Topical Chestnut#n: The right to life and death

[Sheriff Lytton]

Can anyone here help fulfill an athiest's curiosity ?

There's a discussion that's been going on a while in the Think-Tank that's started to wander more into this sort of territory. It's the Terri Shiavo thread here and we're on the subject of living wills and how the words of Christ may or may not apply to the whole situation.

What I'm curious about is how those of any faith feel on the subject of euthanasia/suicide in the face of vegetation, great suffering etc. and what their personal preference would be.

And from the athiest quarter, I'm pretty much wondering the same thing.

My view is you can take my tube out in the event of my being in a permanent vegetative state. And if I'm going to have a slow, agonizing death I'd rather check out when I've had enough, thanks all the same.

But what say all of you ?

[lurch]

...Not from an atheist,,but, more from a follower of no organized religion..I see it as ,,I have all the respect for Life,,and I have no problem with those who go to extremes for it..I just don't understand how it is that the same ,,don't do it for Death.
..Death with dignity,,personal choice as to how and when,,deserves just as much passion as Life,,Death Is Part Of Life Afterall. We accept sending our sons and daughters off to War,,looking death square in the face,,but Life is somehow above all that...???...There is just too much contradiction in the whole religious arguement.
..If one is going to " live" life,,then there Will Be Risks. Know them and deal with'em. We are not supermen and superwomen. Our body's and our minds fail us. If natural selection was still prevalent,,i suspect medicade and social security wouldn't be the hot issues that they have become. But our medicine has out paced our " moral code."..As a result,,individually,,you,,I , and apparently many others here,,have had the experience of having to make a " God Decision."..well,,if you want advanced medicines and machinery,,thats the price. It still is a individual private decision,,and should be left there.
...There has to be a recognition of what is real. I have already posted on asking a doctor,,how many breathes are really his( if he wasn't on the breathing machine),,how much brain activity is required for consciousness,,kidney and liver functionality,,etc,etc. The answers to those technical questions can lead one to an understanding of the actuall medical/scientific analysis..that tells you just how " alive" a loved one is or isn't. If Faith in Your God Trumps that analysis,,then you deal with it.
.... As to my lack of " humanity"..wrong. That there are modern tools that did not exist 50 years ago,,that can help determine what is the actual state of a dieing person,,is no reflection on lack of humanity. There is still a decision made,,and from my experience..humanity was running all down my face. Yet,,i have not heard of any body,,talking about when a loved one was on a respirator or life support,,and came back to good health. I believe it happens,,and happens alot..but for some reason..pro-lifers aren't camped out in front of those hospitals throwing partys for the dailey quotient of patiences leaving Intensive Care , headed for regular care rooms....
....Death awaits us all..its part of life. The only difference now,,is,,that we can hold it back,,put it in check,,way lay it. But,,sooner or later,,the individual has to deal with it. When the issue blooms beyond the individual and his/her family,,imho..is sure sign that its all about something else besides the universal inevitable............MEL

[Sheriff Lytton]

.... As to my lack of " humanity"..wrong.

Sorry Lurch, I never really suspected you suffered from a lack of humanity, just an occasional tendency for mistimed dark humour, a condition with which I myself occasionally struggle

[Plissken]

I'm not quite an atheist, but if there is a soul, what is two weeks of starving to death going to do to it that 15 years of being trapped in a non-responsive body hasn't?

I was going to post a couple more points here, but I'd rather have an answer to this question.

[dlbpharmd]

It seems like we've discussed this before but I can't find the thread. As someone who deals with these types of issues on nearly a daily basis, I can say that I oppose outright euthanasia, but I also realize that euthanasia happens more often that we realize.

A mentor of mine once told the story of a patient with advanced Lou Gehrig's disease. Before he became immobile and non-comunicative he asked his physician to end his life. The MD approached my mentor, and after discussing it together and with the patient and his wife, my mentor obtained a sufficiently lethal quantity of morphine and administered it. Now, this was done years ago, and there was some questions asked but no charges were ever brought.

