Euthanasia – Define Your Terms
Guest post from my husband at Ignitum Today
Just ask my wife – I tend to communicate with certain efficiency. I don’t waste words. Euthanasia, ‘mercy killing’, should be counted among the first steps down a ghastly and barbaric road. Human history is replete with examples of where the general mindset leads. Before going any further, let us define our terms.
Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. This definition is provided by the Catholic Education Resource Center.
My eye is drawn to two key phrases in this definition. ‘Intentional killing’ is the first and ‘alleged benefit’ is the second. The act of euthanasia is preceded by some cognitive process where value judgments are made and the ‘alleged benefits’ are rationalized as support for the intentional killing of a person. Said just a little differently, a person or a group of people decide to kill someone, convincing themselves that the killing is for that person’s own good. It feels different when you say it that way, doesn’t it?
Read the rest here.
Negotiating Death?
Image Credit: Thumbnail - Bengt Ekerot as Death, from the film Det Sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal) 1957.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on']http://www.acceptingabundance.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Jose-Trasancos.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Jose L. Trasancos is a child of God, husband to his wife, Stacy, and father to a truckload of kids. When he’s not wiping faces (or the other end), washing dishes, cutting the grass/plowing snow, walking the dog, buying groceries, changing lightbulbs or unclogging hair out of drains, he has a day job that keeps him busy. Plus, he collects fountain pens in his other spare time. [/author_info] [/author]
Category: Abortion, Featured, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Jose, your characterization of euthanasia is very true. We do tend to segregate the activities within our society and fight against the most hated by name.
It might be a good exercise to a little word replacement. “a person or a group of people decide to ……, convincing themselves that ……… is for … person’s own good.
I think you have described the underlying problem which is also taught by the Church, being self guided instead of Christ guided.
Jose,
“Said just a little differently, a person or a group of people decide to kill someone, convincing themselves that the killing is for that person’s own good. It feels different when you say it that way, doesn’t it?”
Yes, it does, mainly because you have ommited one crucial element in the definition of euthanasia. The Catholic Education Resource Center’s definition is flawed.
“Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.”
First, this definition includes both active and passive euthanasia. Legally, medically and ethically only active euthanasia is considered euthanasia. Passive euthanasia, like ending treatment or stopping artificial administration of food and/or fluids, is not considered euthanasia. At least, by everyone except Catholic institutions.
Second, the given definition neglects to mention one very important aspect of euthanasia: it has to be the patients own wish to end his/her life. The only exceptions to the rule are patients in a coma (in that case the family has to make that decision unless the patient has a last will and testament in which it’s defined) and terminally ill children under the age of 2 years (in that case the parents will decide).
This, however, only goes for active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia (which is not euthanasia according to the law) is a medical decision and can be made without even the patients knowledge, let alone his/her consent.
I can imagine the Catholic Education Resource Center “forgot” to mention the criterium euthanasia has to be the patients own wish. After all, if they had included that criterium in their definition they would be unable to insult and criminalise hundreds of thousands of health care professionals by calling them Nazi’s, let alone comparing modern day medicine with one of the largest crimes against humanity in our history. Being either truthful or nuanced won’t cause an uprise among the flock.
I use the word “flock” on purpose here. More than once Jezus calls his followers a flock with himself as their shepherd so in that light you might consider my comment a compliment but it is not.
A flock of sheep will follow it’s leader anywhere, even if that means leading them to their death. An individual sheep, when confronted with the flock, has no will of it’s own and lost all ability to think for itself. Like a flock of sheep religious people will accept a flawed definition like the one given in this article, simply because they feel the need to follow their leader. Without any critical thought medical professionals are called Nazi’s and hospitals are compared with the Nazi death camps, simply because no one questions a definition or even considers comparing the definition given by the Catholic Education Resource Center with more broadly accepted definitions.
This article is a prime example of trying to blacken the reputation of a group of people, simply because you don’t agree with them. This is why religion no longer is accepted to play a role in public life in the Netherlands (and other European countries). This is why the opinions and definitions by religious institutions are put aside as being irrelevant.
“….active euthanasia is considered euthanasia. Passive euthanasia, like ending treatment or stopping artificial administration of food and/or fluids, is not considered euthanasia.”
An active dog is considered to be a dog. A passive dog is not considered to be a dog?
Let me see if I’m understanding you, Edward.
Consider a health care professional who orders removal of food and water from a comatose patient under the instructions of her re-married husband who was her legal guardian…
By your account, this “passive” mercy killing is by-the-book. The poor girl was foolish enough to marry a bad egg, and her penalty is death. Is that pretty much how you see it? I’m genuinely interested.
I would find it pretty disturbing.
