-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whats your view on euthanasia?
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
there is one aspect that hasen't been mentioned yet - that of someone severely depressed, who, with medication might well look back and say "How on Earth did I get to thinking that way ?" - don't misunderstand me, I am in favour of euthanasia; I just don't think it is 'as straight forward' as saying yes or no.
Besides, to carry on the little assides, if it wasn't for euthanasia, there would be no old folk there!
Besides, to carry on the little assides, if it wasn't for euthanasia, there would be no old folk there!
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Yes, I can hear you all ...."Gee I wonder what Scott thinks?"
Hehe.... well DUH
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
Hehe.... well DUH
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
john313
warrior-poet
Being mostly paralyzed or stuck in a wheelchair could make someone more valuable. it might make someone use their brain which in many is an untapped resource potentially filled with all sorts of wonders. that "victim" might be a great teacher and help a horde of people. good thing Stephen Hawking didn't take the cowardly route.
Hirohito18200
Member
Welcome to the thread Scott
There's no point to spatting over "dignity" any more so I won't digress.
1. God is not giving due respect to himself, nor respecting the dignity of his creation, by allowing it to be put into the aforementioned state.
2. Murder is a serious thing, don't you think that the line needs to be a little more clear before pronouncing judgement? i.e: Who is to decide if a treatment is "over-zealous"? If, say, an opperation is performed routinely in America but not Ethiopia, and is "too dangerous" in one area but not the other, would it be murder in one case but not the other, for the same act?
3. How does the RCC define "death"? I would point to the Florida incident as an example. Assuming, in the view of the RCC, she was not dead, then should we use electric pulses to animate every brain dead individual, or is this "over-zealous"? What if the person can breathe but not eat or drink? Should we hook up our aged and dying to respirators, feeding tubes, IV's, and *dont know name, but artificial heart machines used during opperations*? These are all normal practices in their context, but how far can we take it?
yes I know 2 and 3 kinda ran together, oops!:bonk:
Sorry for disagreeing with you, its the only way of disagreeing with the RCC.Scott1 said:
There's no point to spatting over "dignity" any more so I won't digress.
1. God is not giving due respect to himself, nor respecting the dignity of his creation, by allowing it to be put into the aforementioned state.
2. Murder is a serious thing, don't you think that the line needs to be a little more clear before pronouncing judgement? i.e: Who is to decide if a treatment is "over-zealous"? If, say, an opperation is performed routinely in America but not Ethiopia, and is "too dangerous" in one area but not the other, would it be murder in one case but not the other, for the same act?
3. How does the RCC define "death"? I would point to the Florida incident as an example. Assuming, in the view of the RCC, she was not dead, then should we use electric pulses to animate every brain dead individual, or is this "over-zealous"? What if the person can breathe but not eat or drink? Should we hook up our aged and dying to respirators, feeding tubes, IV's, and *dont know name, but artificial heart machines used during opperations*? These are all normal practices in their context, but how far can we take it?
yes I know 2 and 3 kinda ran together, oops!:bonk: