Euthanasia

[Tacenda]

Mf, he's talking about the aftermath. What loved ones, or whomever comes on the scene, will have to see. It's not a pretty picture, there is a less gruesome way to go.

[SmileyMcGee]

No, technically he did not. He did nothing but that which the Father wanted him to do. His will was perfectly aligned with his Father's will.

Unfortunately we do not have a perfect understanding of when God wants to call us home, so there is no comparison here to suicide.

Doing what "the Father" wanted him to do doesn't mean he didn't end His own life. He had the power to stop the matter and he was part immortal. Death was a deliberate choice for him, not an accident or something out of his control. He chose to end it...for a good cause, but chose nonetheless. Edited November 4, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[VideoGameJunkie]

I think we should say prayers for all those in the world who are suffering beyond comprehension and for their burden to be lightened. Especially children that are suffering.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed. Pray like everything depended on God, and then work like everything depended on  you.

[pogi]

I have no clue what you are talking about.  I know nothing about you, your patients, or why they would want to commit suicide, or whatever it is you are talking about.

If I haven't made myself clear, I am a hospice nurse who is in favor of legislation similar to Oregon's Dying with Dignity Act.  Our entire healthcare system is centered around prolonging life as long as absolutely possible, often with no thought of the consequences of such advances.  These advances are blessings for many, for other's it is a curse which simply prolongs the horrible process of dying.  Sometimes death alone offers the comfort one seeks for themselves and their loved ones and is a welcome blessing. 

 

When you don't live and work with death and dying everyday, it can be easy to trivialize such legislation and suggest a revolver.  The majority of my patients are 80 - 98 year old females who have probably never held a gun let alone know how to work one, and have barely the strength to hold a spoon.  They predominantly live in assisted living facilities where high levels of oxygen are frequently used and 357's are not in large supply.  Shooting themselves would risk an explosion from the oxygen or having the bullet injure someone else through the walls.  The experience would be entirely traumatic for the 100 + residents who hear the gun shot and find out what happened, not to mention the staff who are the first responders.  Their death would be horrific, not only for themselves, but also for their families, care providers and all who witness the event or aftermath.  Their legacy would be tarnished with such a violent end of life.  Their last act in defiance of the laws that they have long sustained and supported as honorable citizens.  Clearly there would be no viewing for the family to have any sort of closure. 

 

Because this way out is so violent and traumatic, terminal patients do not generally choose this option.  Although some have resorted to it because they could not afford the $20,000 - $30,000 trip to Switzerland where they could find competent medical assistance and found the suffering and agony simply too unbearable.  Now that some states have legalized the practice, some families pick up and move to take advantage of the service.  Do we really want to add the stress of moving to a new state to gain residency on top of the complications, financial burdens, pain/suffering, weakness and anxieties of dying that the patient and family are already dealing with?  Is their burden not taxing enough?

 

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (Proverbs 3:27).

Edited November 4, 2014 by pogi

[ksfisher]

If I haven't made myself clear, I am a hospice nurse who is in favor of legislation similar to Oregon's Dying with Dignity Act.  Our entire healthcare system is centered around prolonging life as long as absolutely possible, often with no thought of the consequences of such advances.  These advances are blessings for many, for other's it is a curse which simply prolongs the horrible process of dying.  Sometimes death alone offers the comfort one seeks for themselves and their loved ones and is a welcome blessing. 

 

When you don't live and work with death and dying everyday, it can be easy to trivialize such legislation and suggest a revolver.  The majority of my patients are 80 - 98 year old females who have probably never held a gun let alone know how to work one, and have barely the strength to hold a spoon.  They predominantly live in assisted living facilities where high levels of oxygen are frequently used and 357's are not in large supply.  Shooting themselves would risk an explosion from the oxygen or having the bullet injure someone else through the walls.  The experience would be entirely traumatic for the 100 + residents who hear the gun shot and find out what happened, not to mention the staff who are the first responders.  Their death would be horrific, not only for themselves, but also for their families, care providers and all who witness the event or aftermath.  Their legacy would be tarnished with such a violent end of life.  Their last act in defiance of the laws that they have long sustained and supported as honorable citizens.  Clearly there would be no viewing for the family to have any sort of closure. 

 

Because this way out is so violent and traumatic, terminal patients do not generally choose this option.  Although some have resorted to it because they could not afford the $20,000 - $30,000 trip to Switzerland where they could find competent medical assistance and found the suffering and agony simply too unbearable.  Now that some states have legalized the practice, some families pick up and move to take advantage of the service.  Do we really want to add the stress of moving to a new state to gain residency on top of the complications, financial burdens, pain/suffering, weakness and anxieties of dying that the patient and family are already dealing with?  Is their burden not taxing enough?

 

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (Proverbs 3:27).

 

How would you respond to the opinion piece I linked to in post #55 which cites instances where insurance companies have denied coverage to treat an illness but have been willing to pay for the individual to kill themselves?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Does everyone have to suffer? I pray that my death will be quick and painless and without suffering and I pray for my family and friends as well. Everyone I've been around who has died with the exception of one quick heart attack, has been slow and painful deaths that took a long time to finally end. Suffering is terrible, and I feel saddened that those who choose the doctor assisted end of life route probably blow their chance at exaltation for just not enduring to the end, when the enduring has gotten too great.

[mfbukowski]

Doing what "the Father" wanted him to do doesn't mean he didn't end His own life. He had the power to stop the matter and he was part immortal. Death was a deliberate choice for him, not an accident or something out of his control. He chose to end it...for a good cause, but chose nonetheless.

So you are saying, because of your semantic interpretation, that Jesus commited suicide, so it is all right for others to do so as well.

 

I disagree with that interpretation.

[pogi]

How would you respond to the opinion piece I linked to in post #55 which cites instances where insurance companies have denied coverage to treat an illness but have been willing to pay for the individual to kill themselves?

 

I would argue that insurance companies have been denying chemo-treatment to patients for years before Dying with Dignity was enacted.  Insurance companies refuse to pay for chemo outside of Oregon too.  They are now simply offering another option for patients who cannot afford the unethically outrageous expense of chemo. 

Edited November 4, 2014 by pogi

[ksfisher]

I would argue that insurance companies have been denying chemo-treatment to patients for years before Dying with Dignity was enacted.  Insurance companies refuse to pay for chemo outside of Oregon too.  They are now simply offering another option for patients who cannot afford the unethically outrageous expense of chemo. 

 

Personally I find the idea of an insurance company denying coverage that could possibly save a life but being willing to pay for the individual to kill themselves to be morally repugnant and in direct violation of God's commandments.

[mfbukowski]

If I haven't made myself clear, I am a hospice nurse who is in favor of legislation similar to Oregon's Dying with Dignity Act.  Our entire healthcare system is centered around prolonging life as long as absolutely possible, often with no thought of the consequences of such advances.  These advances are blessings for many, for other's it is a curse which simply prolongs the horrible process of dying.  Sometimes death alone offers the comfort one seeks for themselves and their loved ones and is a welcome blessing. 

 

When you don't live and work with death and dying everyday, it can be easy to trivialize such legislation and suggest a revolver.  The majority of my patients are 80 - 98 year old females who have probably never held a gun let alone know how to work one, and have barely the strength to hold a spoon.  They predominantly live in assisted living facilities where high levels of oxygen are frequently used and 357's are not in large supply.  Shooting themselves would risk an explosion from the oxygen or having the bullet injure someone else through the walls.  The experience would be entirely traumatic for the 100 + residents who hear the gun shot and find out what happened, not to mention the staff who are the first responders.  Their death would be horrific, not only for themselves, but also for their families, care providers and all who witness the event or aftermath.  Their legacy would be tarnished with such a violent end of life.  Their last act in defiance of the laws that they have long sustained and supported as honorable citizens.  Clearly there would be no viewing for the family to have any sort of closure. 

 

Because this way out is so violent and traumatic, terminal patients do not generally choose this option.  Although some have resorted to it because they could not afford the $20,000 - $30,000 trip to Switzerland where they could find competent medical assistance and found the suffering and agony simply too unbearable.  Now that some states have legalized the practice, some families pick up and move to take advantage of the service.  Do we really want to add the stress of moving to a new state to gain residency on top of the complications, financial burdens, pain/suffering, weakness and anxieties of dying that the patient and family are already dealing with?  Is their burden not taxing enough?

 

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (Proverbs 3:27).

You have no idea what I do or do not know about people in this situation.

 

My mother had alzheimer's for 5 years before she passed away- and could have been one of your patients for all I know.  I held her in my arms as she passed.

 

I was there when my father passed away.

 

My calling dictated that I be at the bedside of 15 elderly people who passed away, within a three year period, in my ward, because it was a ward full of elderly people.  Another one was a 30 year old sister who died of cancer, when the family decided to terminate life support. 

 

NONE of these deaths I personally witnessed resulted from people deciding to take matters into their own hands and decide when they would die.

 

I have had numerous surgeries myself, correcting years of pain.  The surgeries were absolutely nothing compared to the pain which preceded them.  I have pain every day of my life.  

 

After one surgery, I nearly died myself, and was ready for it if it happened.

 

My statements was what is called a "CONDITIONAL" statement.   In layman terms that means that it started with the word "IF".

 

I would never commit suicide, but IF I would, I would do it without fanfare, internet statements, publicity and fame seeking.  I would not need a law to allow me to do it.  I would not ever do anything to encourage others to commit suicide, calling it "dying with dignity".   I would probably notify my family what I was going to do, by note or whatever, then disappear into the wilderness.  Perhaps my body would be found years later, perhaps never.

 

No, I would not traumatize others or possibly cause them harm.  If I was too weak to do that, I would probably OD

 

But I would never commit suicide.

 

We are to live by faith in God, not in fear.

 

Suicide is a selfish act caused by fear of pain.  There is nothing "dignified" about being so fearful of pain that one kills oneself rather than experience it.  It is not what one does who lives in faith of God's miracles.

 

And I find it really almost blasphemous that you would use a biblical quote-

 

 

"Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due, when it is in your power to do it" (Proverbs 3:27).

 

to describe encouraging people to live without faith in God and end their own lives voluntarily.   It is not a "good" nor should one be helped to break the commandments.

 

I find it to be a great evil that cheapens the sanctity of life.

[mfbukowski]

Does everyone have to suffer? I pray that my death will be quick and painless and without suffering and I pray for my family and friends as well. Everyone I've been around who has died with the exception of one quick heart attack, has been slow and painful deaths that took a long time to finally end. Suffering is terrible, and I feel saddened that those who choose the doctor assisted end of life route probably blow their chance at exaltation for just not enduring to the end, when the enduring has gotten too great.

What did Jesus do?

[pogi]

Personally I find the idea of an insurance company denying coverage that could possibly save a life but being willing to pay for the individual to kill themselves to be morally repugnant and in direct violation of God's commandments.

 

The idea certainly seems repugnant, I would agree.  However, we can't pretend that Dying with Dignity is the reason they are refusing to pay for chemo.  The fact is that insurance companies truly cannot afford to cover the costs of chemo for all of their patients when it can cost as much as $24,000/month - no joke!  It would bankrupt them.  The real bad-guys in this who scenario are the drug companies in my opinion.

[mfbukowski]

Mf, he's talking about the aftermath. What loved ones, or whomever comes on the scene, will have to see. It's not a pretty picture, there is a less gruesome way to go.

But I also said I would never do it.  It was a hypothetical, showing an extreme example of how easy it is to die selfishly without dignity.  There is no dignity in fear.

[mnn727]

Suffering has a purpose and it can change your life for the better.

 

But I guess many will never learn that lesson.

 

 

And if you die at the end of your suffering what lesson will you have learned?

[pogi]

My statements was what is called a "CONDITIONAL" statement.   In layman terms that means that it started with the word "IF".

 

I understand what a conditional statement is.  I just can't figure out why you would offer it if not to trivialize the legislation and situation of others when you assure us that it will never be a condition for you. 

 

Suicide is a selfish act caused by fear of pain.  

 

You could be no more wrong if you are talking about my patients and their situations.

 

to describe encouraging people to live without faith in God and end their own lives voluntarily.   It is not a "good" nor should one be helped to break the commandments.

 

Sometimes it takes more faith to step into the darkness then to walk in the light.  I don't believe that God has any commandments specific to this situation.  I do believe that it should be a personal choice that one should make after seeking the will of God, and not my choice or your choice. 

 

I would also never encourage anybody to end their life, I would educate them about the option if it was available however.   I would encourage them to consult with their doctor, their families, and their God if it is something they desire to pursue.  

Edited November 4, 2014 by pogi

[ksfisher]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes it takes more faith to step into the darkness then to walk in the light.  I don't believe that God has any commandments specific to this situation.  I do believe that it should be a personal choice that one should make after seeking the will of God, and not my choice or your choice. 

 

"Thou shalt not kill" would seem to apply.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

"Thou shalt not kill" would seem to apply.

 

God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said, "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted--by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. 

[pogi]

"Thou shalt not kill" would seem to apply.

 

The notion of a duty not to kill seems at first to rule out euthanasia of any kind, and those who oppose euthanasia sometimes seem to think that all they need to do is to say 'Thou shalt not kill' in a suitably solemn voice. But we do not regard the prohibition of killing as absolute: we may think there can be justified wars or justified capital punishment, or that killing in self- defence or defence of others is justified. And it is easier to justify voluntary euthanasia than the killing in these other cases, where the person who dies does not choose to do so. 

 

http://www.euthanasia.cc/telfer.html

 

The second most used reason is ‘thou shalt not kill’, which is a command repeated several times in the Old and New Testament.  Several authors have pointed out that the correct translation is ‘thou shalt do no murder,’ distinguishing lawful killing versus murder for purposes of gain.   Based on this “eternal moral law,” the American Council of Christian Churches denounced the fifty-four clergymen who supported an euthanasia bill.  Fletcher would point out to these fundamentalists that the beatitude “Blessed are the merciful” has the force of a commandment also. (2, 92)  

According to many Jewish commentators, the death of King Saul, in 1013 b.c., is the first recorded instance of euthanasia.  King David put to death the man who killed Saul. (I Samuel 31:1-6).(4, 116)  However, in Judges it is recorded that an armor-bearer assisted Abimelech’s death, so no one would say a woman killed Abimelech, and there is no mention of punishment or condemnation for Abimelech or for his faithful swordbearer. 

