Amidst passage of physician-assisted suicide law, hope remains

After a long and hard fought battle on the part of the Colorado Catholic Conference and the No on Prop 106 campaign, Colorado voters overwhelmingly voted for the passage of Proposition 106 on Nov. 8.

Proposition 106 passed with 65 percent of the vote, according to early results. The ballot measure is a medical aid in dying measure that will allow adults suffering from terminal illness to take life-ending, doctor-prescribed medication. Colorado joins four other states, including Oregon, California, Washington and Vermont, in having legalized such a measure.

The Archdiocese of Denver was the primary supporter of the No on Prop 106 campaign, promoting the Church’s teachings of recognizing the dignity of all life from conception until natural death. Proponents of the bill described it using language such as “death with dignity,” while opponents coined it physician-assisted suicide.

So disappointed. Compassion and Choices, the group behind this prop, used to be The Hemlock Society. Word choice matters.

I’m disappointed too. The group asked the local paper to not use the word “suicide” and the editor refussed. He said something along the lines that he uses a dictionary and while words can be redefined, that taking your own life is the current definition of suicide. Unfortunately many people swallowed it up the same way they swallow up “pro choice”. They hold the right to choose as higher than the duty to protect lives.

I’d heard there was a negative editorial about the prop in the Denver Post, and thought that was a really good sign. I also saw a lot of yard signs. Evidently, I was wrong. I also heard this prop has been pushed three times previously, but this time there was a lot of money pumped into it. I don’t think it can really be said anymore that Colorado is a true battleground state. We’re the experimental test ground for progressive ideas.

I thought the same thing. I have seen many signs against it, but nothing really for it. I don’t watch broadcast TV so maybe that was where the push was, but I thought it was dead from the get go. Oh, how I was wrong.

I’d agree that CO isn’t really a battle ground. The influence of Denver/Boulder is too great for the rural areas and the Colorado Springs and Douglas County areas to counteract. The influx of people from California over the last 15 years seems to pull us more and more to the left every year. I’ve lived here my whole life but have considered moving north over the last few years. If nothing else I could sell fireworks to people from CO just over the Wyoming border. :rolleyes:

Please let us know what is your problem? Are you threatened in any way? If someone considers their life intolerable, why do you want to force them live longer than they want to? From the “outside” you seem to want to make decisions for them - just like any tyrant does. Would you welcome if someone would force you to do something that you don’t want to do?

Let me remind you of an old (but evergreen) bumper sticker: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!” and apply it to this question: “Against physician assisted suicide? Then don’t have one!”. If you wish to respected, give the same respect to others, even if you disagree with them.

Vera, I applaud your approach. I do not need the government to pass laws forbidding me from doing an act that I consider to be a sin. My choices in these matters are for me to make, not for the government to force upon me!

No one here is disrespecting you.

If you support physician-assisted suicide, then they are disagreeing with you.

Your post seems to imply that disagreeing with physician-assisted suicide means disrespecting the opinion. Nope. Just means disagreement.

I don’t have time to post a reply to the rest of your post but will try to come back later, when I don’t have to reply on my phone! :o

Why is this prop more respectable than helping someone jump off a bridge?

Of course, people can jump off a bridge with no help from a physician. This is much worse, because it makes killing a patient a ‘standard of care’ for physicians. Most doctors, I would hope, do not want to kill their patients. And if they are terminally ill, a hospice can provide good care, particularly a Catholic hospice.

I worry about this because once killing the patient becomes a standard of care, then it is only a matter of time before doctors will be forced to adopt the practice or risk losing their license. At the very least, if your doctor won’t kill you, he will be required to refer you to someone who will.

The Hippocratice Oath used to begin with “First, do no harm.”

The culture of death marches on.


Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

I know, and I never implied otherwise. I am totally uninvolved in the case. The disrespect is the attempt to make physician assisted suicide illegal - and as such subject to retribution.

Absolutely. And I respect that disagreement, as long as it stays on the intellectual level of having a different opinion. The problem comes when such disagreement becomes grounds of introducing laws to make such assistance illegal.

Agreed, and I hope this current post clarified the matter. As long as we respectfully disagree there is no problem. The problem comes if one party (either one!) wishes to impose their opinion to become the “law of the land” and make the dissenting stance to become unlawful - and as such punishable.

What? It only just passed on Tuesday. How is it disrespectful to say your life has value? Is it a perceived attack on our free-will to say our lives have value and that we didn’t create ourselves? That throwing in the towel is the dignified thing to do? This makes no sense to me.

