In case we haven't beaten the abortion horse to death yet

[Rawedge Rim]

That's another question - a distinction between killing and murder. But with a baby it is always murder.
SB already posted a couple of Orthodox statements. Yes, we do acknowledge the idea of just killing. But a baby is not such a case. It's also notable that priests may never kill under any circumstances and remain functioning priests.

and what scripture are you basing that last factoid on? Keeping in mind the difference in "Killing" and "Murder"

Hi, RR, and Happy New Year!
It ought to be obvious that most people generally agree that enemy soldiers that kill each other are not murdering each other; most tend to agree that capital punishment, whether lamented or not, is not murder. Obviously, some people in our time think abortion is not murder, but this is certainly not even generally agreed upon.

Orthodoxy has a high view, not only of Scripture, but of the Church that produced the Scripture. Scripture is not the only source of authority.
www.oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book= ... 20Doctrine
Check out Church canons.

www.incommunion.org/2009/02/26/may-christians-kill/
According to this site, it's Canon V of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

For an intelligent treatment of why we don't accept "Sola Scriptura", check out this 4-podcast series (I just finished it myself):
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_1

OTOH, GOD apparantly doesn't have that huge a problem with lawful killing, even in the New Testament...Acts specifically, and the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who apparently GOD decided needed to be removed because of lying and withholding offerings.

So to take this another step, in the case where someone is going to die, no matter what, I don't see the problem the Church should have with a physician chosing one or the other, and saving one or the other, when inaction consigns both to death.

[rusmeister]

and what scripture are you basing that last factoid on? Keeping in mind the difference in "Killing" and "Murder"

Hi, RR, and Happy New Year!
It ought to be obvious that most people generally agree that enemy soldiers that kill each other are not murdering each other; most tend to agree that capital punishment, whether lamented or not, is not murder. Obviously, some people in our time think abortion is not murder, but this is certainly not even generally agreed upon.

Orthodoxy has a high view, not only of Scripture, but of the Church that produced the Scripture. Scripture is not the only source of authority.
www.oca.org/OCIndex-TOC.asp?SID=2&book= ... 20Doctrine
Check out Church canons.

www.incommunion.org/2009/02/26/may-christians-kill/
According to this site, it's Canon V of St. Gregory of Nyssa.

For an intelligent treatment of why we don't accept "Sola Scriptura", check out this 4-podcast series (I just finished it myself):
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/ourlife/sola_scriptura_and_tradition_-_part_1

OTOH, GOD apparantly doesn't have that huge a problem with lawful killing, even in the New Testament...Acts specifically, and the story of Ananias and Sapphira, who apparently GOD decided needed to be removed because of lying and withholding offerings.

So to take this another step, in the case where someone is going to die, no matter what, I don't see the problem the Church should have with a physician chosing one or the other, and saving one or the other, when inaction consigns both to death.

There is no problem. Just don't kill anyone in the process. The whole problem is not with saving people - it's with deliberately killing people. The most important thing is not how many numbers are saved but whether you propose committing an evil in the name of doing good.

[SoulBiter]

I understand where you are coming from Rus. I just dont agree. I think its evil to let both die when you could save one. This isnt a situation where the other has a chance to live. In that situation you save the life you can. I think in a situation where you let both die you are more guilty of murder than if you tried to save one of them even if, in order to do so, what you do kills the one that was going to die anyway.

Military leaders have to make these decisions on the battlefield. (which says to me you would be unsuitable for that) They have to decide that in order to save 1000's you might have to kill 100's. In certain situations they might send 1 or 2 people out to certain death so an entire squad lives, etc etc. Its kind of (ok this is the geek in me coming out) like the Star Trek New Gen episode where Troi keeps failing her command test and cant figure out why until the end.. when she figures out that she has to sacrifice a life to save the ship. She could not move to command rank until she showed that she could make that choice.

You teeter very near the edge of not even allowing doctors to do 'risky' surgury to try to save a life. If the odds are against it working, its sounds as if you would say, then they should just die so that the doctor doesnt have a death on his/her hands.

Just an FYI - I respect that you hold to your beliefs and the authority of the Orthodox Church very strongly and I respect your belief that this action was wrong. I disagree but I respect it none the less.

[Prebe]

Hey Prebe,
Let's cut through the phoney-baloney: Tell me you do not think the things you think true and I'll withdraw my use of 'dogmatic' in regards to you.

I thought you didn't like simplifications and soundbites Rus? But perhaps that's just when YOU are asked to answer a simple question.

The definition you quote uses the term "truth" which I, as you know, do not see as absolute.

Of course I think my opinions are "true" in a relative term. I simply accept that another "truth" may come along and change my view. Unlike you.

As for "adhering to a philosophical tenet" Yes, I adhere to a scientific philosophical tenet, which I regard as superior to all other philosophical tenets because it is based on observations (depending on the present state of the art) and is falsifiable.

So yes, if you consider truth as relative and you agree to acknowledge the fundamental difference between scientific philosophy and all other "book based" philosophies, I'm dogmatic acording to the definition you posted. I fail to see though, how anyone would NOT fall within that category.

[rusmeister]

I understand where you are coming from Rus. I just dont agree. I think its evil to let both die when you could save one. This isnt a situation where the other has a chance to live. In that situation you save the life you can. I think in a situation where you let both die you are more guilty of murder than if you tried to save one of them even if, in order to do so, what you do kills the one that was going to die anyway.

Military leaders have to make these decisions on the battlefield. (which says to me you would be unsuitable for that) They have to decide that in order to save 1000's you might have to kill 100's. In certain situations they might send 1 or 2 people out to certain death so an entire squad lives, etc etc. Its kind of (ok this is the geek in me coming out) like the Star Trek New Gen episode where Troi keeps failing her command test and cant figure out why until the end.. when she figures out that she has to sacrifice a life to save the ship. She could not move to command rank until she showed that she could make that choice.

You teeter very near the edge of not even allowing doctors to do 'risky' surgury to try to save a life. If the odds are against it working, its sounds as if you would say, then they should just die so that the doctor doesnt have a death on his/her hands.

Just an FYI - I respect that you hold to your beliefs and the authority of the Orthodox Church very strongly and I respect your belief that this action was wrong. I disagree but I respect it none the less.

Thanks, SB. It's really rare that I get one of those "your position is rational but I disagree". I usually get other, less complementary responses. So thank you!

The trouble I have is with your analogy. It is to something (the military in wartime) where a decision to kill can lawfully be made in my book. And again, I distinguish between hard decisions where a commander leaves men to die, and where he orders the murder of his own men. The one is not murder - he is taking no action to kill his men, while the other is (such as Soviet commanders in WW2 ordering their own men shot down if they attempted retreat). And none of that is analogous to the doctor, who is presumably operating under a Hippocratic oath to kill no one.

And no, I absolutely do not condemn risky surgery if there is no safer alternative - if the effort is to save human life and not kill it. The doctor is doing the best he or she can, sometimes under horribly difficult circumstances. There are real heroes in the ER sometimes!

[aliantha]

I thought it might be useful to pull up the text of the Hippocratic oath. Wikipedia to the rescue!

A widely used modern version of the traditional oath was penned in 1964 by Dr. Louis Lasagna, former Principal of the Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences and Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University:

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."

The same page includes the text of the original oath (I suspect you'll have some issues with the first paragraph, rus :

Original, translated into English:
“ I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."