Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Catholics and fundies, mostly.Even Orthodox Jews can use the pill, so those others must be something really hardcore.
Like, too hardcore.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Catholics and fundies, mostly.Even Orthodox Jews can use the pill, so those others must be something really hardcore.
Like, too hardcore.
I do not own anything in this world, only being a part of the world and to take away that for someone is not a righteous way to live, To care for them on the last part of their journey, that is the task of a nurse or a caretaker. What good does it do to take someone's life away, just because they have a sickness? No matter what way we turn this, there will be suffering and sadness. I could please the family and end someone life, because the family suffer when they see their loved one in that state. or i could treat the person who is sick until life itself has come to an end for the person. But by doing that the family will also suffer and feel sadness because their love one has passed away.It's not your life or your decision of you are that persons doctor. You could make it yours, but doing so is to claim ownership over something that does not belong to you to claim.
I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view todayHow is it compassionate to just stand by and witness suffering, knowing the entire time someone (not necessarily you if you objected) could have given merciful relief? Compassion? Compassion is doing what’s best for the patient, regardless of your own morality. To put them and their needs above your own and your own conscience even. That is true humility and compassion, imo. Merciful killing is good karma, it means you have relented your ego and surrendered yourself to a higher purpose, if that is your issue.
I grew up in a hospital, I have seen doctors “play God” as you would call it just as a day job. They save people on the very brink of death, they have made a slip up and killed people. That’s just how the cookie crumbles. Sometimes a battle is just over and you can either accept defeat graciously or throw a tantrum and prolong suffering.
Death is sometimes a better alternative and whilst I wouldn’t begrudge a medical professional for refusing to “pull the plug” I’ll be damned if I also wouldn’t find someone else fully willing to. Allowing unneeded suffering is not compassion, in my eyes. These patients aren’t supposed to emulate Jesus’ sacrifice. Let them go in peace rather than wishing for relief in their final moments.
At a time of "an eye for an eye" when an accident would not have been an excuse. And a poor understanding of the morals of combat. The example as posed is incomplete and cannot be judged fairly either way. If the man with the wife was attacked then the attacker would still be at fault in law for the damage done to the woman and her fetus. If the man with the wife attacked the other then he would not be to blame if he caused the death of a fetus. If it was mutually agreed combat then he would most likely be to blame since he willingly entered into a dangerous activity. But that is besides the point. I was dealing with the fact that the interpretation of the Bible was changed after Roe v Wade.Yes.
Same verse in a Jewish translation:
And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give restitution according to the judges' orders
Here is Rashi's commentary. Rashi was a Rabbi of top order,
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
It was an accident.
You do realise than an eye for an eye has always been a matter of financial repercussions? It meant monetary compensation, just as today.At a time of "an eye for an eye" when an accident would not have been an excuse. And a poor understanding of the morals of combat. The example as posed is incomplete and cannot be judged fairly either way. If the man with the wife was attacked then the attacker would still be at fault in law for the damage done to the woman and her fetus. If the man with the wife attacked the other then he would not be to blame if he caused the death of a fetus. If it was mutually agreed combat then he would most likely be to blame since he willingly entered into a dangerous activity. But that is besides the point. I was dealing with the fact that the interpretation of the Bible was changed after Roe v Wade.
According to you. But whatever, you read what you want to read.
Man, I could drag this sentence onto a million other issues, but whatevs.
That would appear to be a more modern interpretation. One thing that one sees even in the Old Testament is a changing of morals as man advances and gets more civilized. One can speak of evolution of morals in the Bible.You do realise than an eye for an eye has always been a matter of financial repercussions? It meant monetary compensation, just as today.
It’s not killing. It is giving merciful relief. It is surrendering the ego and embracing death as a part of life. You cannot have life without death. Allowing needless suffering is certainly not going to generate good karma, in my view.I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
No it isn't, it's from the Oral Torah. That's how it's always been interpreted.That would appear to be a more modern interpretation. One thing that one sees even in the Old Testament is a changing of morals as man advances and gets more civilized. One can speak of evolution of morals in the Bible.
