8 replies to this topic

[markdohle]

Euthanasia issue

(I would be interested in the thoughts of others if possibe on this subject)

If I was a convinced atheist, or an agnostic that leaned heavily towards atheism I have no doubt that my attitude towards euthanasia would be different.  The same ‘might’ be true for abortion, not sure about that however.  There are atheist sites that are pro-life, who believe that the fetus does have a right to life.  Of course a fetus has the potential of leading a full life; those dying are coming to their end.  So for those who have no faith in any kind of transcendence their position is rational, reasonable even.  The fly in the ointment I would imagine would be abuses; the slippery slope it is called, wherein the decision start the journey down a road, that could spiral out of control.  People will often bring out the liberal laws for ‘mercy killing’ in the Scandinavia countries from both sides of the argument.  One side will bring out the abuses the other will praise the mercy and compassion that they believe mercy killing is.  Well that is until it moves into first degree murder….hence the slippery slope.

The heaviness, weariness and pain of life, is apparent to most people, especially as they age and begin to outlive many of their peers.  Death is often difficult, bringing with it not only physical pain but also a great deal of anguish for the one nearing the end of his or her life.  Again, if I was an atheist (or agnostic)…. I would most likely wish to be able to have the right to end my own life, to be allowed the right to go in peace into the eternal sleep of death.  The suffering at the end of life takes away my dignity and to be taken care of by others, yet another indignity, that does not have to be borne.  If my death is near, then why should I not end it?  So yes I understand why many seek laws to be able to allow people to end their own lives.

However, not being an atheist, a Christian in fact does influence how I look upon euthanasia.  It does not matter if my faith is misplaced (which I of course believe it is not), there is still a deep intuition that our lives lead to something else and if God does exist, then all that happens in our lives have meaning….that includes suffering.  Though I can’t say I am happy about that…..who loves suffering.  There is because of this a certain something to life that atheist need not consider, that is that our lives are a gift from God and we don’t have the right to end it.  We do have the right to live out our faith and try to face death with faith and dignity.  The luxury of suicide is not an option for me.  So the divide between the two groups is understandable.

I know however in ‘real’ life, even those who are pro-live can be thrust into situations wherein they may act in opposition to their deeply stated beliefs…..they miss the mark and in fact I can see myself in this position.  The greater the crises the grayer things seem to become, so there can be confusion and choices will be made that may later be regretted.  Emotional states are difficult to deal with, especially when a loved one is in a great deal of pain, that can’t be dealt with.

End of life care needs to become more central today since we are all living longer and the actual death process, which is what old age is about anyway, can drag on for decades.  For some, the last five or ten years of life can be dreadful if they are in nursing homes that are poorly run and are not given the attention that they need.  If proper care could be given to those near death, pain management given more of a priority, then I feel the euthanasia question would resolve itself for most people, though there will always be cases that are truly tragic and heart rending.

If life is about something, if we are called to something more and by that I don’t mean pie in the sky, but that everything in our lives need to be worked through for a reason, perhaps a reason not often understood, then those who are against mercy killing can be understood.  However, understanding goes both ways doesn’t it?  I am in the care giving trade, a life I love and I feel that my job is actually a vocation.  I would never take another life (well there may be a circumstance where I would be sorely tempted), but I would do everything possible to make their last days comfortable as possible and to surround them with companionship and love.

What I am trying to say is this: even though I may think that mercy killing is misguided compassion, it is compassion none-the-less. Also those who are believers also come from a place of compassion and faith.  I hope that the two sides do not become enemies, but both sides need to make sure that abuses are kept at a minimum, for there will be abuses….you can count on that.

It is only a matter of time before more liberal laws become everyday reality for the whole of the United States….we have started down the slippery slope I believe and I think, sadly that we will have to see it to the end.  Even so, truth as is seen through the eyes of faith needs to be proclaimed, even if it does not actually change cultural movements.  People are changed one at a time.  It is also important to remember that those on the opposing side are not evil monsters but speaking from a place they feel is right.  I have friends who go to abortions clinics and stay the legal distance.  They pray and if any girls come over they talk to them.  Some decide to have their child, they are not pressured. From time to time these young girls and their husbands or boyfriends come by and show them their child.  They don’t insult those getting abortions; they simply have a presence and pray.  When Christians fail to show restraint and lose their sense of love and compassion then they lose ground.  It is not about winning, it is about proclaiming, again with compassion and love.

[Seeker79]

Giood post. I watched my father die of lung cancer... Or the treatment of it.... Who knows which one was the culprate.

