Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

n2doc

(47,953 posts)
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:01 PM Feb 2015

The paradox of a government that cavalierly kills people but prevents assisted suicide

By TED RALL

I have never understood why society tries to prevent people who want to die from doing so.

As a young Catholic, I was told that suicide was a sin. My priests couldn't explain why. Besides, assuming that the suicide attempt is successful, you're dead. Who's going to shake you down for penance?

But assisted suicide -- helping someone kill himself or herself, typically to bring an end to a painful terminal illness -- is illegal in most of the United States, including California. But a proposed bill could change that.

"California's new legislation is modeled on Oregon's, making assisted death available to those 18 or older who are diagnosed with a terminal illness that is expected to result in death within six months, provided they are mentally capable of making healthcare decisions. The proposal would go further, giving pharmacists and physicians legal immunity in such deaths," Patrick McGreevy reports in The Times.

more

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-rall-assisted-suicide-government-intervention-20150225-story.html

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The paradox of a government that cavalierly kills people but prevents assisted suicide (Original Post) n2doc Feb 2015 OP
Expected to result in death within six months CountAllVotes Feb 2015 #1
Rall Rec KG Feb 2015 #2
Someone help me out if I am wrong (it happens), but don't the Catholics believe that rhett o rick Feb 2015 #3
I rather like what this priest has to say CountAllVotes Feb 2015 #4
Thank you for that. nm rhett o rick Feb 2015 #7
You've nailed the flaw in their logic nichomachus Feb 2015 #5
lol ... CountAllVotes Feb 2015 #9
We cared for my mother in law as she got sicker and sicker and she was a tough old lady. rhett o rick Feb 2015 #11
In hindsight this was very good CountAllVotes Feb 2015 #12
Just so you know nichomachus Feb 2015 #6
Very well put. nm rhett o rick Feb 2015 #8
The issue is one of control, it's not up to you if you live or die, you belong to the state Fumesucker Feb 2015 #10

CountAllVotes

(20,877 posts)
1. Expected to result in death within six months
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:24 PM
Feb 2015

While this is a step in the right direction, I'd like to see it expanded to include persons that are living with illnesses for which there is not much hope nor a cure for added to this list.

Some people that are living lives riddled with pain and are confined to their homes and unable to go out and have no family to help them etc. have nothing much to look forward to except life in a nursing home hell hole somewhere.

As to the Catholic part of this whole thing, I have plenty to say about it being I am a confirmed Catholic myself.

I fully believe in the right-to-die as much as the Catholic Church is right-to-life. I don't really care what the Church may or may not think about my personal beliefs on this issue.

As to why the RCC is against this is because to commit suicide it considered to be the biggest sin that one can commit -- killing oneself. Killing oneself is worse than killing someone else is the way that the RCC sees this. That is their opinion, not mine.

To me, an even bigger "sin" is to allow someone that does not care to go on in life because they are suffering from an illness for which their is no viable treatment nor cure. This is plain cruel IMO to force such persons to have to live in a decrepit condition when they'd personally prefer death as an option, an option they should be allowed to have.

The right-to-die issue is just as big of an issue as right-to-life and far more important to help such persons in a situation like this than something quite idiotic like taking up collections to purchase sonogram machines (the latest thing the RCC where I live is touting as a recent great thing that they have done) that will be used to frighten and terrorize pregnant women that may be opting to abort, something that I am personally not against.

& recommend.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
3. Someone help me out if I am wrong (it happens), but don't the Catholics believe that
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:04 PM
Feb 2015

one should commit suicide because you'd be messing with God's plan? Which doesn't make sense, because that's what doctors do. So do religions think we can try to make ourselves live longer but not shorter? I am not a big religion guy, if you couldn't tell.

CountAllVotes

(20,877 posts)
4. I rather like what this priest has to say
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 04:55 PM
Feb 2015

I'm really actually glad I found this.

It is contrary to the Ratzingerish Catholicism rituals I was raised to believe in. This is but one example of changes that I do see in the RCC, esp. with regards to this specific issue of suicide, going to hell, purgatory and death.

>>What is the church's stance on suicide?

http://www.catholiccourier.com/commentary/other-columnists/what-is-the-churchs-stance-on-suicide/

Gives me a bit of hope. After the last time I was there (the sonagram machine thingy) I have not returned.

I go to light candles and pray for people. I'm a piss poor Catholic I admit but they've yet to tell me to go away because they cannot given my relationship with the Church itself (too many priests and nuns in the family).

CountAllVotes

(20,877 posts)
9. lol ...
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 05:08 PM
Feb 2015

I mean it too! I almost died in 2009 and I was PISSED. I was really mad that they did not honor my DNR, etc.!

I kid you not and I am not making this up and the reason I am alive is because some doctor operated on me at 3:00 a.m. to save my life and yes he was "God" (and sure thinks he is too btw!).

I was really angry I remember and called for a priest and said, "How dare they interfere with God's will!".

Off went that priest that night telling me he'd have a batch of masses said for me the next day which happened to be on a Sunday.

Did any of this help?

I really cannot say.

I am still here like it or not.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
11. We cared for my mother in law as she got sicker and sicker and she was a tough old lady.
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 08:43 PM
Feb 2015

She told us in no uncertain terms, "If I die, do not let them bring me back so I have to do it all over again."

CountAllVotes

(20,877 posts)
12. In hindsight this was very good
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 11:53 PM
Feb 2015

At least everyone knew I should think. However, when it all comes down you never know what might happen depending upon who is in charge of things for you (if anyone). In her case everyone knew I should think but then shows up the one that just cannot let go.

My situation was similar in that my father was basically dead and gone when they found him and ... they resuscitated him and resuscitated him from a severe stroke and then everyone ran away after seeing the results of this (my brother and mother were in charge of things at this time). It seems that some families that are dysfunctional to begin with (as mine was) tend to run away from situations like this out of fear, fear of death and what the doctors have done.

In the end, it fell to me to make the decision which was something I did not even have to ponder for one second as I knew how Dad felt about it as fortunately being we were very close. It was perhaps the most difficult time in my life and I don't envy anyone having to be the one that is "there" for the dying person be it spouse, sibling, parent, whoever.

Hang in there my friend!




nichomachus

(12,754 posts)
6. Just so you know
Thu Feb 26, 2015, 05:01 PM
Feb 2015

And this isn't a criticism, because it's a common phrase. But those of us working on this issue prefer "assistance in dying" to "assisted suicide." A big part of that is just public perception that there's something wrong with suicide and often the term refers to a person who would have otherwise lived.

In the cases we're dealing with, the person is dying -- and is close to death. The assistance is in helping them choose the time and means of their death, rather than suffering needlessly for months.

Another poster mentioned that we should allow this for people who have a terminal illness and aren't close to death. I don't disagree with that, but it is a whole other discussion and needs a different type of ethical rationalization. One thing at a time.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The paradox of a governme...