Jeff,
“Consider a health care professional who orders removal of food and water from a comatose patient under the instructions of her re-married husband who was her legal guardian…
By your account, this “passive” mercy killing is by-the-book. The poor girl was foolish enough to marry a bad egg, and her penalty is death. Is that pretty much how you see it? I’m genuinely interested.
I would find it pretty disturbing.”
Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just pick some random words, made new sentences and considered that my comment?
Passive euthanasia, which isn’t euthanasia to begin with, is a medical decision. I wouldn’t care if her former husband (who would not have any say in the matter to begin with since he had to divorce her to get remarried and therefor is not related to her anymore) was the President of the United States. He would not have the authority to order anything. I alone, or me and my team, would make that decision and no one else. The former husband could tie me in courts for months if not years (which he wouldn’t since, at least in the Netherlands, it would be clear he’d have no case) but it wouldn’t change a thing. If my comatose patient would not wake up anymore (for instance, with a flatline EEG = no brain activity) I would decide to let her die by ending supplementation of food and fluids and no one would be in a position to order me to act one way or the other. I really hope that’s clear once and for all.
Active euthanasia is a little trickier but not much. If the husband would still hold power of attorny and requested euthanasia other relatives would be consulted as well to prove she did made statements about wanting euthanasia when in coma. If all relatives would agree euthanasia would be performed if and when all other demands Dutch law makes were met. If the relatives do not agree no euthanasia would take place but the case would be transferred to the Medical Ethics Board, which, after a short investigation, would inform the DA’s office there is a possible case of persuading a medical professional to perform euthanasia with the goal to be better from it. In the Netherlands that’s manslaughter, punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison. Most of the time that’s enough to frighten such a husband away to never be seen or heard from again.
Sometimes, however, the husband continues, opening a criminal investigation on him. As long as the investigation is ongoing euthanasia is not permitted. Should he be indicted euthanasia is not permitted for the time the trial is ongoing or the appeals. Should he be convicted he will lose his rights to speak for his wife forever.
Should, after all this, the husband be cleared but he and the other relatives still disagree (like, for example, if one of the relatives is Catholic) it will be up to the courts to decide who is right and whose voice is most important here. So far no judge has ever had to make that decision, though, since this path takes so long no coma patient in the Netherlands has ever made it through the entire thing. They all died well before that.
Do you have any more hypothetical situations to consult me on or can we finally deal with the fact the Catholic definition of euthanasia is legally flawed and this article, in which medical professionals are compared with Nazi’s, is insulting and, in a court of law, could be looked upon as libel? I mean, I can answer all accusations you throw at me and than some.
So the question is: are you going to think for yourself or are you going to be a good little sheep?
Well maybe that’s how ya’ll do it over there in the Neverlands, but here in Amurrica we do things a little different! Dammit, I was going somewhere with that, but I can’t even bother. Edward, thanks for at least attempting to provide some reason with which we might elevate our discourse. Don’t expect it to have any sort of lasting effects. My European friends typically just shake their heads when confronted with the futility of debating an American religious radical.
Allison,
“Well maybe that’s how ya’ll do it over there in the Neverlands, but here in Amurrica we do things a little different!”
Not really. In the US medical professionals and medical ethics boards use the same definitions as we do in the Netherlands since these definitions were made by the WHO in association with the AMA. Also, the procedures on terminating life support and termination of supplementation of food and/or fluids is also derived from the AMA-protocols.
The problem is people like Stacy, Howard or Jeff have no interest in looking at those definitions because they believe everything the Catholic church says to be absolutely true. And maybe I’m to stubborn to let it go but I keep trying to convince them the Catholic church is far from infallible.
I think what we often forget in discussions about euthanasia, and capital punishment/death penalty, is that somebody, some people, must make decisions about the who, how, when and why another person must be put to death. Think about the doctors, nurses, politicians and bureaucrats who will have to make the regulations and decisions just a routine part of their lives. Think about the mental and emotional gymnastics, or the abuse of substances, it will require to ignore the damage that they are doing to their souls each time they make one of these choices. These are ugly, destructive practices not only for those who die but for those who have to live with those deaths. It is a grave injustice to require that of fellow human beings.
Edward, I think there are several problems here.
The first being that we (the Catholic radicals) don’t care about legal definitions in deciding right and wrong. The law is not a moral teacher, and as you must know from recent history if you practice in the Netherlands, it is only a form of power exercised by people. It is moral neutral.
Second, it sounds really stupid to keep saying “Passive euthanasia, which isn’t euthanasia to begin with…”
“I alone, or me and my team, would make that decision and no one else.” It is as you say, a decision not a fact. If passive euthanasia is not for the patients benefit, then who benefits?
