubes were invented, many people that are currently in a persistent vegitative state would already be dead. Since we now have the capacity to keep these people alive, does it make the deaths of people prior to the advent of the feeding tube immoral? When do we cross the line in playing God by providing for life?

 

[wagsbags]

It's like the south park episode where the angels wanted Kenny to die (he was a in a vegetative state) so he could man the PSP controls to defend heaven from the forces of hell. People said "but wouldn't taking the feeding tube out be playing God?" The angels said, "No! No! You were playing God when you put the feeding tube in!"

 

[Jetgirl]

It's like the south park episode where the angels wanted Kenny to die (he was a in a vegetative state) so he could man the PSP controls to defend heaven from the forces of hell. People said "but wouldn't taking the feeding tube out be playing God?" The angels said, "No! No! You were playing God when you put the feeding tube in!"

*Hesitantly*

I somewhat feel that way about fertility treatment. If you've spent 50k on fertility treatment and still can't conceive, just adopt already.

 

[James T]

What about the very dignified (and painful) death of Pope John Paul II? It certainly taught me about "death with dignity" and character. He trusted God and God did not fail him.

As for painful deaths such as from cancer, groups like Hospice can almost eliminate pain.

I am going to have to retract my earlier statement. I wish for you to learn why you are wrong. I hope you retain enough ability to speak to communicate your pain and why you changed your mind. We need people like you to learn the hard way.

I feel guilty making this wish. However, I do so because of the pain you force on other people by the inflexibility of your views.

 

[Jetgirl]

What about the very dignified (and painful) death of Pope John Paul II? It certainly taught me about "death with dignity" and character. He trusted God and God did not fail him.

As for painful deaths such as from cancer, groups like Hospice can almost eliminate pain.

That's wonderful for him. He must have had courage to choose that path.

However, there is courage in other paths a well. But you haven't said what YOU actually think on the subject.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Do you also believe that God is the only one that should give life?

He is the only one who can give life.

Where do you draw the line between keeping someone alive and letting them die?

I believe that nutrition ought to be continued except for in the rare cases where this actually speeds up death becaus digestion is impossible. I think that basic medication should be given, but that very extreme and extraordinary forms of surgery may be avoided if there is no hope of real benefit to the patient. I believe that if medication is given for pain relief and this as a side effect hastens death, this is acceptable. However, if this is done with the actual purpose being to hasten death, this is unacceptable.

Before feeding tubes were invented, many people that are currently in a persistent vegitative state would already be dead. Since we now have the capacity to keep these people alive, does it make the deaths of people prior to the advent of the feeding tube immoral?

Of course not. How can I say that we ought've used a means of prolonging life that was unavailable. That would be preposterous.

When do we cross the line in playing God by providing for life?

We should do our best to try to prolong life with ordinary measures. If death is imminent and only extraordinary measures will be of any use, and will not really benefit the patient, then those may be withheld.

Anyone with a good knowledge of Catholic teaching on the matter, please tell me if I'm wrong on this and am going agaist Church teaching. This is the teaching to the best of my knowledge and ability to present it.

Pax

 

[BarbB]

I am going to have to retract my earlier statement. I wish for you to learn why you are wrong. I hope you retain enough ability to speak to communicate your pain and why you changed your mind. We need people like you to learn the hard way.

I feel guilty making this wish. However, I do so because of the pain you force on other people by the inflexibility of your views.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. So I'll just continue with my life experiences.

In April, 2001 I had to make the decision to remove my husband from life support. He was horribly ill with pancreatitis. Now you're talking about pain! Would I do it again? Maybe, maybe not. The pain was treated though he was unconscious. God took him when God had completed his work in him, not a minute before or after.

I pity your bleak philosophy and I will pray for your salvation and compassion on those who have an opinion different from yours.

 

[BarbB]

That's wonderful for him. He must have had courage to choose that path.

However, there is courage in other paths a well. But you haven't said what YOU actually think on the subject.

You're right, Jetgirl, I haven't really made it clear. I believe that God takes us when we are a completed work by him. Thus, even though Pope John Paul II had lived a holy life - an example of love to all of us - God had one more task for him to complete - dying a painful death with dignity and trust in God and for all to see. Some understood this and some didn't.

Anyway, I don't see suicide as courageous, but as dispairing and God gives us what we need to NOT dispair. Euthanasia is nothing but legalized and protected murder. I don't care if a patient gives permission to a doctor to kill him - it's still murder. And it's even worse than murder if it's done to someone who cannot object due to their condition.

What does it hurt if a person is vegetative? And pain can be treated now - though it didn't use to be treated well due to drug regulations. Let the person die in their own good time. My father took 2 weeks to die after he quit eating, but he still recognized my voice and smiled when I spoke to him. He was still with me, though gravely ill.

