"Prolonging dying is a religious idea"
By Anne Nicol Gaylor
"To insist that someone who is suffering from a terminal illness must endure pain and anguish is not civilized. Sustaining life for a terminally ill or comatose patient has become the new religious inquisition."
I found this article on: http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/back/death.html
"To insist that someone who is suffering from a terminal illness must endure pain and anguish is not civilized."
I absolutely agree on this, and I wish somebody could name the churches and religious organisations who do not agree on that.
I know that the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant churches in the Netherlands also agree on this. Maybe there are fundamentalist religious sekts in the United States who are in favour of these opinions . I don't know.
"Sustaining life for a terminally ill or comatose patient has become the new religious inquisition."
This is simply not true. The Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant World Churches are against this sort of torture. To end a human life by stopping a medically useless treatment of a terminally ill patient is called Passive Euthanasia.
Prolonging a life just for the sake of prolonging is considered to be immoral by the Roman Catholic Church and by the Protestants Churches I know. Again maybe Fundamentalist Christian, Islam or Jewish organisations are in favour of this. I don't know any examples of such organisations. If somebody believes such utter nonsense, then how in the world can he claim to be a rational Freethinker. The facts are contradicting such statements.
Again maybe this is true for some very dark very suspect organisations, but certainly not for the major World Churches.If freethinkers want to fight fundamentalism I'm on their side. But these statements refer to religion as a whole. Therefore I say the title of this article "Prolonging dying is a religious idea" is utter nonsense and worse.
This is taken in whole from BBC.
Euthanasia - The Roman Catholic view:
"Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person."
Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae, 1995
The Roman Catholic church regards euthanasia as morally wrong. It has always taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment "You shall not kill".
The church has said that
"nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying."
Pope John Paul II has spoken out against what he calls a 'culture of death' in modern society, and said that human beings should always prefer the way of life to the way of death.
The church regards any law permitting euthanasia as an intrinsically unjust law.
The value of life:
Life is a thing of value in itself; it's value doesn't depend on the extent that it brings pleasure and well-being.
This means that suffering and pain do not stop life being valuable, and are not a reason for ending life.
The church believes that each person should enter the dying process with all its mysteries with trust in God and in solidarity with their fellow human beings; they should die with the dignity of letting themselves be loved unconditionally.
"As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God--a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion."
National Conference of Catholic Bishops (USA), 1991
The 'Right to Die':
The Roman Catholic church does not accept that human beings have a right to die.
Human beings are free agents, but their freedom does not extend to the ending of their own lives. Euthanasia and suicide are both a rejection of God's absolute sovereignty over life and death.
The church believes that each human life is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory. "The life which God offers to man is a gift by which God shares something of himself with his creature."
A human being who insists that they have the right to die is denying the truth of their fundamental relationship with God.
Refusing aggressive medical treatment:
The church regards it as morally acceptable to refuse extraordinary and aggressive medical means to preserve life. Refusing such treatment is not euthanasia but a proper acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.
Assisting suicide:
Since it is morally wrong to commit suicide it is morally wrong to help someone commit suicide.
"True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear."
Pope John Paul II: Evangelium Vitae, 1995
References
All quotations are taken from Evangelium Vitae, 1995
Refusing aggressive medical treatment:
"The church regards it as morally acceptable (!!! IvanH) to refuse extraordinary and aggressive medical means to preserve life. Refusing (!!! IvanH) such treatment is not euthanasia but a proper acceptance (!!! IvanH) of the human condition in the face of death."
Refusing such treatment is not eathanasia but etc.
I don't know the term used in the U.S for this action, but in Holland it is (was) called in the Euthanasia discussion : Passive Euthanasia.
"Refusing (!!!) such treatment is not euthanasia but a proper acceptance (!!!) of the condition in the face of death"
All right, the church does not call this "euthanasia". But the term "Passive Euthanasia" is referring to the same action of what is called a "proper acceptance ... etc."
So you provided evidence for what I was stating that the title of the article "Prolonging life is a religious idea" is contradicting the facts and therefore utter nonsense and not acceptable for a Freethinker and for everybody for that matter.
