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]

Wouldn’t god already know their hearts? After all, he already should know this answer.

No. I did address this point above.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 145#878145

Ok, then as I said above, if he doesn't know what is in their hearts, then requiring someone to suffer for potentially long periods of time can still be easily considered cruel.

After all, god will (upon the death of the individual) know their hearts then, correct?

You say [human suffering] is not needless because it serves a purpose, but that purpose is [...] in essence one must prove your faith

No, you seem to have misunderstood my point. Did you read my post?

Yes I read it, and no, it does not address my dilemma. Forget the "permit suffering" angle. It is irrelevant. God requires it in the case of terminally ill people. For, as you said in the link, he desires them to show integrity and loyalty. So, if you want his favor, it is required for a terminally ill person to suffer in agony until death.

Please, if I am still misunderstanding, do me the courtesy of explaining without linking.

-all the best

[JehovahsWitness]

The reasoning in the link you provided was that it shows Integrity in the Face of Death and it shows loyalty of faith.

Yes you have understood that correctly. Faith is a Christian requirement, so is integrity. Life in this system of things may mean that maintaining those things will involve suffering. Jesus was quite clear of what would be involved in the Christian calling:

MATTHEW 16:24
Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross* and follow me.

* NWT "torture stake"

For some this might be ill health, for others poverty, persecution, opposition, ... these are sad eventualities of this system of things. The Christian voluntarility devotes himself to facing whatever life throws at him with integrity.

[KenRU]

Was I wrong to assume that you posted here to engage in a discussion about those beliefs?

Not a problem. What else would you like to know about my beliefs?

... this thread is about why and how the stance against the right to die (when terminal) to avoid suffering can be considered good or compassionate.

Well I can only address beliefs that I hold and since you asked and continue to pose questions, about them, as I said I'm more than happy to answer.

But you haven't address the issue of how this position (by god, or yourself) can be considered compassionate. Nor why it shouldn't be considered cruel.

Or why it isn't a double standard.

I should clarify I do believe everyone has the right to die, it is in fact an inevitability in this sad world, I don't believe however anyone has the right to take a life, even their own. I think I have explained why I believe as I do, or I have done to the best of my ability.

You have and I thank you for participating in my thread.

But you haven't addressed the main point of the post: defending such a stance as compassionate. Or explaining why it isn't cruel. See OP above.

Let me try this: Answer the following as the OP requests:

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.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

I have no comment about the "law of the land". Jehovah's Witnesses are completely neutral when it comes to wordly politics. We only ask that our beliefs be respected as we do others.

[KenRU]

The reasoning in the link you provided was that it shows Integrity in the Face of Death and it shows loyalty of faith.

Yes you have understood that correctly. Faith is a Christian requirement, so is integrity. Life in this system of things may mean that maintaining those things will involve suffering. Jesus was quite clear of what would be involved in the Christian calling:

Ok, so god does require one to suffer.

So to the OP, how can this be considered Compassionate? How can this be considered the Right thing to do?

If a human did this, we would condemn such an requirement. How is this not a double standard?

[1213]

In essence, one would be INCREASING the length of time someone would suffer, if this right were denied.

Shouldn't this be consider cruel and a bad decision?

I am sorry, I don’t know enough to answer to that, also because, what if the afterlife for that person would be even worse?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

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.

1) To allow an individual control over their own life situation. Given the circumstances stated, the choice is to continue to live in pain with no hope of recovery, or to have the right to end the struggle voluntarily if the situation becomes intolerable and death is preferred by that person.

2) To an atheist who does not believe humans are special creatures created by a god, or have afterlives of any kind, there is no consequence of death itself in terms of anything occurring afterwards for that individual (ignoring any impact on family and friends, etc. who may miss the person being around). So in this case it should be purely the decision of the individual who is suffering and not a societal decision based on religious beliefs or laws against suicide (as opposed to murder of another individual).

3) For the reasons given in #1 and #2 above. If an individual is suffering and in constant pain due to a terminal illness, they should have the right to choose to end that situation assuming they are of sound mind and able to make a rational decision for themselves.

4) I can only think of a religious reason. Virtually all of my relatives are Christian and believe that suicide prohibits one from entering heaven (I believe Muslims also have this view). So for that reason alone they would oppose any law favoring assisted suicide or direct suicide. But take away views like this and I would argue it is wrong to take away the option from someone who is truly terminal and in constant pain with no other means of escape other than waiting, in pain, for nature to take its course.

If I got to a terminal situation like this I would have no trouble finding a tree in the back yard to sit against (to prevent the bullet from doing damage to anything but my own temporal lobes), and pulling the trigger on my 38 pistol if I was able to do it at the time without being stopped. Instant unconsciousness and a quick death (even if a little messy). I think the right to end one's life voluntarily should be available to anyone in a terminal disease situation as a matter of personal choice.

[KenRU]

In essence, one would be INCREASING the length of time someone would suffer, if this right were denied.

Shouldn't this be consider cruel and a bad decision?

I am sorry, I don’t know enough to answer to that,

What don't you know enough about?

The patient is terminal.
The patient is in pain.
The patient wishes to die.
Denying him that right lengthens how long he will suffer.

What else is necessary to answer my question above?

also because, what if the afterlife for that person would be even worse?

The only thing that is not certain in my example if that there is an afterlife.

We do know for certain that there are terminally ill people who wish to end their suffering. We do not know if there is an afterlife.

The answer should be simple, imo.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 57 by DrNoGods]

I agree. I find it quite telling that no theist is able to put forth a compassionate/moral/good reason to defend denying this right to terminally ill ppl.

If I recall correctly, the best we get is:

1) God wants us to prove our loyalty and faith.
2) God wants us to show integrity in the face of death.
3) What if the afterlife is worse for someone who takes their own life.

None of these arguments paint god in a very compassionate light. At best, he comes off selfish and cruel. At worst, he comes off sadistic.

-all the best

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by KenRU]

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

I oppose or support "the right to die" depending on the circumstances.

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

If any person does not want medical care, then that person has the right to decline it. That said, we must take care that we act on the dying person's wishes rather than the wishes of somebody else.

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

My position is not callous, cruel and/or selfish because it honors a sick or dying person's wishes.

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

We need to protect people from having medical care forced on them. To do so is a violation of that person's rights and dignity.

4) Why the opposing side is wrong.

I'm not sure who the opposing side may be, but if they force medical care on a person, then they may harm that person possibly forcing discomfort and pain upon that person. They are wrong to do so.

I should say in closing that I generally oppose euthanasia. It is reminiscent of the Nazis who euthanized many disabled people. Yes, if a person refuses care that may save that person's life they have a right to refuse it, but no other person has the right to deny that person medical care.