When he told me that story I have to admit that I was troubled by it, and I still am today - but I'm not sure why. We do the same for our pets - we put down horses with broken legs, etc. Why not something equally humane for our fellow man? Yet at some conscious or sub-conscious level I'm not sure I could do it. It must be related to my fundamentalist raising, otherwise I simply don't know how to explain it.

[Kymbierlee]

As a Pagan, I believe in respect for all life. I believe in reicarnation and another, hopefully better, life to come. I don't believe in putting that better life off for 15 years of needless suffering if the diagnosis is definitively "persistant vegitative state." Like Lurch said, we euthanize our pets out of compassion, but we won't do the same for fellow humans who, if left to "God's will" would have been dead long before. The so called miracles of modern medicine intervene in the natural process of life and death every day, so why does the right wing have a problem when it is (finally) determined to let nature take it long delayed course? If there is hope, or brain-wave activity, or it has only been a short time, sure- keep the tube in and pray for a miracle. But 15 years......shudder.........I pray to my Goddess that my family never does that to me. It's not for Terri's benefit that her mother and father are fighting to keep her alive- it is for their own. I know it is heart wrenching to let her go, and I might be tempted to act the same way if faced with my daughter's death, but if my Katy was like poor Terri, I'd have to allow her to go peacefully. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. BTW- I speak only for myself, not for all Pagans.

[dennisrwood]

as a practicing catholic, I will give you the Church answer, as it mirrors my own.

as long as there is brain activity, life must be preserved. as Pope John Paul II suffers, our Saviour suffered. the short time we have here is nothing compared to the greater reward. we reject the culture of death in all it's forms. abortion, murder, euthenesia, capital punishment. God is the one who chooses when we die, we should not short circuit that. once the brain dies, the body should be allowed to die as well.

[Avatar]

Dlb, there were two threads in fact, IIRC, "Suicide and the Right to Death", and "Euthanasia without Consent", both in the Think Tank, but both dead for a good long while now.

Happy to discuss it here instead, as you probably guessed.

Plissken-- Nothing as far as I'm concerned. Hell, as you all know, I'm in favour of euthanasia. In fact, I prefer active euthanasia, where steps are taken to painlessly hasten the death of the body, to the passive kind, which is what is occurring in this case, where she's simply being "allowed to die" rather than "killed".

Apparently the moral distinction is important, but I think its probably more for the benefit of the conscience than anything else.

Dennis-- Although I see what you're saying, I think you're perhaps glossing over an important point. If it was up to god, she would have died fifteen years ago when she suffered a massive heart-attack that robbed her brain of oxygen so completely that she spent the next fifteen years in a vegetative state.

It is by providing medical care that we are short-circuiting gods will, if that's the way you want to feel about it.

Dlb-- Utmost respect to your mentor. That is the way that it should be done. Sobre consultation with patient and family (if the patient wants them included), make sure that this is really what they want, and go ahead and do it quietly and with dignity.

In fact, I could argue that the Hippocratic oath demands it. Forcing the patient to undergo discomfort, even pain or agony for an indeterminate period of time, until their ravaged bodies finally collapse under the weight of it, especially against their will, must certainly constitute "doing harm"?

--Avatar

[matrixman]

Dennis-- Although I see what you're saying, I think you're perhaps glossing over an important point. If it was up to god, she would have died fifteen years ago when she suffered a massive heart-attack that robbed her brain of oxygen so completely that she spent the next fifteen years in a vegetative state.

It is by providing medical care that we are short-circuiting gods will, if that's the way you want to feel about it.

That also sums up my response. Also, Dennis, I'm sorry you feel that what you see at KW is a "culture of death" but I think that is an extreme label. I see the talk here simply as open-minded discussion. C'mon, man, we're all decent folk here (except, er, maybe those who've been banned, heh).

[Nathan]

God is the one who chooses when we die, we should not short circuit that. once the brain dies, the body should be allowed to die as well.

Is it really so easy to thwart God's purpose?