I accept your position and may act the same way you do. The question here isn't if you would participate in an assisted suicide but if you are opposed to the general practice. I.e. would you stand in the way of someone else doing it (legally)?I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
Everyone has a right to die because death is a transition to something else, but not done by someone else hand, So yes if I was in a situation where I either saw someone pulling the plug or was about to do so I would report them to the police as attempted murder, then what the police decide is not something I can say against.I accept your position and may act the same way you do. The question here isn't if you would participate in an assisted suicide but if you are opposed to the general practice. I.e. would you stand in the way of someone else doing it (legally)?
I think everyone should have a right of dying. That does not include the right to be aided by a specific person, especially not a doctor.
In Canada, not in the USA.The whole reason that the this story came up now is because of legislation that, if passed, would get rid of the "have someone else do it" option. The Alberta legislature has a bill that would remove the requirement for a physician to refer the patient to someone else if they refused a treatment or service for reasons of conscience. Dr. Schuklenk was being interviewed for that story when he brought up the idea of screening out applicants to med school to nip the problem in the bud.
That legislation aside, there often is no "someone else." A specialist may be the only one in their field in a certain area. Rural areas may only have one family doctor for the whole community. Growing urban areas may have no doctors who are taking new patients. It may be impossible to transport an infirm or medically unstable patient to a different hospital.
Every medical discipline has a standard of care. When a practitioner refuses to uphold that standard, we as a society really have two choices:
- demand that the practitioner follow the normal standards of their profession, or
- force the patient to have substandard care.
A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:
Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist
My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.
In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.
On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.
In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.
What are your thoughts?
Are there written records of how it was interpreted way back then? I did not think that there were any. To me it appears that one cannot work backwards from modern interpretations to ancient ones. All one can go by is the written records. An oral tradition is all but worthless since oral records appear to change with the times.No it isn't, it's from the Oral Torah. That's how it's always been interpreted.
See, this is the problem with people just picking up the Torah and thinking they know what it means. This is why Yeshivah students study it day in day out for their lives.
Would you treat a modern law text the same way? Just assume you can read through 'English Tort Law' and that's it, you're good to go? Or do people spend years studying it?
They have conscientious objectors in the military why can't they have them in medication?A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:
Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist
My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.
In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.
On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.
In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.
What are your thoughts?
They aren't just sick. They are terminal. They will not get better. Their disease will kill them. When they choose to have their life ended, it's because it's coming soon anyways, there is no quality of life, and the final days will be nothing but suffering, pain, and misery for all involved.What good does it do to take someone's life away, just because they have a sickness?
That simply is not your decision to make. It is not your life, it is not your care, and its not your decision to make.I can not speak for others who work in a hospital or nursing homes, but my job was to keep the sick person alive. Even when I started in that job I was asked by the boss about this topic of ending someone's life if asked to. And then as now, I said I would refuse to do so, because it is wrong to kill, and within the job I had at that time, I was not allowed to use the Buddhist teaching as a "shield" for not acting upon someone's request. My boss agreed to my view, and that is good enough validation that i still hold this view today
A Canadian bioethicist is proposing that medical and pharmacist schools reject applicants who indicate that they would refuse to provide medical treatment, including abortion and assisted dying, on conscientious grounds:
Medical schools should deny applicants who object to provide abortion, assisted death: bioethicist
My personal opinion: I see quite a bit of merit in Dr. Schuklenk's suggestion.
In some respects, it's a bit heavy-handed. After all, someone who objects to, say, abortion, contraception, and assisted dying could potentially steer themselves to a medical discipline that isn't involved with these services.
On the other hand, though, I think it's useful to send a strong message to med - and pharmacy - students that the most important principle in medicine is that the needs of the patient come first, so anyone who would deny a patient care based on the practitioner's "needs" has no place in the medical profession.
In an environment where there's heavy competition to get into medical schools, only the best students are going to get in. I think it makes sense for the measurement of "best" to include a look at the applicant's ethics, not just their academic performance.
What are your thoughts?
Medical personnel is there to save and treat people, Not to take life or help someone make suicide with assistance. The training/school is there to teach the nurse/Doctors how to save a life, not to take it away. (I have basic health worker education my self and been in a situation where I was asked to help end someone's life, my answer was No I can not do that)