Euthanasia | A Religious View

[Kilgore Trout]

Excuse me? What is?

The presumption that they know what's best for someone else.

A repeating theme.

 

[Draka]

The presumption that they know what's best for someone else.

A repeating theme.

Well, your comment about "religious arrogance" kind of struck me as off as there are obviously "religious" standpoints that support someone deciding what is best for them. Isn't arrogance just arrogance? Regardless of religion?

 

[Falvlun]

We show compassion on our dogs in euthanizing them when they are old and decrepit and in pain. So how much more should we be compassionate to other humans-- who can vocalize their wishes!-- when it is their time to go?

There are many safeguards that can be put into place to prevent abuse. Slippery slopes don't have to exist.

 

[no-body]

It has a lot to do with western cultures fear of death; we desperately try to conceal and ignore it as much as possible because it reminds us that we to will die someday.

Even from a religious stand point I don't see the motive for wanting to preserve life at all costs to the point of irrationality. Where does it say people need to be kept alive against there will for as long as possible?

 

[Alex_G]

How do you feel about Euthanasia? How does your religion view it? Do you agree with your religion and why?

Man with locked-in syndrome wants right to die | Fox News

There seems to be a perceived moral difference between the negative action of withholding treatment and allowing some1 to die, and that of taking an active role in causing the death under controlled circumstances. The former is often practiced, where as the latter is never done. This outlook also seems based on simply that fact, and not so much on considerations of wellbeing/quality of life, as the withholding of life supporting treatment is not always a pleasant or swift end for some poor souls. The damage limitation rationale employed in decisions of treatment withholding is at heart a practical one as well as a consideration for avoiding the prolongation of a hopeless and terrible quality of life for an individual. This however seems not able to adequately justify euthanasia in the minds of many people. I do think that the contrasting treatment of animals to be quite revealing.

Of course all such medical decisions are contingent on the wishes and views of the individual in question, and are to be respected as much as possible in those with capacity for the decision. It is an interesting point as to what degree extreme emotion such as depression or chronic pain can coerce an individual towards an option of termination, and thus how such a situation should be approached in contrast to the person making a decision free from such strong influences. Often a good physician should be there to inform and empathetically engage with the situation bringing the patient to the best possible decision.

I look at euthanasia from 2 different perspectives, that of the individual and that of society as a whole and its provision as a service. I most definitely can see how it is an appropriate action for many individual cases, but often the drawbacks exist in deploying it as a service, with the risks of abuse, especially in dealing with those without capacity or ambiguous wishes.
I think the cardinal worry with euthanasia is the balance of power, and whether it can be effectively controlled or justified without risking abuse. An additional point might very well be the rights of the physicians in question, to decline to perform such life terminating action if they so wish.

 

[sandandfoam]

Suppose you are having the worse day of your life and wish to end it.

Would you impose your morality at this point? If not, why not?

Please address my question.

 

[sandandfoam]

Same way it was imposed on my great grandmother. And will be imposed on my grandmother and mother if they develope such.

Scientist are searchng for cures.

Who are you to say a patient is not worthy?

There's no suggestion of imposition by me in my example.
Please address my question.

 

[Quiddity]

You think people may change their minds because they want to live? And so what if they do? If they are still of sound mind then what is the issue? It's not like euthanasia will be forced upon someone who says "no, I've changed my mind, I want to live longer even if in pain". So what's the problem here?

My only point was that things don't go according to plan when people are in pain. That's all I meant by it.

 

[Quiddity]

Pretend I've got Alzheimers. I am looking at indignity, confusion and a slow drawn out demise.
What right have you got to impose your morality upon me?

We do this as a society all the time. Whether it be via pragmatism or concensus we impose our values on others everyday.

However, in this case it's my refusal to let you die (assuming its not cancer or some other disease that is the cause of your death). In otherwords, you need assistance for basic needs like eating, going to the restroom, etc.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Euthanasia is a tricky business. It's a very difficult thing to put concrete rules down on, I can't imagine it not being done on a case-by-case basis. Blanket law just won't cut it. However, there are some things that I feel it should cover.

I think that instead of outright euthanasia, the priority should be to make a life as comfortable as possible. In terms of pain, there should be adequate pain relief. Yes, this may result in some cases of being a bit out of it on morphine, but I'd rather someone that, than be in agonising pain (as can happen with rheumatoid arthritis, for example).

I feel that the focus of doctors may need to change. Rather than doing anything within their power to keep a person alive, I feel that the focus should be to make the dying process as comfortable and easy as possible. Quality of life here is key. Everyone has to die, there is no way around that, but why should it be long, drawn out, painful, uncomfortable, when it could be short, comfortable, painless and easy. I don't mean a lethal injection, but say instead of going through procedures where the only real result is another 3 months of low-quality "life", in constant pain and discomfort, if only to chalk it up to a doctor's "success". I'm not so happy with the idea of adding weeks or even a few months on to a life being called a "success" when the person is clearly suffering.