I could go on and on. The only euthanasia I believe in is for pets! Period!

 

[Danhalen]

We should do our best to try to prolong life with ordinary measures. If death is imminent and only extraordinary measures will be of any use, and will not really benefit the patient, then those may be withheld.

Why should we prolong the life of a person in a persistent vegetative state? If we know that this person will never breath, eat, drink, urinate, defecate, talk, laugh, smile, cry, frown, etc., why should they be kept alive? If a person is going to die in a horribly painful death due to some ailment that can not be cured, why should they be forced to live? What justifiable reason to do you have to prolong the life of someone that can not sustain basic bodily functions, or suffer more than we can possibly imagine? What is inherntly wrong about death on one's own terms (in the case of someone that we know will not survive)?

 

[James T]

In April, 2001 I had to make the decision to remove my husband from life support. He was horribly ill with pancreatitis. Now you're talking about pain! Would I do it again? Maybe, maybe not.

I am sorry to hear of your loss. My first impression of reading this is that your husband held a different view on this to what you now do.

I do actually understand what it is to have close family in hospital in pain and near to death. Although I think it's kind of pretentious and more private that I wish to discuss. Particularly as part of a one upmanship game.

The pain was treated though he was unconscious.

Pancreatitis, hmmm, certainly a lot of pain. Unconscious, were they treating his pain or yours. Some of the pain medications are suitable for aiding a slow death, they are not always recovery options. I don't think these issues are really honestly discussed. I have seen some of the most absurd reactions, particularly from children of dying parents. They seem to take it personally and attempt to deny death in themselves through denying it in their parents, harming them in the process.

God took him when God had completed his work in him, not a minute before or after.

And God gave him the pain on the way out.

I pity your bleak philosophy and I will pray for your salvation and compassion on those who have an opinion different from yours.

I don't care for your pity, your prayer, or your condescension. You wish to impose your arbitrary moral system in a way that imposes pain on others.

Compassion is precisely what you are attempting to deny others.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Why should we prolong the life of a person in a persistent vegetative state?

I don't think we should go to extraordinary lengths to prolong life, but basic care and nutrition are rights that all human beings have. God has a purpose for every human life, and that purpose will be etched out on His terms and in His good time, nout ours.

Pax

 

[Jetgirl]

I don't think we should go to extraordinary lengths to prolong life, but basic care and nutrition are rights that all human beings have. God has a purpose for every human life, and that purpose will be etched out on His terms and in His good time, nout ours.

Pax

"His good time" however, seems to change drastically with our medical improvements.

Only 80-100 years ago, still within the lifetime of people still alive, persistant vegetative states were not even a consideration. There was only rudementary, if any, ability to provide mechanical support. These days we can mimic a great number of vital functions with machines, kidneys, lungs, digestive processes etc... though not half as well as the original equiptment.

I state the obvious here to illustrate that only two generations ago, people also died on "His good time", but that was almost always considerably shorter, and their time was considered up at about the same place where we today would place a patient on machines to keep them alive.

So it seems that medical technology does appear to influence what we consider the will of God to be.

Of course we can also debate the meaning of "basic care and nutrition". Does that mean simply feeding a person, and letting their body do what it can? Do we feed them and put them on dialysis as well so that they aren't poisened by their own system processing the food? If something in the digestive system breaks, do we repair it so we can give them nutrition?

I honestly can't draw many conclusions myself. All I can clearly decide is that personally, if my brain was damaged beyond reasonable function, I hope my loved ones don't keep my body mechanically alive for too long as some sort of gesture.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

"His good time" however, seems to change drastically with our medical improvements...So it seems that medical technology does appear to influence what we consider the will of God to be.

He has given us reason and desire for technological development by our Creation and these things have led us to be able to benefit mankind. Those developments that do benefit people and don't contravene the moral law should be used where appropriate and possible.

Of course we can also debate the meaning of "basic care and nutrition".

Exactly. I think it depends on the individual case so I can't really make a balnket judgement...but I think nutrition ought to be given and whatever ordinary medical care is possible to benefit. Extraorinary measures (such as lengthy and complex surgery, for a certain example) may be withheld I believe in cases of imminent death with no real chance for benefits to be reaped by the individual.

Pax

 

[Danhalen]

I don't think we should go to extraordinary lengths to prolong life, but basic care and nutrition are rights that all human beings have. God has a purpose for every human life, and that purpose will be etched out on His terms and in His good time, not ours.

Pax

I am not talking about extraordinary lengths. I am talking about sustaining a life that will never be lived again. What purpose is there in a life that does nothing? What does God possibly have to give us from a body that can live with out life? Give a defense for your stance.