Condemning the Right to Die

[KenRU]

Many denominations of Christianity condemn the right to die when terminally ill. I've often wondered why anyone who holds that position could condone the suffering that results, and how that position could possibly ever be seen as a good/moral/right position to hold.

To illustrate my point and for the purposes of debate, assume the following:

The patient is terminally ill.

The patient is in pain.

The patient is of sound mind.

The patient no longer wishes to suffer, and wishes to end his/her own life.

For the sake of clarity, please use the standard and common definition for all words.


Does it just boil down to, Thou Shall Not Kill? End of conversation?

How does one justify the suffering a terminally ill patient will endure - perhaps even for years - when denying that right? It never made sense to me.



For debate:
If you are opposed to the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as callous, cruel and/or selfish.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

If you support the Right To Die, please make your argument:

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.
2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as murder and just plain wrong.
3) Why it should be the law of the land.
4) Why the other side is wrong.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 96 by KenRU]

Either the stories of terminal patients in pain who lose the will live are true or they arent. Youve said both. That can be confusing.

Uh--some of those stories may be true, and some may not be true. All clear?

If you acknowledge that there are real world examples of terminal people in pain and that there is no treatment for them, then yes. If not, no.

But, all of these examples are lies, right?

I don't know.

Then perhaps you should stop saying things like: Yes, another scenario from dream land. (Post 91) and Euthanasia proponents often make up situations to illustrate why we presumably need the right to die. (Post 86)

I'd need to investigate any cases of people who desire to die to see what's really going on with them.

Which is defined in the OP:

The patient is terminally ill.

The patient is in pain.

The patient is of sound mind.


If you assume these facts then you should post accordingly. You have repeatedly fought, ignored and railed against these assumptions. The fears that you (rightly) have about euthanasia should have already been accounted for by assuming the facts in the OP.

If you cant do that then you are not debating in good faith, and risk moderate intervention.

I had a family member who fit these criteria.

Please share what the circumstances of your family member were/are.

No I think I will keep my private affairs private. You can either debate in good faith or you cant. So far, it seems the latter.

I've noticed that the cases of people who presumably wish to die are very often made known by family members. I'm not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm wondering why the actual sufferers are so silent. Maybe they cannot communicate their plight and need family members to do so.

Lots of maybes here. But heres the real kicker that shows your unwillingness to participate in good faith, the OP already says that we know that (for the purposes of this thread, conditions and facts you continually ignore) the wishes of the patient and that he/she is of sound mind. Yet you continually ignore this point and throw out post after post of irrelevancies.

Oh, and for what its worth, I reject your label of euthanasia enthusiast. I am not enthusiastic about euthanasia.

That's interesting. I'm very enthusiastic about my rejection of terminating the dying and the sick and seeking better ways for such people to live and live well.

And I agree with this statement, which shows you arent paying attention. The fact that you think I disagree is proof.

Once again, maybe you should find your villain elsewhere?

It would be fantastic to see the efforts wasted on euthanasia redirected into better living for the elderly and the disabled. Good homes--good jobs--good social lives--I'd really love to see that made real for everybody.

The right to die and seeking the best palliative care are not mutually exclusive, despite your best efforts to argue they are.

Otherwise, perhaps it is just as fair then to label you a sufferer enthusiast? Or, a pain monger?

I've noticed that you seem to equate life with pain and suffering. Are you in pain or suffering in some way and wish to end that pain by ending your life? If so, I'd strongly recommend you seek help.

The only discomfort I suffer is reading and responding to your misguided efforts to derail this thread.

Move along.

Nah. I'm going to stay and irritate the heck out of the enemies of the disabled.

Characterizing me as an enemy of the disabled? Are you trying to get me to report you to the moderators (something I have never done in the 3 years I have been a member?

Each post you make is a record of your slanderous attacks on me and evidence of your bad faith attempts at debate.

It's my way of fighting back.

Against an imagined enemy.