What the church calls Euthanasia is what was called in Holland
"Active Euthanasia" :
Actively ending the life of a terminally ill human being.
The church opposes Active Euthanasia
Passive Euthanasia:
Stopping a medically senseless treatment
of a terminally ill human being and as a result of this the person dies.
The Church considers this morally acceptable !!
The church does not call this Euthanasia.
When you read or hear in the media "The Roman Catholic Church opposes Euthanasia " Than these remarks that I made must be considered. Otherwise this whole Euthanasia discussion becomes a comedy of errors and misunderstandings.
Passive euthanasia is naturally not rejected by any group, religious or otherwise, that I know of. That is because it is simply the refusal of treatment in a hopeless situation; I don't see a way to argue against that. As such, it is a non-issue, and one can safely assume that any article critisising euthanasia or supporting it is talking about active euthanasia.
For example - if someone is dying a slow agonizing death from cancer, and is beyond all and any medical assistance, and furthermore is pleading for someone to end his life, what is the morally correct thing to do? I think the answer is quite obvious - the wish should be granted, the patient should be allowed to die with dignity and mercy, and not be forced to linger away in great agony and indignified incapacity for weeks or months before finally dying. We grant this mercy to any animal in the agony of a slow death without a second thought, yet when a fellow human suffers inhumanely and without hope, we hesitate. Maddness! In many cases the ending of treatment does little to ease the passing - it may hasten what would be half a year of agony to a "mere" month.
This active euthanasia is what many (the majority of?) churches oppose, and that opposition, I think, is immoral and cruel, based only on inflexible religious dogma, instead of common sense and compassion.
-Jarno
Originally posted by PyrrhoTHE issue is : where would you draw a line ?
Passive euthanasia is naturally not rejected by any group, religious or otherwise, that I know of. That is because it is simply the refusal of treatment in a hopeless situation; I don't see a way to argue against that. As such, it is a non- ...[text shortened]... eligious dogma, instead of common sense and compassion.
-Jarno
The serious Churches draw the line there were one act, medical treatment to ease the pain for instance, turns into that other act of actively and deliberately ending a person's life.
The Serious Churches draw a line there.
Now the question is ""Where do the advocates of active euthanasia draw the line" ? Do they restrict the right to ask for euthanasia to terminately ill patients only or do they want to go further. Where would they draw the line there, or maybe they do not want to draw a line at all ?
PS Seen in the light of what you said in your post and what I have been stating, how would you caracterise the claims in the above (in my first post) mentioned article : "Prolonging dying is a religious idea" and "Sustaining life for a terminally ill or comatose patient has become a new religion inquisition" ?
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Passive euthanasia is naturally not rejected by any group, religious or otherwise, that I know of. That is because it is simply the refusal of treatment in a hopeless situation; I don't see a way to argue against that. As such, it is a non-issue, and one can safely assume that any article critisising euthanasia or supporting it is talking about active euthanasia.
-Jarno
I can assure you that, even after a very lengthy discussion of years and years here in the Netherlands, the general people, let's say the Silent Majority( In Holland the silent majority is liberal and agnostic or atheist) believe that the serious churches oppose passive euthanasia.
Hence my objections to the same misinterpretations by the author of the above mentioned article. It clouds and confuses the philosofical debate and turns the debate into a political one in which gaining the upperhand is at stake and not finding the truth about the issues involved.
Ivanhoe, a few questions to respond to here;
First, I read the article, and I agree with the writer. She mentioned the religious opposition to euthanasia as "the new religious inquisition", which is a strong provocative statement, but sometimes, I think, such statements are necessary to challenge people into thinking about the issue. I do think that the religious opposition to active euthanasia is immoral, and goes against the very basic compassion that we aford without second thought to animals, yet would deny a human beeing in inhumane, hopeless suffering. This act of compassion should be the right of every human beeing in indignified and slow death strugle to demand.
I don't see the missconseption that you refer to in the article - I think that the context of the statement, following the story of her father, clearly indicates that the writer is not talking about merely the ending of treatment, but about active euthanasia, and the religious opposition to the idea that a terminally ill, inhumanely suffering patient should be able to receive assistance in taking his own life in a a dignified manner, instead of having to either shoot his brains out in a garden shed, or suffer a horrendous slow death. The opposition to this idea - at least as I read the article - was what she was talking about with the "new religious inquisition".
But where to draw the line? Of course there are bound to be borderline cases, but so it is in every human endeavour, in every major decision affecting lives. We don't close down the courts just because occasionally they might judge wrong and send innosent people to jail, because it would be an even greater tragedy to allow murderers and thiefs escape justice. We can only do our best in setting up a justice system that minimizes the risk of harming the innosent.
It is the same with euthanasia - there may be missuse, there may be cases difficult to judge, but that is no excuse for allowing the needless suffering of countless numbers of people that genuinely would gain dignity and relief in the eve of their lives through the mercy that they so desire.
Holland, I think, is a real pioneer in this, and I do hope that the rest of the world will soon follow.
-Jarno
The author of the book is stating that in order to perform euthanasia it is necessary that the person involved has asked this. That implies that he has given his consent, he approved of it.
Now what about the situation wherein the person involved is not capable of asking and he did not indicate in the past that he would want such a treatment, however he never stated the opposite either. For instance a comatose patient. Would you find it morally acceptable to perform euthanasia on such a person. He is not terminally ill and he did not give his permission.
In the case of a person in coma, I think there is no need for active euthanasia, which is the thing that all the fuss is about. If there is no consciousness, there is no suffering, and thus the question of whether to euthanise the patient is not as pressing as with a dying patient pleading for mercy. Also, the case of a comatosed patient would not require legislation allowing active euthanasia, as merely ending medical care would do the trick - as there is no consciousness, it hardly matters how the body dies.
As such, coma patients are a diffent issue - the dillemmas there are dillemmas that exist whether or not active euthanasia is legalised. The only cases in which the patient is incapable of asking for active euthanasia are the cases where active euthanasia is not strictly necessary, as consciousness is not present.
It is a difficult dillemma for the families of the patients, and I don't pretend to know where I would stand if I were faced with something like that, but then again, this does not affect the issue of whether active euthanasia right and moral, when it could give release from an inhumane condition, which would eventually lead to death anyway.
Also, I think that these kinds of dillemmas can be eased a little by preparing for these eventualities by discussing them with your family. For myself, I've informed my family of my wishes of what should be done should I lie in a vegetative state in a hospital bed without hope of recovery; pull the plug! I also carry in my wallet an organ donor card, and have discussed my views of this with my family.
-Jarno
Originally posted by PyrrhoWell, I'll tell you this. In Holland there has been a case of a woman who lost her husband and her son. She was not in a terminally ill condition because of the simple fact that she was not ill, but she was seeing a psychiatrist. The grief she had caused her to ask the psychiatrist to help her to commit suicide. The Psychiatrist granted her this wish and brought this into publicity, stating he considered this to be a case of euthanasia. The case was brought to court. The judge decided that this was against the Dutch euthanasia praxis, but the psychiatrist was not given any sentence at all. Now the advocates of euthanasia are suggesting that everybody should have the right to commit suicide whenever they want. It doesn't matter if you're terminally ill or not. It doesn't even matter if your ill.It doesn't matter if you are suffering or not. You must have the right to ask your doctor to help you to commit suicide whenever you want it to happen and unconditionnaly. The doctor has a right to refuse this proposal. He cannot be forced to help you ending your life, however you have the right to ask some other doctor. There are doctors specialising in this field. In Holland they refer to this discussion as "de pil van Drion" , "Drion's pill" named after Dr.Drion who initially proposed this procedure.
In the case of a person in coma, I think there is no need for active euthanasia, which is the thing that all the fuss is about. If there is no consciousness, there is no suffering, and thus the question of whether to euthanise the pat ...[text shortened]... rd, and have discussed my views of this with my family.