 

http://www.susanfleck.com/Philosophy/RS110euthanasia_w2w.htm

Edited November 4, 2014 by pogi

[pogi]

"Thou shalt not kill" would seem to apply.

 

I guess we should outlaw McDonalds and soda-pop then. 

[Calm]

Interesting that you tout pain and suffering as a means to become like the man who you believe healed the sick and suffered that all might not suffer. Jesus is so un-Christlike.

He healed a lot, but it would appear not in significant enough numbers that it was noted in official records that leprosy and other diseases no longer existed in Palestine so he did not remove every case surrounding him as he could have, especially if he had worked at it all of his adult life instead of just at times during the last three years of it.

He doesn't seem to have done anything to avoid it himself either.

[Calm]

"Suicide is a selfish act caused by fear of pain. There is nothing "dignified" about being so fearful of pain that one kills oneself rather than experience it. It is not what one does who lives in faith of God's miracles."

What of those who claim to choose suicide to remove an intolerable in their opinion burden from their family...such as in dying so as not to leave medical bills that would reduce a spouse to living in poverty or being unable to get the medical help needed for them to have a decent life?

Do you believe that these are rationalizations to excuse their acts based on fear for themselves (I have no doubt that some do this, at this point I don't see a reason to assume that all who say this is why are lying to themselves but am wondering if you do see one...due to experience or something else).

But then I remove myself from the view of the family and stay in my room on bad days that are just endurance where others can't help because I figure one person suffering is enough so I see it as a possibility I am projecting that attitude on others....

Edited November 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't see Jesus' death as suicide even if he had control over it. He didn't die IMO to avoid anything but because his mortal work was done and to extend his life was to delay his work in immortality. It would be more in line to a soldier as part of his calling to defend others putting himself in harm's way and allowing natural consequences of that choice to occur.

I wonder if at times there are individuals who are able to essentially do the same. They are aware their work is at an end, put their affairs in order and then die of causes they could not have predicted. This happened with my grandfather. He was about to retired (when death rates do go up btw) and had worked to make sure that all the patriarchal blessings he had given were typed up and properly filed, the last of his affairs he needed to see organized. He died on that day walking home after work from a heart attack.

My mother in law died a month after her husband though in better health and younger at his death. She had suffered a brain injury many years before, had been dependent on him for her needs and while other family members stepped in to care for her, just faded once he was gone.

If I accept that this happens due to a choice of the individual's where they are aligning their will with God's, I see it as another possibility that this may happen not only by some sort on unconscious action on the body by mind and spirit, but that it might also in some cases occur where it was a more conscious choice such as refusing to take nourishment when one believes it is time.

However, given the Church's direction at this time I reserve judgment and if it ever happened I felt so inspired, I would do a lot of checking including seeking blessings from others to confirm so as to know it just wasn't wishful thinking on my part.

Edited November 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[pogi]

But then I remove myself from the view of the family and stay in my room on bad days that are just endurance where others can't help because I figure one person suffering is enough so I see it as a possibility I am projecting that attitude on others....

 

I can assure you that your "projections" are accurate and that you are not alone in this very self-less and human response. 

 

The saddest situations are when the family pretty much abandons their parents, never calls, never visits, and yet the patient is more concerned about their families welfare.  They have no light and warmth of family relations when they desperately need it the most.  They feel as if they have no purpose, no hope, nothing to give and no one even to receive, no ability to perform basic daily functions, completely dependent for everything, yet feel completely alone.   When they need their children the most, as mother's tend to do, they always give themselves for the betterment of their children - so it is often in death as well.  "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

 

For the families that are there for their dying loved ones, death is as much a gift to them as it is to the dying.  I have literally seen families rejoice at the death of loved ones.  It is one of the most touching things I have ever seen. 

Edited November 4, 2014 by pogi

[SmileyMcGee]

So you are saying, because of your semantic interpretation, that Jesus commited suicide, so it is all right for others to do so as well.

I disagree with that interpretation.

Semantic interpretation? Define suicide and tell me when it is justified. Is it not ending one's life? did someone kill Jesus? Was his death morally correct suicide because he did it for another's benefit? If I jump in front of a train to save someone knowing that I will die, is that morally correct suicide? If I have a terminal illness and I take a pill to end my life as to release my family from financial and some emotional burden is that morally wrong suicide? Please enlighten me with your superior moral framework. Edited November 4, 2014 by SmileyMcGee