I have had family members who lived in hospice and who have been in a situation where they wanted to end their life due to suffering.

Please share an example.

Again, no. My private affairs are just that, private. Debate in good faith or move along.

You mentioned a great aunt. What are the details of her story?

Private.

Im very glad to hear that you and your family were able to give your father the love and dignity he deserved. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to end their life in such a manner.

Right, and that's why the push for euthanasia is such a threat.

Another example of you ignoring the point of this thread. The OP would NOT apply to you and your fathers case.

Yet you keep throwing out red herrings.

I think that my family's efforts to comfort our Dad when he was dying made the difference for him living as long as he did.

Im very happy for you and yours.

Euthanasia works against those kinds of efforts by denying that there's hope for those who are very ill.

Which is NOT the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is that the patients are TERMINAL. You do know what terminal means?

Another example of your bad faith attempts.

Who said anything about giving up or wanting someone to die?

If you describe death as a right, then I must assume that you want people to have that right.

More bad faith attempts. The OP deals with a very specific case, terminal people in endless pain. You have been told this multiple times, yet you insist on faulting arguments that I am not making. The implication above is that I support the right to commit suicide without conditions. I have never said that.

Keep making things up and debating unfairly. It just shows your character, not mine.

So, because you have a fear of what may get out of hand, you therefore would deny a terminal and in pain patient the right to end their suffering. I dont see the compassion here.

It depends on what you mean by "end their suffering."

More bad faith. Read the OP " for the umpteenth time. No need to wonder.

I definitely support the right of a person to refuse medical treatment as I've said before. However, to actively terminate that person's life I see as murder and as
wrong.

Opinion noted. Given your track record of misstating what I say, ignoring conditions in the OP, I am very reluctant to discuss this point further with you.

To refuse to kill anybody is not a lack of compassion.

Even if it is their wishes and even if it means endless suffering?

I think doing so would be wrong, and I have a right to refuse to do what I think is wrong.

I agree, you have that right.

Is this another baseless assertion? Please cite your source or evidence.

The Nazi T4 program for starters. You need to know about the history of euthanasia.

Anything less 70 years old? Something relevant?

Once again, who said anything about this being a good thing?

That's another interesting admission. I think my position is a great thing!

Once again, the positions are not mutually exclusive.

I just am willing to listen to the medical professionals, and the patients wishes.

Do you know of any medical professionals, say doctors or nurses associations, that support euthanasia?

Bad faith once again. The doctors and medical peoples opinions give us the facts of the patients condition. So those facts (for the purposes of this thread) are not dispute " despite your best efforts to make do so.

Im suspicious that you are a masochist and wish to bring as much pain into the world as possible...

Really? Now do you base that suspicion on the way I treated my Dad or the way I treated my friend (the elderly woman) who was dying with cancer?

I base it on your admission that you wish to deny the right of a terminal patient in pain to end their suffering - thus yielding more suffering for no reason other than you say so.

No way around it. Your position (given the conditions of the OP) yields more suffering.

Argue the subject of the OP or move along. Or risk moderator intervention.

[JerryMyers]

What is the title of this thread? "Condemning the Right To Die". I gathered from your post above that you do. Was I wrong?

Of course you are wrong. Disagreeing does not mean that someone wished to enforce his/her religiously oriented morals on whoever who does not share his/her belief system. Where did you get that kind of understanding from ??

No, the fact is I support the right for individuals to decide for themselves. That is not an atheistic stance.

Then your support for the right to die is thus, a personal stance. Thats fine. Does that include suicide ??

How does allowing someone the right to choose for themselves force anything upon anyone?

OK, let me rephrase that " do you wish to enforce your personal morals on someone who does not share your personal morals ?

My position is quite clear. I support the right for an in-pain, terminal patient to end their suffering. It should be their choice. No one else's. Do you support this position, and if not, as the OP asks, please answer the following (as asked in the OP):

Sure, I can answer you in accordance with what the OP was asking :

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.