Lauri,
“Think about the mental and emotional gymnastics, or the abuse of substances, it will require to ignore the damage that they are doing to their souls each time they make one of these choices.”
Although I can imagine people suffering from making choices like this and having the need for substance abuse to keep themselves in check I don’t suffer from this. It’s the will of the patient and it’s within my legal possibilities to grant that wish. Maybe I’ll have more trouble with it when I’m older but so far no problems here.
“These are ugly, destructive practices not only for those who die but for those who have to live with those deaths. It is a grave injustice to require that of fellow human beings.”
No offense but have you ever seen a patient die in agony, every nerve of his body screaming to end the pain? Suffocating in his or her own bodily fluids because the heart is failing but the brain is unwilling to die? Connected to all kinds of machines, forcing the patient to suffer longer and longer? That image is destructive for my soul.
Howard,
“The first being that we (the Catholic radicals) don’t care about legal definitions in deciding right and wrong. The law is not a moral teacher, and as you must know from recent history if you practice in the Netherlands, it is only a form of power exercised by people. It is moral neutral.”
Exactly, just as our government is defined: morally neutral, without any interference from religion.
There’s is one problem you religious radicals refuse to understand. On earth human law is binding, not church law nor the laws from the Bible are. Only religious radicals care about your moral objections. You’re a minority without influence. The only thing you accomplish is people being annoyed with you. And you violate Jezus’ own commandments: “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” (Matthew 22: 15-21).
“Second, it sounds really stupid to keep saying “Passive euthanasia, which isn’t euthanasia to begin with…” ”
Unfortunately, there is no correct translation in English. Apparently the word we use in Dutch is a Dutch creation.
““I alone, or me and my team, would make that decision and no one else.” It is as you say, a decision not a fact. If passive euthanasia is not for the patients benefit, then who benefits?”
A decision based on facts but I doubt that’s something you’ll ever understand.
Let me ask you another question. Who benefits from someone’s suffering?
Edward said “There’s is one problem you religious radicals refuse to understand. On earth human law is binding, not church law nor the laws from the Bible are”.
What do mean by binding? Do you mean that I fall under the power of the law. That is not very hard to not understand. Do you mean that I must change my thinking? If so, how is this accomplished in law? Did your countrymen accept the law they were bound to in 1940?
I also know Mat 22 by heart.
It says in very clear terms – God’s law must be obeyed. Christ taught also clearly that Caesar’s law is inferior to God’s.
“A decision based on facts but I doubt that’s something you’ll ever understand.”
Edward, a decision CAN be based on facts. Why is a decision necessary if the fact dictates the action, would it not be automatic?
Edward says: “No offense but have you ever seen a patient die in agony, every nerve of his body screaming to end the pain? Suffocating in his or her own bodily fluids because the heart is failing but the brain is unwilling to die? Connected to all kinds of machines, forcing the patient to suffer longer and longer?”
I think you do mean to offend. And the short answer is “Yes.”
Howard,
“What do mean by binding? Do you mean that I fall under the power of the law. That is not very hard to not understand.”
Yes, indeed, as well as the fact a minority like religious radicals can never change democratic laws.
“Do you mean that I must change my thinking? If so, how is this accomplished in law? Did your countrymen accept the law they were bound to in 1940?”
You’d be surprised how many of my countrymen did accept the changes of the law in 1940. It wasn’t until people started to realise the humanitarian disaster Europe was heading for when they started to resist. In the beginning of the German occupation the occupied areas thrived economically. It wasn’t untill half of 1941 when people started to realise the prize they would have to pay for that.
But more important: you can hardly call the laws the occupying force demanded to be met democratic, right?
“I also know Mat 22 by heart.
It says in very clear terms – God’s law must be obeyed. Christ taught also clearly that Caesar’s law is inferior to God’s”
Interesting. A lot of theological scholars do not agree with that assessment. They even state by naming Caesar first Jezus meant the laws of the land had to obbeyed always and the laws of god only when they didn’t conflict with the laws of the land. Others think the statement was meant to say god’s laws needed to be obbeyed in the heart but the laws of the land needed to obbeyed physically. Like accepting the right people have to end their own life by the laws of the land while not accepting such a way out for you personally.
“Why is a decision necessary if the fact dictates the action, would it not be automatic?”
The day I decide to end my patients life on auto-pilot is the day I hand in my medical license. A patient in a coma with a flat EEG or or multisystem organ failure is a nobrainer but still we’re talking about a human being who people love. Still, for both the patients and the family it’s better to end the suffering. Effectively, the patient is already dead. You only allow the organs to follow the rest.