Taking God out of the picture, how can we say we own ourselves if we didn’t even create ourselves? I mean, frankly, if anyone had a right to end our lives, on a strictly biological level, it would be our parents. The idea of ownership of our bodies doesn’t make much sense. It makes some, but not much. It completely forgets how we came into being; totally at the mercy of two other individuals. (Sometimes three now, depending on who you are.)

I would rather have someone encouraging me through a trial and telling me I can do it and get through it, than someone who says I’m an adult and can make my own choices. It’s farcical to think that by the time I’m a geriatric (probably with Alzheimers), I won’t be encouraged to end my own life.

Some have hope in Christ, but we as a nation have lost our hope. Death on the front and tail-ends.

To say something and to act on it are two different things. You are welcome to say your opinion, but you are NOT welcome to be a self-appointed overseer over others and dictate what others can and cannot do.

Our children have no ownership over their bodies, because they are too immature to be granted ownership rights. But as soon as they start their own life, the right of the parents stops.

I would bet the farm that you would very quickly change your tune, if someone would start to dictate you what you can do to your own life. :slight_smile: Remember: “Do NOT do unto others what your would NOT want others do unto you”.

People already do dictate to me. Which issues of morality do you think should be dictated? Doesn’t the language of “ownership” with regards to the human person bother you?

No one can prevent suicide, it’s true, but we are fast approaching a very tenuous point where, indeed, people will be encouraged, if not forced, to end their lives. Why do you think otherwise? Did you not hear of the woman’s case in Oregon (or Washington), where insurance covered the suicide pills but not the treatment for the condition?

Not in this context. If someone would deny that I am the owner of my body - THAT would disturb me. When some nanny-state tries to limit what I can do with my own body, THAT disturbs me. By the way the phrases “MY child, MY spouse” are universally accepted, so the “ownership” is not problematic in and of itself.

To use “encouraged” and “forced” in the same context makes no sense. They are a world apart. There is no reason to be pessimistic about it.

I already asked what your reaction would be if your right to bodily self-determination would be refused? Just think it over, and tell me, please. I am genuinely interested. Use this as an example: “suppose someone needs a kidney, and yours is a perfect match. You can live with one kidney, without any problem; there is no real need for having two of them. Should the state USE you as a forced donor?”

I apologize. I wasn’t meaning to dodge your question. I am deeply offended and distressed that because some people want a doctor to prescribe suicide pills, the insurance system will catch up and I will face the scenario in fifty-five years or so of being told I am a strain on the system, and that they’ll help me pay to kill myself, but not to treat myself. I have a pre-existing condition called “mortality,” which is inevitable, so why be a burden on others when my usefulness has passed beyond recall or desire?

Is there a nanny-state preventing anyone from taking our own life right now? No one can really stop someone jumping off a bridge. What will come into being is a nanny-state that pressures us to kill ourselves. Measures like this will help create the thing you don’t want.

Why don’t we just have a ceremonial cliff instead where people can jump off? Because it isn’t decorous?

This is a totally different question. We do not talk about the insurance companies, but about the people’s right to self-determination. There is no need for some exorbitantly priced suicide pill. A cheap morphine drip is easily available and affordable.

This is only applicable to able bodied people, who can actually perform a suicide by some easily obtainable method. Most people, who say: “Stop the Earth, I want to get off” are beyond this stage. They do not want to go on, they simply want to die, preferably among their loved ones, with dignity, quietly drifting off into everlasting “sleep”. And to do that they need the ways and means, which are currently only available to doctors.

I answered your question very directly.

If they’re so far gone themselves, then why can’t they have just have their loved ones toss them over a cliff? Or state agents? It’s all about choice, right? Dying by pills is somehow more decorous, then. (People don’t always go peacefully into the good night that way either.)

Decorum is not irrelevant. We stopped public hanging in the market square.

But I have no problem with either method. Dr. Kevorkian constructed a suicide machine… it should be legal. You did not tell me what your reaction would be if the state would deny your right to self-determination. Because THAT is the important question. :slight_smile:

We stopped public hangings, and now do lethal injections, or the electric chair. Decorum is responsible for all kinds of hidden and evil deeds.

I thought I made it clear I have a very negative reaction that because others want to kill themselves, because they feel they have the right to self-determination, I would be pressured to do the same. As it stands right now, people often have the ability to kill themselves; the people who will loose the self-determination are those who do not wish that. We have a natural instinct for self-preservation. Like someone else said, “Compassion and Choices” will lead to neither compassion nor choices. Efficiency and consequentialism have a way of taking over things.

Why is it wrong to keep someone from killing him or herself? Does it make sense that we have public campaigns *against *smoking, but public campaigns *for *suicide pills? How does self-determination make sense as a rule in and of itself?

Peace and blessings. This is going down a road I cannot follow, and I urge others to have hope that their lives matter.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit