Euthanasia?

Free discussion of anything human or divine ~ Philosophy, Religion and Spirituality

Moderators: Xar, Fist and Faith

User avatar
Holsety
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 3422
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Principality of Sealand

Post by Holsety »

Cail wrote:Sorry Holsety, I can't imagine the fact that suicide's illegal has ever deterred anyone from attempting or going through with it.
I don't mean like "oh no I might go to jail if I kill myself" sorta thing. I just figure there are people who are going to be less likely to consider suicide because of a feeling that it's wrong in one way or another impressed on them through their environment. And I assume that having suicide be against the law makes some people less comfortable with it, thus making it less likely to occur overall.

Of course, whether that necessarily makes anyone's life any better is questionable.
DukkhaWaynhim wrote:I'm not certain we should decriminalize suicide. I definitely don't think insurance companies will ever pay out for suicide, nor should they. I don't advocate suicide as a good solution to anything. BUT, similar to the way we don't prevent a person from eating doughnuts by the pound even though it is tantamount to self-assault with a deadly weapon (let's conveniently ignore the ridiculous illegal trans-fat thing in NYC, shall we?) we should not forbid someone from making a well thought-out (yet decidedly bad) decision to take their own life.

DW
I'm pretty sure some life insurance policies actually do pay out for death including suicide after a certain number of years, but I can't name any specific examples, so the argument could justifiably be made in mine own opinion that I'm completely full of shit. Just throwing it out there.
User avatar
Cail
Lord
Posts: 38981
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 1:36 am
Location: Hell of the Upside Down Sinners

Post by Cail »

Meh, it's possible I suppose, but I don't see it being much of a deterrent since you can't be prosecuted if you're dead.

No surprise, no answer from Null.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Canada’s euthanasia regime: How many more will die in the name of ‘compassion’? [Analysis, Opinion]
Image

Image
A woman holds up a sign during a rally against assisted suicide in 2016 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario. (CNS photo/Art Babych)

Casual observers may understandably believe that the law the Canadian government euphemistically refers to as “medical assistance in dying,” or MAID, is reserved for patients who have a terminal diagnosis and are experiencing unbearable suffering. But they would be mistaken.

In August, The Associated Press reported the story of Alan Nichols, a 61-year-old man with a history of depression who in 2019 was briefly hospitalized because it was thought he might be suicidal. Within a month of his hospital stay, he requested euthanasia and was killed despite protests from family members, who said he was not taking his medications and did not have the capacity to make the decision to die. “His application for euthanasia listed only one health condition as the reason for his request to die,” The A.P. reported: “hearing loss.”

[…]

But it is not only people of faith who object to the expansion of this “right” to those who do not face imminent death. In 2021 three human rights experts from the United Nations sent a formal letter to the Canadian government warning that the move would “potentially subject persons with disabilities to discrimination on account of such disability.” Tim Stainton, the director of the Canadian Institute for Inclusion and Citizenship at the University of British Columbia, has called MAID “the biggest existential threat to disabled people since the Nazis’ program in Germany in the 1930s.”

Madeline Li, a psychiatrist who has administered euthanasia and helped shape MAID protocols in Toronto, has told lawmakers that given the lack of standards for assessing mentally ill patients for euthanasia, and indeed the impossibility of knowing whether a psychiatric diagnosis is irremediable, it will be up to doctors — with their unconscious biases and imperfect value judgments — to decide which lives are worth living.

As the disturbing case of Mr. Nichols demonstrates, we will not have to wait until March to see if the worst fears of those who have warned of euthanasia’s slippery slope will materialize. Already, doctors report hearing from low-income disabled or chronically ill patients who are seeking euthanasia because they cannot afford housing or adequate treatment with the social assistance they receive from the government. Patients with disabilities say that doctors have presented euthanasia as an option unprompted and in what can feel like a coercive manner, especially in the context of conversations about the cost of care. In all, 10,000 Canadians were euthanized in 2021, up from about 1,000 in 2016 and representing 3.3 percent of all deaths in the country that year.

There is a reason the Catholic Church often speaks of abortion and euthanasia together as life issues. Both are rooted in the same lie that human dignity is so conditioned upon personal autonomy that profound dependence on others for basic needs can make a life less valuable. The only way to make death “dignified” is to recognize the incalculable dignity of those who die by caring for their needs and accompanying them in their suffering. Every death, whether sudden or long expected, peaceful or accompanied by great suffering, is the end of a unique and precious life. It will come for us all, but, in the words of Pope Francis, “Life is a right, not death, which must be welcomed, not administered.”