The right to live or die is Gods Call not a humans call.

2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as callous, cruel and/or selfish.

Didnt Jesus said If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters"yes, even his own life"he cannot be my disciple. ?? Doesnt this seen as callous, cruel and selfish on Jesus part ? But then, you are not religiously oriented, you will never understand.

3) Why it should be the law of the land.

Its not about the law of the land, its about the Law of God.

4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

From the humane side, its right as its often thought of as an end to sufferings. From the religious oriented side, its not wrong, because life and death is within Gods domain, not human domain.

[JerryMyers]

..I've never broken in anywhere...? Please elaborate. What or where did I break into and what justification do you have for making this claim (or should I say accusation?)

Obviously, you did not read or could have missed on some of my replies.. Go to Post#103 and your response in post #104 to get a clearer picture on this matter.

So I can do certain things that would usually be labelled as 'sin' in your eyes, if only I were a believer of God? So for example, in your eyes, if I steal a car, I have only broken the law, but not committed a sin?

Yes " Again, in my eyes, because I believe in God, when you steal the car, you are committing a sin AND a crime. In your eyes, because you do not believe in a God, its just a crime, not a sin to you because God is out of the equation for you.

Or would I still be committing sins, just not to my own eyes?

Yes, you just do NOT know it.

Precisely my point. When we try to actually make your religion apply to everyone, as in individuals, when we break down the religious claims...that is when it is revealed it is making spurious claims of people. Earlier, you said I had 'broken into' (whether meant literally or as a metaphor, I don't know). Thing is...you don't know that. You have no idea whether or not I have 'broken into'.

No one is trying to make ones religion apply to everyone, at least not me. If anything, I was just trying to make you understand from my perspectives.

Given the massive amount of influence Paul had over Christianity, why are you seemingly disregarding him here?

You said it - Pauls massive amount of influence - thats basically the point I am making " that Christianity is where they are today because of what Paul said and NOT what Jesus said. In other words, although Christians said they follow Jesus, in reality, they follow Paul.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 113 by JerryMyers]

Obviously, you did not read or could have missed on some of my replies.. Go to Post#103 and your response in post #104 to get a clearer picture on this matter.

Okey dokey...so reading...
In 103, I'm still seeing a contradiction. I write a statement that you replied (my statement was So non-believers in your God did not make a choice regarding sin, to which I asked if you agreed or not. You said no, and the contradiction that I am seeing here is that everyone (believer/non-believer alike) have a choice. A believer of Christianity can do an action and you call it sin, but a non-believer of Christianity can do the same action and it would not be called sin.
You used an analogy of I and a believer breaking into a house, only for some reason, what I do is not a sin. Somehow, even though (according to Christianity) God has given, as one of his Ten Commandments, "Thou Shalt Not Steal", if I steal something, it's not a sin.

Apparently, we are in a discussion now where some things may be both (secular) laws and sins. So what laws have I broken, what actions have I done that, where I a Christian, would be sins?

Yes " Again, in my eyes, because I believe in God, when you steal the car, you are committing a sin AND a crime. In your eyes, because you do not believe in a God, its just a crime, not a sin to you because God is out of the equation for you.

Okay, so there is a dispute between us as to what is really happening. Can you resolve it, show us some sort of objective reality outside of the two of us, show me that where I to steal a car, I am in fact committing a sin, in addition to Grand Theft Auto?

Yes, you just do NOT know it.

So then...why should I or any other non-believer even be told that {Insert Action Here} is a sin? Apparently, the best way then to not have sinners would be to not have knowledge as to what is sin.

No one is trying to make ones religion apply to everyone, at least not me. If anything, I was just trying to make you understand from my perspectives.

You may not be physically trying to push your religion on me, but these are the claims of your religion. You said it yourself. If I steal a car, then in your religion's eyes, not only have I committed Grand Theft Auto, but I have also broken the Eighth Commandment, I have done a sin. Your religion says I am a sinner.