-Jarno
Regrettably the biggest obstacle to allowing people to die who have absolutely no chance of survival is not the religious community but the medical community that often practices heroic measures on patients where there will be no quality of life. It is easy to generalize and demonize certain segments (religious, medical, etc.), but I think as a whole, the public is getting much more comfortable with the idea that we were not designed to live forever. As I work with Hospice I see this first hand. Kirk
Originally posted by ivanhoeSounds like the doing of a disturbed person (the psychiatrist, I mean). But again, I reiterate what I said before; in every area of human experience where life-affecting desisions are made, there is always the possibility of abuse, some individual in power misusing his possition, or a grievous error beeing made. Our duty is to minimize the chance of these things happening, not to stop the very institutions that perform important functions just because of the occasional tragedy. Mistakes must be learned from, and abusers punished; and life goes on.
Well, I'll tell you this. In Holland there has been a case of a woman who lost her husband and her son. She was not in a terminally ill condition because of the simple fact that she was not ill, but she was seeing a psychiatrist. The grief she had caused her to ask the psychiatrist to help her to commit suicide. The Psychiatrist granted her this wish and b ...[text shortened]... van Drion" , "Drion's pill" named after Dr.Drion who initially proposed this procedure.
To use individual cases gone wrong as an excuse for inaction and thus allowing untold numbers of people to suffer needlesly is not reasonable, nor does it grant moral high ground.
I'm interested in your take on the matter - where do you stand on it? Do you think that the euthanasia law in your country should be reversed, or perhaps revised in some way?
-Jarno
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk, I agree with you that modern society places too much self-value on lifespan at the expense of life quality. But I do think that the issue you rase is a bit beside the point discussed here; active euthanasia.
Regrettably the biggest obstacle to allowing people to die who have absolutely no chance of survival is not the religious community but the medical community that often practices heroic measures on patients where there will be no quality of life. It is easy to generalize and demonize certain segments (religious, medical, etc.), but I think as a whole, th ...[text shortened]... that we were not designed to live forever. As I work with Hospice I see this first hand. Kirk
Active euthanasia is a matter for legislators, and legislators get voted in by people - people the majority of which are strongly influenced by religious organisations, which, in turn, tend to strongly oppose active euthanasia, based on doctrine.
Getting such legislation through is easier in countries where churches and religious doctrines hold less influence over people... in countries like Holland. I'd like to think that in my country, Finland, where popular opinion is also highly secular, euthanasia laws might get passed sometime in the not-so-distant future. I'm keeping my thumbs up...
-Jarno
Jarno, I promised you in a message sent with one of my moves in one of our games that I would respond within a few days to your questions about the Dutch euthanasia discussion. I want to ask people who are sensitive in regard to this subject or people who simply are not interested in this issue not to read this post. Maybe it will make you feel uncomfortable or uneasy.
Let me begin around 1970. The Dutch Euthanasia discussion starts. It started with the question: "Is it morally acceptable to end a medically senseless treatment, a treatment that is merely persuing to prolonge life with all the available medical means. Ending such a treatment was called passive euthanasia. I remember that, among other things, the prolonging of the life of the Spanish dictator Generalissimo Franco was being discussed.The comatose Franco was kept alive by artificial means because the question of his succession was not dealt with. After four, five or maybe six, I don't remember how many, long months he was allowed to die. As we all know Spain became a democracy after the death of Franco. The body of the vegetating Franco was called an empty envelope in the discussions in the Dutch media.This event, among others, speeded up the Euthanasia discussion. There was a Dutch organisation called "De Nederlandse Vereniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie"["The Dutch Organisation for Voluntary Euthanasia"] that organised a lot of forum discussions throughout the country and in the media. In the beginning it was a relatively small party of people, however it grew and grew. Doctors became members, lawyers, judges and not to forget journalists. All people we in the Netherlands call the free professions. Members became politicians to realise their political agenda. Later established politicians joined this club and a lot of established liberal businessman followed this example. These people, organised in the "Vereniging voor Vrijwillige Euthanasie" and the people in the "Humanistisch Verbond" ["Humanistic Convenant"], were the organised vanguard of the Dutch Freethinker movement. The Leader of D'66 , the Dutch liberal party and the political vanguard of the Dutch Freethinkers, was at that time Hans van Mierlo, a former liberal journalist. In a discussion about the issue he once said and I will never forget that statement "It is possible to kill out of love".
Until then I myself was an advocate of the Freethinker movement and I continued to be one for a very long time. However I remember very well that I did not feel at ease with that statement ...
To be continued.