As we have learned over the past year following the Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs case to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, changing the law is only a first step and an insufficient response to the tragedy of abortion. The reason the language of “personal choice” is so effective, in debates over both abortion and euthanasia, is that millions of our brothers and sisters feel trapped by their circumstances or are experiencing inescapable suffering.

But if a mother feels she has no choice but to end the life of her unborn child, that is not freedom. It is a failure of family, friends, neighbors, government and society to give her and her child both the material and relational support they need. If people suffering with anorexia or deep depression, or if grandparents living in isolation and poverty believe the world would be better off without them, choosing to end their lives is not freedom. It is a manifestation of a throwaway culture that would rather discard those who suffer than accompany them. Such a choice aims more to avoid the need to face the reality of suffering ourselves than to offer mercy to others.

In Canada, where the cost of living is rising faster than welfare spending and the health care system has been crippled by the Covid-19 pandemic, some may be tempted to see euthanasia, like many things that come from the evil spirit, as a solution to a seemingly intractable problem — and thus be distracted from or ignore the harder task of investing in palliative care, affordable housing and the mental health care system. But no individual or society gets a free pass when it comes to caring for our fellow citizens, especially the most vulnerable among us. How high must the death toll rise before Canada reconsiders the cost of its so-called compassion?

If you are having thoughts of suicide, call the U.S. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (TALK) or Talk Suicide Canada at 1-833-456-4566.
Last edited by Wosbald on Tue Mar 21, 2023 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

I think there is significant grounds for decriminalising suicide and in some circumstances there are extremely compelling grounds for enabling euthanasia.

Even the Catholic church agrees on the latter.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Avatar »

Kill 'em all says I. ;)

--A
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

:LOLS:
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Assisted suicide and the bias toward libertarianism in journalism [Opinion]
Image

Image

Image
In an Oct. 26, 2015, file photo, supporters of legal physician-assisted suicide rally outside the New Mexico Supreme Court in Santa Fe. (AP/Russell Contreras, File)

The New York Times ran a story earlier this week by Lola Fadulu about Lynda Bluestein, a Connecticut woman with late-stage fallopian tube cancer who wishes to end her life. Connecticut does not permit physician-assisted suicide, so Bluestein sought to procure help in Vermont, where it is legal. Vermont, however, has a residency requirement, so Bluestein has sued Vermont, seeking to have the residency requirement deemed unconstitutional.

"Thanksgiving is typically a joyous time for the Bluestein family. Their Bridgeport, Conn., home is filled with laughter, music and even a cooking competition," the article began. "But last fall, the mood was somber. 'I think next year will be the year that Grandma will die,' Lynda Bluestein, 75, recalled telling her husband, children and grandchildren as they gathered in the living room."

You need to have a heart of stone not to be moved by Bluestein's story. And that is the problem.

Like all good journalists, Fadulu interviewed people on both sides of the contentious issue.

"It's just unfair, and it doesn't really make sense to restrict some sort of medical practice just based on ZIP code or residency," said Amitai Heller from the pro-assisted-suicide group Compassion & Choices.

"Rather than trying to address the needs of vulnerable people, we offer them the possibility of killing themselves," said Brian Kane, a senior director of ethics with the Catholic Health Association.

Obviously, my sympathies are with Kane's argument precisely because it is what the church teaches and it coheres with the value of human life and dignity that we Christians believe is integral to our understanding of the faith.

The voices of experts, however, can't compete with the emotional punch of Bluestein's comments. She recounts her own mother's final days when her mom was so fatigued from chemotherapy, she did not even want to see Bluestein and her brother. "We had no time with her at the end of her life," Bluestein said. "I don't want my children, who are now 45 and 47 years old, to have those memories of me at the very end."

This emphasis on personal, deeply emotional testimony always privileges the libertarian argument in an ethical debate. No one wants to be considered heartless, and the reporter did not interview others who might be impacted negatively by medically assisted suicide.