You said it - Pauls massive amount of influence - thats basically the point I am making " that Christianity is where they are today because of what Paul said and NOT what Jesus said. In other words, although Christians said they follow Jesus, in reality, they follow Paul.

Okay, so you want to take Paul out of the picture so to speak? Okay cool...this just throws spanners in the works as to the credibility of the entire New Testament (not that there weren't spanners before!).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 112 by JerryMyers]

OK, let me rephrase that " do you wish to enforce your personal morals on someone who does not share your personal morals ?

KenRU and myself are not saying that someone who is terminal and in pain SHOULD commit suicide.
Only that they have the option, the choice, to do so. The person may end up deciding not to.
You sir are apparently the one forcing your personal morals onto the hypothetical patient in the OP. You would deny him the right to make the choice.

The right to live or die is Gods Call not a humans call.

I believe I asked this in the past (maybe not here, maybe on another thread?) but I will repeat myself anyway.
What is happening when one person kills another person in real life (whether as a murder, in battle, or as an execution) or a person kills themselves? According to you, people should not be committing suicide, or each other. So if suicide is wrong, shouldn't we expect to see God stepping in to prevent such suicides, given that the choice is apparently not the person's but his?
Or is God subtly manipulating people like puppets, so that when A kills B (or helps B commit suicide), it's actually God causing it to happen?

From the humane side, its right as its often thought of as an end to sufferings. From the religious oriented side, its not wrong, because life and death is within Gods domain, not human domain.

Is this a not so subtle sort of threat from what you believe is God, that if one commits suicide, it won't be the end of their suffering (as they hope it to be) but rather the start of it?
Wow...and here I thought God was supposed to be a nice guy!

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 111 by KenRU]

Then perhaps you should stop saying things like: Yes, another scenario from dream land. (Post 91) and Euthanasia proponents often make up situations to illustrate why we presumably need the right to die. (Post 86)

I've debated euthanasia enthusiasts in other forums for years. In those discussions, they posted all hypothetical scenarios of what they imagine dying people are like. I've seen the same thing in print. It would be difficult or impossible to dig up all that. You'll need to take my word for it.

Which is defined in the OP:

The patient is terminally ill.

The patient is in pain.

The patient is of sound mind.

Thanks for making the task easier for me! This is an example of a made-up scenario that may not have much to do with reality. No digging required.

You need to understand that just like there are stereotypes of racial minorities and women, there are stereotypes of the dying and the disabled. One of those stereotypes is that the disabled and dying are suicidal. You seem to hold that stereotype in your attitude.

No I think I will keep my private affairs private. You can either debate in good faith or you cant. So far, it seems the latter.

I think withholding relevant evidence is obviously a lack of good faith.

Lots of maybes here.

I'm forced to speculate about these people who wish to die because evidence for them, if there is such evidence, is being withheld.

Yet you continually ignore this point and throw out post after post of irrelevancies.

I wish to discuss the dangers of euthanasia and the chimera known as the "right to die."

The right to die and seeking the best palliative care are not mutually exclusive...

I want them to be mutually exclusive. Let's accept good care for the dying, and exclude killing the sick.

The only discomfort I suffer is reading and responding to your misguided efforts to derail this thread.

Amazing. You have a sense of humor.

Are you trying to get me to report you to the moderators (something I have never done in the 3 years I have been a member?

That sounds like what was done to me in Christian forums when I shook up their beliefs. Silencing the critic can be an effective way to rid an argument of ideas we cannot tolerate. It's a last-ditch effort to "win" an argument when we cannot win that argument with sound logic and evidence.

Even if it is their wishes and even if it means endless suffering?

Yes. None of us are obligated to kill another person (except, maybe, in an execution, but I oppose capital punishment).

Anything less 70 years old? Something relevant?

You don't consider recent history to be relevant? I think that the atrocities committed during WWII are very relevant.

... risk moderator intervention.

Scary!

[KenRU]

What is the title of this thread? "Condemning the Right To Die". I gathered from your post above that you do. Was I wrong?

Of course you are wrong.

Im glad to hear. Apologies if I misunderstood your position.

Disagreeing does not mean that someone wished to enforce his/her religiously oriented morals on whoever who does not share his/her belief system.

I agree, though not everyone shares this opinion.

Where did you get that kind of understanding from ??

The subject of this thread and your response from Post 99:

Do you believe in God ? If you dont, then, nothing I said will convince you.

Do you believe in God ?

But I glad I was mistaken.

No, the fact is I support the right for individuals to decide for themselves. That is not an atheistic stance.

Then your support for the right to die is thus, a personal stance. Thats fine. Does that include suicide ??

I am undecided on that subject. But that is not the topic of this thread.

How does allowing someone the right to choose for themselves force anything upon anyone?

OK, let me rephrase that " do you wish to enforce your personal morals on someone who does not share your personal morals ?

With respect to the subject of this thread, no. But the opposing side (condemning the right to die) does, correct?

My position is quite clear. I support the right for an in-pain, terminal patient to end their suffering. It should be their choice. No one else's. Do you support this position, and if not, as the OP asks, please answer the following (as asked in the OP):

Sure, I can answer you in accordance with what the OP was asking :

Thank you, but Im not really getting a straightforward answer. Do you support someones right to live or die given the conditions in the OP? Above it seems like you do, but below it seems like you dont.

1) Why this is the right/good position to hold.

The right to live or die is Gods Call not a humans call.

So you dont support this right, but you also dont condemn it, is that your stance? If not, please explain.

2) Why this position shouldn't be seen as callous, cruel and/or selfish.

Didnt Jesus said If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters"yes, even his own life"he cannot be my disciple. ?? Doesnt this seen as callous, cruel and selfish on Jesus part ? But then, you are not religiously oriented, you will never understand.

Please stop assuming I dont understand religious points of view. I was a practicing Catholic for 20+ years. I didnt forget what life was like back then.

Your response does not address the suffering that denying this right entails. Would you mind addressing that with respect to this question?

3) Why it should be the law of the land.

Its not about the law of the land, its about the Law of God.

So, the right to choose to end ones suffering should or should not be the law of the land, in your opinion?

4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

From the humane side, its right as its often thought of as an end to sufferings. From the religious oriented side, its not wrong, because life and death is within Gods domain, not human domain.

Is it fair to say that you are undecided then on this subject? I find it commendable that you are able to see both sides of the argument. But, Im curious (if push came to shove) where you would stand if you were the deciding vote on making it legal or not.

All the best

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 111 by KenRU]

Then perhaps you should stop saying things like: Yes, another scenario from dream land. (Post 91) and Euthanasia proponents often make up situations to illustrate why we presumably need the right to die. (Post 86)

I've debated euthanasia enthusiasts in other forums for years. In those discussions, they posted all hypothetical scenarios of what they imagine dying people are like. I've seen the same thing in print. It would be difficult or impossible to dig up all that. You'll need to take my word for it.

Given your track record (recorded here in post after post of obfuscation and slander) your word means less than nothing to me, so no, I wont take your word for it.

Which is defined in the OP:

The patient is terminally ill.

The patient is in pain.

The patient is of sound mind.

Thanks for making the task easier for me! This is an example of a made-up scenario that may not have much to do with reality. No digging required.

Then you shouldnt be posting here. Given this is your position, any posting on your part would be an obvious attempt at derailing this thread. Careful, moderator intervention may be forthcoming.

You need to understand that just like there are stereotypes of racial minorities and women, there are stereotypes of the dying and the disabled. One of those stereotypes is that the disabled and dying are suicidal.

Now whos stereotyping. You are, saying that not one person fits my criteria. And you say I live in dreamland, lol.

You seem to hold that stereotype in your attitude.

