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.

[JehovahsWitness]

The right to refuse a certain medical treatment (even if it might lead to their death) is not imho to be confused with deliberately ending one's life.

There are situations where there is no practical difference between the two, though, correct?

No, I believe that is incorrect. Someone who dies because they have taken a stand to be faithful to God and someone that dies because they want to avoid suffering are both dead it's true, but one has gained a good name with God for their integrity and the prospect of eternal life in the future and the other has not.

I think it does not help the conversation to conflate the word Murder with the action of taking your own life.

That may be the case but it does accurately express my belief on the matter and is the right word to indicate why it is not an option for me according to my own belief system; I am not suggesting it is a legal term. I view suicide as "self murder" regardless of what that does to any given conversation.

JW

[Rufus21]

Someone who dies because they have taken a stand to be faithful to God and someone that dies because they want to avoid suffering are both dead it's true, but one has gained a good name with God for their integrity and the prospect of eternal life in the future and the other has not.

First of all, that unverified assumption is almost certainly false. But the person's motivations for dying are not relevant. One person died because they chose to and the other died because they thought they were supposed to. They are both deliberate decisions made by the individual to end their own life.

[JehovahsWitness]

Someone who dies because they have taken a stand to be faithful to God and someone that dies because they want to avoid suffering are both dead it's true, but one has gained a good name with God for their integrity and the prospect of eternal life in the future and the other has not.

First of all, that unverified assumption is almost certainly false.

That was not an "unverified assumption" it was a statement of my belief. And it is absolutely true that is what I believe. I think I have made it abudantly clear through our exchange that I have been stating my beliefs. That is one of them (see below - in red)

The right to refuse a certain medical treatment (even if it might lead to their death) is not imho to be confused with deliberately ending one's life.

There are situations where there is no practical difference between the two, though, correct?

No, I believe that is incorrect. Someone who dies because they have taken a stand to be faithful to God and someone that dies because they want to avoid suffering are both dead it's true, but one has gained a good name with God for their integrity and the prospect of eternal life in the future and the other has not.

JW

Please take any further statements I make on the matter to be my beliefs, whether or not add this explicitly or not.

[KenRU]

How then do you reconcile a supposedly good being (as god is supposed to be) mandating needless suffering?

Because suffering is not "needless" I believe it serves a purpose, which I did explain earlier (see link below - scroll down to last paragraph)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 631#877631

Further God's permission of human suffering serves a purpose which is why he permits it in the first place. I also wrote earlier on this topic, here is the link in case you missed it.

Why does God permit suffering?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 740#873740

Thanks for taking the time to explain, but I don't think it reconciles the two, at least for me it doesn't.

In your example, god requires the suffering to show Integrity in the Face of Death (loyalty). Wouldnt god already know their hearts? After all, he already should know this answer. Aside from that conundrum, it still seems very cruel and needless. If a human were to require this of another human, surely you would condemn such behavior, correct? Does god get a pass here simply because he is god and gave us life? And if so, isnt it more correct than to say that god is being selfish? He is requiring someone to suffer just to appease his ego. That is selfish by any definition.

You say it is not needless because it serves a purpose, but that purpose is quite obviously a selfish one, in essence one must prove your faith " as if god doesnt already know the answer. And even if he didnt know the answer, it still can be reasonably said to be a cruel demand.

Is it basically a double standard then? If humans did this, we condemn such behavior, but we dont when god does it?

-all the best

[JehovahsWitness]

Thanks for taking the time to explain, but I don't think it reconciles the two, at least for me it doesn't.

Well it doesn't have to because it is not your life it's mine. As long as I am at peace with the reasons for any action I take with regard my own life and death, that is all that needs to be done.

I shared my views since you expressed an interest, feel free to be completely unconvince by anything I have to say.

JW

[KenRU]

The right to refuse a certain medical treatment (even if it might lead to their death) is not imho to be confused with deliberately ending one's life.

There are situations where there is no practical difference between the two, though, correct?

No, I believe that is incorrect. Someone who dies because they have taken a stand to be faithful to God and someone that dies because they want to avoid suffering are both dead it's true, but one has gained a good name with God for their integrity and the prospect of eternal life in the future and the other has not.

I said there is no practical difference, meaning yes they are both dead but I ALSO meant that if you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are going to die without this procedure and you refuse, then by virtue of inaction you are still choosing to end your own life.

There is no real world difference between the two. Only a rationale. Both parties are choosing to end their own lives. No way around that.


-all the best

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 36 by KenRU]

I don't have to "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" I have to believe beyond the shadow of a doubt, which I do.

JW

[KenRU]

Thanks for taking the time to explain, but I don't think it reconciles the two, at least for me it doesn't.

Well it doesn't have to because it is not your life it's mine.

Um, gee, thanks for stating the very obvious.

As long as I am at peace with the reasons for any action I take with regard my own life and death, that is all that needs to be done.

You do realize this is a debate forum, correct? Was I wrong to assume that you posted here to engage in a discussion about those beliefs?

I shared my views since you expressed an interest, feel free to be completely unconvince by anything I have to say.

Thanks! I have been woefully unconvinced, I'm glad you (and readers I hope) noticed. Especially since you are so unmotivated to engage and discuss further. I wonder why that would be?

Silly me thinking you posted here to discuss and debate said reasons.

All the best

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 36 by KenRU]

I don't have to "know beyond a shadow of a doubt" I have to believe beyond the shadow of a doubt, which I do.

Great we agree, for the purposes of this conversation you believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will die given the conditions of my thought experiment.

Now only if your reply had something to do with the overall point .....

[Rufus21]

That was not an "unverified assumption" it was a statement of my belief.

How is a religious belief different than an unverified assumption? This is one of those times that makes me feel like religious people are speaking a different language than the rest of us.

In any case, you didn't address my point: They are both deliberate decisions made by the individual to end their own life.

...our lives are ours on loan, it really belongs to God and only he has the right to say when it will or will not end.

Do you believe that God is not in control of both situations? If someone refuses a medical treatment, isn't God still deciding whether to save them or let them pass? Isn't it the same with a suicide attempt? Isn't God making the decision in all cases?