[…]

This same disparity between highly emotional testimony from women contemplating an abortion and the testimony of experts stalks journalistic coverage of that issue as well. The person most affected by the abortion decision, the unborn child, is never interviewed. The pro-life argument can be made by a parent or an activist or an expert, but that argument will be of a different character from the testimony of someone who has just faced a crisis pregnancy. Trying to refute someone's experience with an argument is almost impossible in a society that is anti-philosophic like American society.

Journalism is in the midst of a significant debate about how, and even whether, it can embrace the standard of objectivity. "Increasingly now, journalists — particularly a rising generation — are repudiating the standard to which we routinely, and resolutely, hold others," wrote Martin Baron, former executive editor of The Washington Post in a recent essay. "These critics of objectivity among journalism professionals, encouraged and enabled by many in the academic world, are convinced that journalism has failed on multiple fronts and that objectivity is at the root of the problem."

Baron, invoking the great journalist Walter Lippmann, defends objectivity as an essential goal of journalism, not because journalists can ever truly be free from bias, but because we can't. Quoting from the book The Elements of Journalism, Baron rightly notes: "The method is objective, not the journalist."

Baron does not address the problem I raise in this essay, the tendency to advance a sectarian cause by failing to appreciate the imbalance between a subject telling a story and an expert articulating a principle. I wish he had! The way we Americans consciously and unconsciously favor individual choice over societal claims is so deep, it is easy to ignore, especially when a person who seems most immediately affected by a given decision stakes a claim and the negative consequences of the decision are remote and mediate, but arguably just as consequential.

That is precisely the problem with coverage of assisted suicide. The only solution will be for journalists to recognize the imbalance between a first-person account and all other testimony, acknowledge that imbalance to the reader as well, and search diligently to learn about those who are affected adversely, albeit more remotely, by things like assisted suicide.

The rest of us, too, need to recognize the way certain cultural dispositions like pragmatism color our worldviews. And, as Catholics, to make sure we are forming our conscience in light of our faith with its very different biases and perspectives.


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

It’s odd that the church would weaponise “Libertarianism” in this way.

I’m no Libertarian but it’s a bit much to suggest journalism is Libertarian ~ even in nature/character.

The quote from Baron’s ‘elements of journalism’ suggests the opppsite:
The method is objective, not the journalist."
Honestly, I find it petty to lambast a dying womens wishes with
Rather than trying to address the needs of vulnerable people, we offer them the possibility of killing themselves," said Brian Kane, a senior director of ethics with the Catholic Health Association.
How can her needs be met? She’s dying painfully and slowly ~ what can Catholicism possibly offer her that will in any way assuage her needs?

It’s seems the most correct comment in this article is that religiosity and it’s blind faith comes with:
with its very different biases and perspectives
Even the Catholic church supports assisted dying where the terminally ill suffer extremely.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Skyweir wrote: […]

Even the Catholic church supports assisted dying where the terminally ill suffer extremely.
There's a sense in which this could be true, but it would all depend on what "assisted dying" means to you.

Image


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

Euthanasia … I recall you sharing some Catholicist record a few years back where basically it said euthanasia would be considered in terminally ill to minimise extreme suffering.

I remember thinking wow! That’s progressive and compassionate a response from Catholicism lol 😂
Last edited by Skyweir on Wed Apr 05, 2023 3:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Skyweir wrote: Euthanasia … I recall you sharing some Catholicist record a few years back where basically it said euthanasia would be considered in terminally ill to minimise extreme suffering.
I remember that misunderstanding, but I thought it'd gotten cleared up.

In a nutshell, if "assisted dying" means allowing someone to die, then that can be allowable. However, if it means positively killing them, then — bzzt! — it's a no-go, Stryker.

Image


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

Wosbald wrote: +JMJ+
Skyweir wrote: Euthanasia … I recall you sharing some Catholicist record a few years back where basically it said euthanasia would be considered in terminally ill to minimise extreme suffering.
I remember that misunderstanding, but I thought it'd gotten cleared up.
Nope … perhaps we need to revisit that lol 😂
In a nutshell, if "assisted dying" means allowing someone to die, then that can be allowable. However, if it means positively killing them, then — bzzt! — it's a no-go, Stryker.

Image
Death by omission not by commission lol 😂

That’s odd to me … but I appreciate the distinction.

However, if the reason for ALLOWING (on whose authority, god’s/the church as gods medium is a point) is to alleviate suffering of the terminally ill ~ it seems cruel to allow them to languish in pain when an injection can alleviate their suffering.