[Avatar]

Hmm, an interesting question. You suggesting that gods purpose isn't so easily averted by man? Or that perhaps gods purpose includes the actions of man in it?

In which case, wouldn't that include the removal of the feeding tube?

--A

[Nathan]

Precisely. You covered the two options nicely. There's also a third though: If God's purpose is so disagreeable to you, then should you really be worshipping him?

[Cail]

Interesting point Nathan, but is it realistic to expect to like everything He does? Is it realistic to expect to even understand everything He does?

[Fist and Faith]

But, Cail, how else would you decide whether or not to follow Him? Do you know what I mean? "I don't like that God does X. And I didn't like when He did Y. And the policy of Z seems wrong to me. But I'll follow Him and do what He says anyway." Why? This is why I would not follow the Christian God that some believe exists - the one who asks someone to sacrifice his son just to prove his obedience, and who sends people like me to horrific pain for all eternity. It may not be realistic for me to expect to like everything He does, but it's not realistic to expect me to follow, much less love!, such a God.

Although, as I've said before, I see such things as proof that that particular view of God doesn't exist. I don't have problems with the Christian God Furls believes in, or the non-Christian God(ess) that others believe in, even if I don't have reason to believe they exist. But if I did have reason to believe one or another of these Gods existed, being a follower wouldn't be a big problem, because they do not offend my sense of right and wrong.

[Cail]

I see what you're saying, but I don't expect anyone to understand God's plan. I think that's the difference. Do I like the fact that 300,000 people have been killed in Darfur? Absolutely not, but as a human with a human point-of-view, and human limitations, I can't see "the big picture". I understand and accept my limitations. I don't see that as God's fault, but as mine. And that, I think, is the difference between believers and non-believers.

What is important to me is the message, and I like the message. I don't expect everyone else to, and I respect others' beliefs.

[Fist and Faith]

I think I understand your view as well. But I don't understand how one arrives at your attitude of acceptance. Where would my faith in God's ultimate goodness would come from if I became convinced that the God of Hell and sacrifices existed? With the limitations (although I don't see it as an issue of "fault" - just different kinds of existence) and sense of right and wrong that I have, how could I possibly go from "Hell?! Sacrifices?!" to "I believe this God is all-good and all-loving, and I will follow Him." How did you do it?

Please understand, I do not think your beliefs are wrong in any way. I'm not trying to talk you out of them, and I'm sure you won't be talking me out of mine. My goal is nothing more than understanding you. I like to understand what others believe, and why. Partly curiosity, partly to avoid misunderstandings in the future, partly because it's part of my journey.

[Cail]

Well, if you're talking human sacrifices, my church hasn't condoned that for millennia. I do believe in Hell, but in a very narrow fashion. For example, I believe Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al are roasting there as we speak, but I don't think that people who work on Sundays have much to worry about.

I also don't really see it as an issue of acceptance, more of an awakening. I see God's work all around me. It's really that simple, so for me, I can't deny His existence.

[nuk]

In answer to the original question, from an atheist's point of view:
I think our lives belong to ourselves, not to society or (obviously, from my perspective) a supernatural being. It is fully my option to commit suicide or to instruct my family to let me die if I become a vegetable. Of course, if my family/friends think I'm temporarily insane, it's reasonable for them to try to stop a suicide attempt. But if I've simply been miserable for thirty years and don't want to live anymore, forcing me to live is rather like slavery.

[Sheriff Lytton]

Well, if you're talking human sacrifices, my church hasn't condoned that for millennia. I do believe in Hell, but in a very narrow fashion. For example, I believe Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, et al are roasting there as we speak, but I don't think that people who work on Sundays have much to worry about.

I also don't really see it as an issue of acceptance, more of an awakening. I see God's work all around me. It's really that simple, so for me, I can't deny His existence.

My apologies, Cail. I could have sworn that somewhere on the Watch I once heard you describe yourself as an athiest. I must have confused you with someone else ! No offence meant.

[Cail]

Former athiest, former agnostic, former born-again Southern Baptist, current Catholic. Easy mistake to make.