No, I hold that attitude for the conditions laid out in the OP, a concept you are woefully unable to understand.

No I think I will keep my private affairs private. You can either debate in good faith or you cant. So far, it seems the latter.

I think withholding relevant evidence is obviously a lack of good faith.

The private affairs of my family are relevant? Lol. One google search will provide you many examples of scenarios that fit my criteria. Just because you wish to deny their existence doesnt mean that I have to (or even would want to) discuss the private affairs of my family. Your lack of good faith and slanderous comments only reinforce my reluctance.

Lots of maybes here.

I'm forced to speculate about these people who wish to die because evidence for them, if there is such evidence, is being withheld.

Your google is broke? Get it fixed, this isnt my problem. You dont like the OP, move along. I cant stress this enough.

Yet you continually ignore this point and throw out post after post of irrelevancies.

I wish to discuss the dangers of euthanasia and the chimera known as the "right to die."

As long as it relates to the OP, go right ahead. But you are already on record as saying (multiple times) that you deny the criteria in the OP. Which is it? Youve made your position known, you dont think this situation exists. You have denied the reality of the examples provided to you by me on the internet and you have called me a liar. Why would anyone in good conscience want to discuss anything with someone of that moral caliber?

The right to die and seeking the best palliative care are not mutually exclusive...

I want them to be mutually exclusive. Let's accept good care for the dying, and exclude killing the sick.

Right, like I said, you wish to enforce your moral position on others. Got it.

The only discomfort I suffer is reading and responding to your misguided efforts to derail this thread.

Amazing. You have a sense of humor.

Who said I was kidding? : )

Are you trying to get me to report you to the moderators (something I have never done in the 3 years I have been a member?

That sounds like what was done to me in Christian forums when I shook up their beliefs. Silencing the critic can be an effective way to rid an argument of ideas we cannot tolerate. It's a last-ditch effort to "win" an argument when we cannot win that argument with sound logic and evidence.

Lol! Now who has the sense of humor? You are on record of being slanderous, admitting that you dont believe the conditions set forth in the OP and only wish to post here because you wish to annoy me (Post 109) Nah. I'm going to stay and irritate the heck out of the enemies of the disabled. It's my way of fighting back.

Your denials of reality know no bounds, apparently.

Even if it is their wishes and even if it means endless suffering?

Yes. None of us are obligated to kill another person (except, maybe, in an execution, but I oppose capital punishment).

No one said anything about it being an obligation. How is that even relevant?

Anything less 70 years old? Something relevant?

You don't consider recent history to be relevant? I think that the atrocities committed during WWII are very relevant.

Please cite how Nazi atrocities relates to the situation described in the OP. If you cant, then it is just another red-herring attempt to derail the conversation.

... risk moderator intervention.

Scary!

If you dont value being on this forum, it isn't.

[marco]

Scary!

Moderator Intervention

At the risk of scaring or shocking let me intervene here since the discussion is coming close to incivility. It is better to discuss the OP rather than the merits of the posters.
We can hold opposing views but let us hold them amicably.



Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 118 by KenRU]

Given your track record (recorded here in post after post of obfuscation and slander) your word means less than nothing to me, so no, I wont take your word for it.

Then you shouldnt be posting here. Given this is your position, any posting on your part would be an obvious attempt at derailing this thread. Careful, moderator intervention may be forthcoming.

...you are woefully unable to understand.

Your lack of good faith and slanderous comments...

...move along. I cant stress this enough.

...you have called me a liar. Why would anyone in good conscience want to discuss anything with someone of that moral caliber?

You are on record of being slanderous...

Your denials of reality know no bounds...

Seeing that this discussion is getting a bit too personal and filled with invective, I think I will leave it for now and start a new discussion in the Right and Wrong section about euthanasia. I believe that the Right and Wrong section is the more relevant forum. After all, the so-called right to die is more an issue of ethics than apologetics.

All are welcome to freely discuss their views on that thread!