Would a Catholic join the armed forces & kill an opponent if commanded to do so by a military commander?

And how do you reconcile taking life with god commanding the slaying of men, women, infant, suckling and all their animals ~ which I might add, had done nothing to offend anyone 🤷‍♀️
1 Samuel 15:3
Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’”
Numbers 31: where Moses instructed his soldiers to kill all women who had ever had sex with a man, and to keep the women and girls who were still virgins for themselves. The spoils of war were then divided between the Israelite civilians, soldiers and god.
Joshua 6: 24
They burned the city with fire, and all that was in it. Only the silver and gold, and articles of bronze and iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord.
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+

Limited access to medication is 'hidden euthanasia,' pope says
Image

Image

Image
Pope Francis blesses a religious sister at the end of a meeting at the Vatican with representatives of the Religious Association of Social and Health Institutes April 13, 2023. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)

Vatican City — Failing to provide needed medication to elderly people is a "hidden and progressive euthanasia," Pope Francis said.

"So often, an elderly person needs four or five medicines, and they can only get two. This is a progressive euthanasia, because they are not given what they need to care for themselves," the pope told the leaders of religious institutes working in health care.

While financial reasons sometimes prevent elderly people from receiving the medicine they need, he said that "everyone has the right to medicine."

The pope met at the Vatican April 13 with members of the Religious Association of Social and Health Institutes, which represents more than 250 hospitals, nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and other health care centers operated by religious institutes throughout Italy.

Especially in countries like Italy, which has universal health care, the pope said Christian organizations have "the duty to defend the right to care, especially for the weakest members of society," such as the elderly and those whose medical needs are cast aside due financial or cultural reasons.

"There are people who, due to a lack of means, are not able to care for themselves," he said. "People have difficulty accessing health services due to very long waiting lines, even for urgent and necessary visits."

"These are the most important for us," said the pope. "These are the ones at the front of the line."

Christian health care institutions which were created "to care for those that nobody wanted to touch," he said, calling on the representatives to take care of those left behind by today's "throwaway culture."

Francis underscored the increased need for intermediate care in response to the "growing tendency of hospitals to discharge the sick in a short time," a practice that he said addresses a patient's immediate problems but not longer-term illnesses.

Intermediate care often refers to inpatient treatment centers for individuals who require medical attention but not the continuous care and supervision provided by a hospital.

[…]


Image
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

Agreed and I’m not a fan of a “throwaway culture” but if the church cares about the suffering of souls shouldn’t they support those who want to end their suffering?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Skyweir wrote: Agreed and I’m not a fan of a “throwaway culture” but if the church cares about the suffering of souls shouldn’t they support those who want to end their suffering?
Assuming you're talking to me, I would hafta say "no". But I suspect you already knew that.

I mean, you can't have expected me to say any different, right?

Image


Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Avatar »

What we should do is make euthanasia mandatory if you get an incurable disease or something. :D

--A
User avatar
Skyweir
Lord of Light
Posts: 25188
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Skyweir »

mmm… mandating euthanasia sounds tres Logan’s Run or even Nazi elimination program undesirable …
“unworthy of life”—people with epilepsy, alcoholism, birth defects, hearing loss, mental illnesses, and personality disorders, as well as those who had vision loss or developmental delays or who even suffered from certain orthopedic problems.

Hitler viewed them as “marginal human beings” who had to make a case for their own survival at a time when the nation was preparing for war.
Not sure such a response would ever fly ~ I can get behind people’s right to choose ~ but cannot get behind removing choice.

That would see my granddaughter deprived of life, and although battling multiple incurable disabilities ~ she at 5yo lives life to the full, she’s a total adrenalin junkie and her existence is a joy and a value-add to us her family and to those she interacts with.

And who decides? The government? And what is the criteria?? Incurable physical disability? Incurable mental disability?
ImageImageImageImage
keep smiling 😊 :D 😊

'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
Image

EZBoard SURVIVOR
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Avatar »

:LOLS:

I wasn't really being serious...just an over-reaction to people deciding that it's not up to me whether I want to end my suffering (in the event I was suffering). :D

--A
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6085
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Avatar wrote: […]

I wasn't really being serious...just an over-reaction …

[…]
Image


Image
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Euthanasia?

Post by Avatar »

Well, c'mon, a humorous one at least. (Albeit only to me. :P )

--A
Post Reply

Return to “The Close”