Death With Dignity

Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.
Avatar

  1. Well said. I belive good people can make good desicions, and that they do not need me to tell them what to do and think.
    Maybe the difference is that I think I have an opinion, not a law or direct message from God.
    But then these folks also seem to think that freedom means ‘to do as the close minded tell you to do’, rather then letting us all live our own lives as long as we harm no others.
    I am interested though in how legal assisted suicide will change the way life insurance is done.

  2. It has always seemed to me that the right to decide whether you want to be alive is pretty fundamental.
    That said, I’m also concerned that if assisted suicide is available, there will be encouragement to use it – and we’ll have to wonder if that elderly person or terminally ill person really made their choice freely, or was under pressure from somebody.
    I have no easy answer for this, though. But it seems to me that there are situations where someone can validly decide that he or she no longer wishes to be alive, and that if one is not allowed to make that decisions, one is not really free in any meaningful sense of the word.

  3. In some respects I’d agree with you, but then I wonder about the converse. (I sense I’m going to blow this). By the converse, I’m trying to say, I certainly don’t want the “State” to set the standard for me and mine. There may be some degree of misunderstandin in interpreting Mahoney, that is to say, he may not be saying “that his church’s stand on this issue should therefore be the standard for everyone in the state.” But rather he fears that legalizing assisted suicide/euthanasia is one step too close to mandating euthanasia on and by regulations promulgated by the “State”. Put another way, you can always stay out of my church and stop my church from dictating to you, but why don’t I have an equal right to stop your State from dictating to me?

  4. Glide, if that were true there wouldn’t be a problem. But Mahony, et al, can’t be happy with minding their own business, as in the case of Oregon’s implementation of a voter approved assisted suicide plan.

  5. This is a very personal and family decision. I had a former in-law that had a very long and protracted case of ALS. One of the things she did as the rest of her body went beyond her control was to create, write and dictate hymns. As she went on assisted breathing and her voice was going away she had her family and minister be with her as her assisted breathing was turned off and a drug to suppress the gag reflex and some morphine was given. She passed on as she wanted to, surrounded by her family.

  6. If the type of law that Oregon has is the kind of assisted suicide, then I am more comfortable with that. The issue I have with what some would want is being able to make sure that the ill person has the mental ability to understand what they are requesting and to understand what medical options have been exhausted. Also, I fear that a poorly crafted death with dignity law may open the door to fake requests showing up after elderly die. There needs to be plenty of documentation that this is absolutely what this person wanted, and not something that others recommended.

  7. I’m not sure I’m so much in favor of this.
    Much can be done to allieviate suffering during the terminal phases of illness–though the medical community is not often aware of this. And it is suffering that the dying say they fear, more so than the death itself. The dying process itself is of course difficult, but it can also be an illuminating time for dying patients—something they would miss if they cut it short via suicide.
    And, in spite of being generally in favor of individual rights, I’m not sure I would extend them so far as to endorse suicide, even among the terminally ill. I suspect there are reciprocal obligations between society and the individual, and that suicide may well violate this obligation.

  8. Glide 625: You seem to be saying that the State’s allowance of an action mandates it; which is why you think the Pope has good reason to oppose the proposal. But the proposal is to allow for a choice. And a choice is not a mandate. And choices by themselves do not set standards. To quote you:
    “Put another way, you can always stay out of my church and stop my church from dictating to you, but why don’t I have an equal right to stop your State from dictating to me?”
    As a member of the States, you absolutely do have an equal opportunity to repeal or defend the proposal–by means of lobbying, voting, or getting elected. Members of the Catholic Church have no such luck (–Lemme clarify–members of the orthodox Catholic Chruch.). Their Pope receives word directly from God. His word is law, with no chance to vote, repeal, or lobby.
    The (again, key word: orthodox) Catholic Church is in no way a democracy. Your local and federal government is. Or at least as close as is workingly possible. So to say that the State would impose or dictate those choices on you seems ridiculous to me. You are part of the State and part of its voice. But unless you receive word directly from The Dude Above, you are not part of the Catholic Church’s determining voice.
    Alan: What are some examples of reciprocal obligations between society and individuals that suicide might violate?

Read Next

Sugar and Spice

Sliding Sidebar