I am for mercy suicide . I believe that that we are apart of the great spirit, and the loving choice is the correct one.

Slippery slope? Hell ... Everything is a slippery slope. Even no mercy killing. Can you imagine 300 years from now if we have the capabilities to keep a body  and brain alive even though it's all completely useless, and we have some law forced upon us by the religiouse. There will be acres of inanimate people being cared for. At what point do we pull the plug? Why even pull the plug? Do you want yourself or loved ones suffocating to death, drowning in their own lung fluids? at the right time a simple administration of chemicals. Terror pain and misery all avoided.

Can it be abused? Certainly. Just like the slippery slope everything can be abused.

[markdohle]

Seeker79, on 27 May 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Giood post. I watched my father die of lung cancer... Or the treatment of it.... Who knows which one was the culprate.

I am for mercy suicide . I believe that that we are apart of the great spirit, and the loving choice is the correct one.

Slippery slope? Hell ... Everything is a slippery slope. Even no mercy killing. Can you imagine 300 years from now if we have the capabilities to keep a body  and brain alive even though it's all completely useless, and we have some law forced upon us by the religiouse. There will be acres of inanimate people being cared for. At what point do we pull the plug? Why even pull the plug? Do you want yourself or loved ones suffocating to death, drowning in their own lung fluids? at the right time a simple administration of chemicals. Terror pain and misery all avoided.

Can it be abused? Certainly. Just like the slippery slope everything can be abused.

Good comment thanks.  Mercy killing is different than allowing a natural death.  The catholic church has always been actually quite liberal and in the past even some doctors were shocked by it.  It is all in the intention.  For instance, if someone is in a great deal of pain, meds can be used even if it will quicken death.  The intent is to relieve suffering.  I think the problem you are talking about would most likely be used by governments using fear to control their subjects.....hopefully that will not happen.  I am hoping that we will mature as a speicies.  For instance, today, at least we have the concept of civil rights, it is a rather new development, though we as of yet have trouble living up to it.

Peace
mark

[willowdreams]

If a person is terminal, then they should be allowed to make the choice to end their lives, period. I do not feel this is against Christian belief either.

For some odd reason, many believe we are supposed to die at certain times. "it was their time to go". This is beyond a doubt to be a silly notion. If this were true, then passing laws about driving that has shown to prevent accidents and prevent death would not do so. People live LONGER. This is due to laws that stop many accidents or prevents accidents that did not exist before, as well as medical science.

Many people are what I call the living dead, my late husband was one such person and *I* had to be the one left to legally 'pull the plug' and finish what was already done.

He had it in his wallet that when he was past a certain point to let him go. He made it verbally clear to all friends and relatives that he had no desire to live by machines breathing for him, or being forced to live a life in a coma. Yet even with all this, I still had to make the choice, because written or not, wills or no wills, many medical establishments will not remove life support without court order or next of kin signing so many legal papers it is beyond rediculous.

Perhaps the 'was their time to go' would make sense if things were left to nature. If we did not prolong life as we do, if we did not keep prolonging the terminals suffering. When a person is bedridden, crying and wants to die, in diapers.. not even able to feed themselves and they KNOW and have known all along that there is no cure for them, yet we use medical science to prolong their life so that no one feels they are 'killing' that person, then you are no longer leaving it up to 'nature' to deal with.

We began going down that slippery slope the second we decided that natural death was to horrid to contemplate and began using medical science to prolong life, even when it was a suffering horrible life due to terminal diseases like cancers.

So mercy killing is not going further down it.

It may be slowing us down a bit before we hit rock bottom.

Yes it can be abused, but then again so can anything in life. You are not really seriously leaving it up to god, when you know someone is terminal, you know they are basically so far gone they are dead.. but perhaps cruely, their mind is still there and they want to go.. have been ready to go, and in normal cases if not for the meds keeping their body going, they would already have gone.. you took it out of natures choice, or gods decisions when you chose to prolong the suffering so you would never be accused of 'killing' someone indirectly.

[markdohle]

willowdreams, on 27 May 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

If a person is terminal, then they should be allowed to make the choice to end their lives, period. I do not feel this is against Christian belief either.

For some odd reason, many believe we are supposed to die at certain times. "it was their time to go". This is beyond a doubt to be a silly notion. If this were true, then passing laws about driving that has shown to prevent accidents and prevent death would not do so. People live LONGER. This is due to laws that stop many accidents or prevents accidents that did not exist before, as well as medical science.

Many people are what I call the living dead, my late husband was one such person and *I* had to be the one left to legally 'pull the plug' and finish what was already done.

