Your oversimplification didn’t work and you didn’t answer his questions directly. For one who doesn’t know about redemptive suffering what you said was incomplete and needed further clarification.
I read the PDF. I am not catholic, I’m agnostic and see no redemption in agonizing suffering. However, I realize many Christians do. They are under no obligation to participate in the Death with Dignity bill. It even specifies that those that do not wish to participate are under no obligation to do so.
I do agree that it is suicide. One could argue, I guess, how suicidal it is if you are certain you only have 6months or less to live. Most patients are aware when they are close to death. The way this bill is written, Alzheimer’s patients do not qualify. They must be of sound mind to attempt the procedure. For someone like me, I am very in favor of this bill. One of my biggest fears is not being in control of one of the most personal experiences of ones life…their death. For those like me this bill is very welcome. I understand the catholic opposition and for them, it is appropriate that they would decline to use it. I, however, want this choice.
Everyone already is.
I’m not sure what you mean? I’ve witnessed many deaths in the ICU and believe me, many are not in control of what is happening to them.
VV meant that everyone already is not in control.
Which is to say that we do not have control over our death.
Why should we expect to?
Everyone actually can…via suicide. But, yes, I misunderstood what VV was trying to say. We don’t pick the time in general or the illness but once in that position, why shouldn’t I be able to control what I still can? Often people will try to be at home or decide they want hospice care. If I still am able to have some choices, why shouldn’t I?
I realize that Alzheimer’s patients wouldn’t benefit from the bill, but still strongly disagree with the notion that there’s anything digified or good about suffering. My father has Alzheimer’s, and I don’t see anything dignified or good about his suffering or his family’s suffering as he descends into dementia.
I also have a fairly young relative with a likely terminal case of cancer and don’t see anything good about his suffering either. I also think that people who want them should have options besides just enduring the pain to the bitter end.
Yup, me too.
I don’t think the church’s position is that suffering is itself dignified or good. What is good is bearing suffering with great dignity.
Well, it’s sad that right now alcoholism, drug use, and suicide as a category are a leading cause of death. Then instead of addressing those concerns or even acknowledging them we now have this irrelevant bill.
The political system is broken in this country. It just looks like one side antagonizing the other. Both sides look at the stock market and say all is well. Instead of potentially offering solutions like better hospice care, which costs money, or mental health support one side does the most capitalist thing ever ie just end your life.
Is there really a constituency for this? Again, who is it supposed to appeal to? How long before it becomes a slippery slope for other forms of terminating life?
This is all just a distraction. Both sides do it. Really, the best thing to do is stick to your Faith and your local community. Ignore the white noise or static.
Don’t answer to atheists in their dialogue or believe in their brainwashing. Look at life through the lens of experience.
On a Catholic Forum, particularly in the category of Apologetics - Moral Theology, we should of course expect a defense of life from conception to natural death. The thing is, however, not everyone is Catholic or Christian in general. Now, as you no doubt realize, Judaism also forbids euthanasia or assisted suicide, regardless of which stream (denomination). But again, not everyone is Jewish. And even those who are Catholic or Christian (in general) or Jewish, may not personally agree with this tenet. And what of people who are of other faiths which allow euthanasia (are there any?), or who are agnostic or atheist? Should they have no individual, or religious, rights to terminate their own life of suffering due to a terminal or progressive disease? True, even in the secular world, the right determination needs to be made by the individual and/or their family so that we are not dealing with a case of a family’s murdering someone for selfish reasons. But I agree with you that, provided the bill is carefully constructed to minimize the possibility of a slippery slope consequence, the choice should reside with the individual who is sound of mind to determine whether they wish to end their own suffering. It must never be taken lightly (and rarely is) by person or family, but, in a free society, the option should exist.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.