I think there should be more resources available to people in situations where they experience such an extensive suffering from an incurable disease/illness, to help them through the dying process (in terms of counselling - it can be quite a scary prospect). Also for their loved ones - friends and family. Hell, let the grief process begin to heal while they are still together, let them be able to say all the unsaid things they'd later regret not saying, instead of "Just hold on, you'll get through it" or "We're all thinking of you, and praying you'll beat this thing", like all that matters is extending life.

Yes, life is precious. Yes, it is unique, there's no-one else that can live the life you do. I am not in any way trying to diminish that. What I am saying, is that there are cases where allowing someone to die, to be with their friends, neighbours and family, knowing that they are going to die in the next few weeks, and comfortably, with minimal suffering, is by far better than a few weeks or months on top of that, with such a low quality of life that they may well secretly wish they were dead.

And that's the thing. Why must someone suffering so, have to secretly wish they were dead? Any time someone says that (and I'm not talking about suicide cases), everyone around them responds with things like "Oh, don't talk like that", "you'll be out of this hospital before you know it", and doctors consider it a "failure" if they're unable to administer some kind of treatment to extend life for a short while.

So, I am not necessarily for euthanasia, but people should feel like they are more able to make the choice to allow the dying process to happen comfortably, with minimal suffering. I know I'd much rather have a few months of out-of-this-world-morphine-induced bliss, than a year of unending pain and discomfort, with the end result of death anyway.

So the outlines for this would be
The condition must be incurable, and get worse over time.
The person must have available to them grief and death counselling, as do their friends/family.
The person must be able to make clear their intentions and desires (i.e., of sound mind).
This must not be able to be overridden by the family once the person is unable to make the decision themselves, having made the decision previously (i.e. family telling doctors to go through with procedures anyway, when the person in question is no longer of sound mind).
EDIT (added): Every possible step must be taken to make the person as comfortable as possible, so as to minimise suffering (especially pain). Self-administered pain relief is one thing that comes to mind here.


There are probably some more that I've missed and should have included, but I can't think of any right now. This is at least part of where my thinking on the subject is.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Suppose you are having the worse day of your life and wish to end it.

Would you impose your morality at this point? If not, why not?

Having the worst day of your life is hardly the same as having the worst quality of life of your fellow human beings. Think rheumatoid arthritis or late-stage cancer, or whatever other debilitating, painful, suffering diseases and illnesses you could imagine.

 

[Quiddity]

Having the worst day of your life is hardly the same as having the worst quality of life of your fellow human beings. Think rheumatoid arthritis or late-stage cancer, or whatever other debilitating, painful, suffering diseases and illnesses you could imagine.

I realize that. My only point is that you don't necessarily have to have a good reason, only the desire to end your life.

 

[waitasec]

We do this as a society all the time. Whether it be via pragmatism or concensus we impose our values on others everyday.

However, in this case it's my refusal to let you die (assuming its not cancer or some other disease that is the cause of your death). In otherwords, you need assistance for basic needs like eating, going to the restroom, etc.

isn't that an ad hominem?
what right do you have to impose your values on others?

 

[waitasec]

I realize that. My only point is that you don't necessarily have to have a good reason, only the desire to end your life.

what are you talking about?

 

[Quiddity]

isn't that an ad hominem?
what right do you have to impose your values on others?

I'm fairly certain it's not.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I realize that. My only point is that you don't necessarily have to have a good reason, only the desire to end your life.

I would argue that it's not necessarily the desire to end your life, as much as it is a desire to not experience the suffering you're experiencing currently. In some cases, the only way to do so might be to allow the person to die.

 

[Quiddity]

what are you talking about?

Euthanasia isn't just a discussion about terminal illnesses but about people who are in a certain condition and death is not imminent. With regard to terminal illnesses where death is imminent and sure, then I probably wouldn't puposefully pro-long it (unless of course he wanted to say bye to a relative).

 

[Quiddity]

I would argue that it's not necessarily the desire to end your life, as much as it is a desire to not experience the suffering you're experiencing currently. In some cases, the only way to do so might be to allow the person to die.

By suffering you mean "physical pain"?

 

[Draka]

You know, I was just thinking it's amazing all these "rights" we have. We have the right to do all kinds of things to our own body. We can tattoo it, cut it, scar it, pierce it, even sell it for sex in certain places. We can get plastic surgery, liposuction, and boob jobs. We can do dangerous things like sky diving, bungee jumping, cliff jumping, hang gliding, and so on and so forth. We have the right to our own body enough that if anyone violates it through things like assault and rape they go to jail. However, for some reason, we don't seem to be given the right to do something to our own body that would cause our death. We have a right to life, but we don't have the right to end that life. Why is that? We come into this world without the choice of whether we live or not, why do we not at least have the choice of when and how we die? Granted, someone taking their own life may be considered tragic and sad to others, but all in all, did they not have the right to decide to die? Just food for thought.

 

[waitasec]

I'm fairly certain it's not.

so what right do you have to impose your values on others?