He had it in his wallet that when he was past a certain point to let him go. He made it verbally clear to all friends and relatives that he had no desire to live by machines breathing for him, or being forced to live a life in a coma. Yet even with all this, I still had to make the choice, because written or not, wills or no wills, many medical establishments will not remove life support without court order or next of kin signing so many legal papers it is beyond rediculous.

Perhaps the 'was their time to go' would make sense if things were left to nature. If we did not prolong life as we do, if we did not keep prolonging the terminals suffering. When a person is bedridden, crying and wants to die, in diapers.. not even able to feed themselves and they KNOW and have known all along that there is no cure for them, yet we use medical science to prolong their life so that no one feels they are 'killing' that person, then you are no longer leaving it up to 'nature' to deal with.

We began going down that slippery slope the second we decided that natural death was to horrid to contemplate and began using medical science to prolong life, even when it was a suffering horrible life due to terminal diseases like cancers.

So mercy killing is not going further down it.

It may be slowing us down a bit before we hit rock bottom.

Yes it can be abused, but then again so can anything in life. You are not really seriously leaving it up to god, when you know someone is terminal, you know they are basically so far gone they are dead.. but perhaps cruely, their mind is still there and they want to go.. have been ready to go, and in normal cases if not for the meds keeping their body going, they would already have gone.. you took it out of natures choice, or gods decisions when you chose to prolong the suffering so you would never be accused of 'killing' someone indirectly.

Not using artifical means to extend someones life is not mercy killing, no point of disgreement there.  I read you blog about your father, so I know you have been through a great deal with this issue.

Peace
Mark

[Belphegor]

I think Euthanasia has always been an ethical issue when it comes to the medical field. There are some countries that make Euthanasia legal. While most other countries, although is illegal, there are times when there is no hope for the patient or if the patient suffers tremendously, healthcare practitioners may suggest very discreetly to let the patient go by witholding life saving medications and only giving paliative care.

I am a Buddhist, so in my religion, we believe that even after death our mind continues in existance. Because of our believe in karma, whatever sufferings we have in our current life time is also the result of negative karma which has ripened. Therefore, euthanasia is really not encouraged in my belief. Why? Because, ending the person's suffering in this life does not stop the suffering from occuring in his future life and he/she will continue to suffer that state until the negative karma is exhausted. So for those that have the same belief as me... we really gotta think if we're allowing Euthanasia for a loved one for his/her benefit, or for our own benefit (ie relief our pain of seeing our loved one in pain, relief burden of medical fees etc etc.)

However, the Euthanasia I mention of that is not encouraged in my belief is the ones where you need to be chemically induced.
Seeker79 pointed out a very good point. When a person has to be artificially supported by machines, is no longer conscious and there is no hope of recovery... there is not much of a point or reason to keep them alive. For situations such as this, un-plugging the machines is not that bad after all...

[Arbenol68]

Hi Mark.

As ever, a thoughtful and considerate post.

I don't believe religious beliefs can contribute effectively to the debate on euthanasia. This because the issue is one that effects everybody, where religion is not universal. I believe it to be about humanistic morals and ethics. The balance of rights and responsibilities.

Does a person have the right to die, if they wish? Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to preserve life at all costs?

As a thought experiment. Consider the situation that euthanasia can be consistently implemented where you can guarantee that no abuses of this would occur (impossible, I know). Would you still think it correct to deny someone the right to die? Does our societal responsibilities to preserve life trump the individual's choice?

My own thoughts are that the individual has the ultimate right. But this is far from clear cut for me, and I would worry what the implications are for a society that sanctions this. But then the State sanctions the deaths of people in other explicit and implicit ways: eg, war, capital punishment (I've never lived in a country that practiced executions of criminals), the rationing of healthcare, etc....  

But I believe that societies first must decide if euthanasia is ethically acceptable, and then worry about how it could be safeguarded from abuse.

[markdohle]

Belphegor, on 27 May 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

I think Euthanasia has always been an ethical issue when it comes to the medical field. There are some countries that make Euthanasia legal. While most other countries, although is illegal, there are times when there is no hope for the patient or if the patient suffers tremendously, healthcare practitioners may suggest very discreetly to let the patient go by witholding life saving medications and only giving paliative care.

I am a Buddhist, so in my religion, we believe that even after death our mind continues in existance. Because of our believe in karma, whatever sufferings we have in our current life time is also the result of negative karma which has ripened. Therefore, euthanasia is really not encouraged in my belief. Why? Because, ending the person's suffering in this life does not stop the suffering from occuring in his future life and he/she will continue to suffer that state until the negative karma is exhausted. So for those that have the same belief as me... we really gotta think if we're allowing Euthanasia for a loved one for his/her benefit, or for our own benefit (ie relief our pain of seeing our loved one in pain, relief burden of medical fees etc etc.)

However, the Euthanasia I mention of that is not encouraged in my belief is the ones where you need to be chemically induced.
Seeker79 pointed out a very good point. When a person has to be artificially supported by machines, is no longer conscious and there is no hope of recovery... there is not much of a point or reason to keep them alive. For situations such as this, un-plugging the machines is not that bad after all...

Thank you good post.  Yes our beliefs will dictate how we repond to this diffiuclt question.  Allowing nature to take its course is not mercy killilng and very moral, as long it is according to the wishes of the patient.  Otherwise, yes it is mercy killing.  For one, like I said in my post, to not believe in an afterlife will for most lead to a different conslusion.  If I thought that we die and that is it, then the thought of living out the last few months or days in constant pain, then yes allow me to die, it is worthless for all involved.  However to believe that our lives continue, then our deaths are important for all concerned.  The one dying, those who take care of them and family.  Here is a quote I recieved on my blog from a woman who shows how faith will lead to a different way of looking upon death and the awful reality of suffering:

Quote

I can only speak from an observers experience - my mother lived with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Twenty-five years from the first sclerosis diagnosis (with a couple of diagnostic tweaks as years passed) and never once did she request to be put out of her misery. She, as you and I, looked upon Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior - trusting that as long as she lived, He would find a use for her life. I also observed a young mother of four (the youngest a two-year-old toddler) who knew months before her death that the battle with Plasma Cell Leukemia could not be won. She, too, looked upon Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior - trusting that as long as she lived, He would find a use for her life. Both were surrounded with loving family and friends wrapping them in loving compassion. I would not dare suggest that either lose those precious moments. Precious to the givers, too

Below is another comment by another reader

Quote

"My mother went into a nursing home and Jack Kevorkian went to jail. My mother died May 2007, Kevorkian got paroled June 2007. When I entered the nursing home for the first time it was like a nightmare, Everyone was reaching out to me and asking me to kill them, they had enough with the suffering. It was very very sad. I told them I couldn't kill them but I could pray with them. I sat down and I prayed with them. I said prayers with everyone every day. After a while no one asked for death, they reached out and asked me to pray with them. May anyone who suffers find the comfort of prayer. Lord have mercy. Bless the Lord, God saves."

I am not writing this to convice anyone, just show a point.  
Thanks for your thoughtful  comment.

Peace
mark

Edited by markdohle, 28 May 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[markdohle]

Arbenol68, on 28 May 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

Hi Mark.

As ever, a thoughtful and considerate post.

I don't believe religious beliefs can contribute effectively to the debate on euthanasia. This because the issue is one that effects everybody, where religion is not universal. I believe it to be about humanistic morals and ethics. The balance of rights and responsibilities.

Does a person have the right to die, if they wish? Do we, as a society, have a responsibility to preserve life at all costs?

As a thought experiment. Consider the situation that euthanasia can be consistently implemented where you can guarantee that no abuses of this would occur (impossible, I know). Would you still think it correct to deny someone the right to die? Does our societal responsibilities to preserve life trump the individual's choice?

My own thoughts are that the individual has the ultimate right. But this is far from clear cut for me, and I would worry what the implications are for a society that sanctions this. But then the State sanctions the deaths of people in other explicit and implicit ways: eg, war, capital punishment (I've never lived in a country that practiced executions of criminals), the rationing of healthcare, etc....  

But I believe that societies first must decide if euthanasia is ethically acceptable, and then worry about how it could be safeguarded from abuse.

It is a tricky subject and I feel many clamor for euthanasia without understanding where it could lead.  I live in a society (USA), where many do not believe in God, or an afterlife.  I would expect them to have a different perspective on this issue.  In any case, the only way such a thing can be helped is for our cultures to change from the bottom up, I don't see that happeing, so the laws will come.  I am a baby boomer, there are way too many of us, so I expect when I get old, which is right around the corner, the government may be forced to do more pallative care than actually doing much to extend lives.  I think that is not an immoral choice, if the number precludes the ability for society to take care of them.  I do believe, because of my faith, that death is important and not just an end to my existence, so the process is important and I feel that needs to be dealt with, already is in certain circles.

When it comes to care, the young should have a priority, but the needs of the elderly, phycial, emotional and spiritual, need to be addressed.

peace
mark