Right now I have a patient, 35 yo, filled with metastized cancer. And when I say filled that’s exactly what I mean. There is no bone or organ not affected. I know I can’t cure him. I know I can’t do anything more for him than prolong his agony and I know the current pain meds I have him on will fail before the week is through. Still, he’s fighting and he claims he is not suffering. Medically I should end his treatment, put him on morfin and let him die but that’s not my place. My patient is telling me to allow him to fight so I will. Once my patient is ready to throw in the towell I will help him with that. And, to be honest, my own ideas and principles play no part in that.
Lauri,
“I think you do mean to offend.”
Trust me, if I try to offend you don’t think I do. You’d know.
Edward,
I’m just responding to your first comment.
You took issue with the given definition, but then you really didn’t say what was wrong with it.
“…the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.”
It is logically irrelevant whether it was the the patient’s wish or not, it is still the “intentional killing” for an “alleged benefit.”
The “benefit” would just be, in your terms, that it is the patient’s wish.
Nothing was left out.
Stacy,
No, the benefit is to end the patient’s suffering. The fact it’s the patient’s own wish is needed to call ending a patient’s life. Otherwise it would be plain murder. You may think it’s the same but, both legally and ethically, it is not.
Furthermore, I did indicate the given definition equals passive euthanasia and active euthanasia while, as explained, these two subjects are not the same nor are they equal. This, too, is a flaw in the given definition.
So here we have a two line definitions with one flaw and one omission. I think we can conclude the given definition therefor can be discarded. Such a short definition which is both wrong and incomplete is worthless.
Edward, it is clear that we are talking to an atheist who is using medical examples. I do not doubt that you are a doctor. Your position on any subject that deals with morality would exclude God, would it not? Am I correct?
“But more important: you can hardly call the laws the occupying force demanded to be met democratic, right?”
Were not the Caesars an occupying force?
It took me a couple of days, but I noticed that the word “democracy” is being used around here as if it were a super good thing.
America is a democratic republic. We are not a democracy, nor should we be.
Democracy: 2 wolves and 1 kitten holding a vote on what’s for dinner.
Edward,
I would like to correct my earlier statement and say that I think you do not care if you offend, which means that your “No offense” disclaimer is meaningless. What is more, you offend not only against people but against facts, rational discussion and the rules of logical argumentation.
For example, in your first comment, you assert that: “Passive euthanasia, which isn’t euthanasia to begin with, is a medical decision.” The fact is that the Netherlands redefined “euthanasia” to include only “active” euthanasia in its Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act. The fact that no new word has been coined to replace “euthanasia” in “passive” euthanasia makes it clear that all forms of intentional killing of a dependent human being are still described by the word euthanasia.
An example of an offense against rational discussion in your first comment is where you state: “I can imagine the Catholic Education Resource Center “forgot” to mention the criterium euthanasia has to be the patients own wish. After all, if they had included that criterium in their definition they would be unable to insult and criminalise hundreds of thousands of health care professionals by calling them Nazi’s, let alone comparing modern day medicine with one of the largest crimes against humanity in our history.” The rational discussion is supposed to center on that exact question: Did the Nazis and the Chinese Communists use similar or even identical arguments to justify mass murder as those who argue in favour of “active euthanasia”? Can we rationally discuss the question of whether intentionally killing a dependent human being ever makes any of us better than the Nazis and communists we so despise?
An example of an offense against logical argumentation in your first comment is in your conclusion: “This article is a prime example of trying to blacken the reputation of a group of people, simply because you don’t agree with them. This is why religion no longer is accepted to play a role in public life in the Netherlands (and other European countries). This is why the opinions and definitions by religious institutions are put aside as being irrelevant.” I can turn this on its head and say that your comments on this blog are good examples of “trying to blacken the reputation of a group of people, simply because you don’t agree with them.” In fact, that is the simple reason “religion is no longer accepted to play a role in public life in the Netherlands”, because people who hold beliefs different from your own are not worthy of participating in public life. That is where your failure in logic actually goes.
Finally, Edward, your biases and anger sem to make it impossible for you to respect and appreciate the Catholic approach to understanding the truth about and purpose of human life. We seek to discover, know and apply the principles that found and govern the good and holy life. Catholics seek to know God and, thereby, also learn and know what is good, right, and true for all human beings. In contrast, you rely almost exclusively on your personal experience to define your understanding of “good”, “right”, and “true”. Personal experience may inform the ways Catholics explain and discuss these principles, but it never defines them.
“The day I decide to end my patients life on auto-pilot is the day I hand in my medical license.”
I presume you are saying that you are authorized by the state to end a patients life regardless of the families wishes, but do not on your own authority because you see a value in that life?
“Interesting. A lot of theological scholars do not agree with that assessment.”
Edward, a lot of doctors do not agree with you regarding euthanasia. You are on a Catholic blog, we follow the Church’s teachings here, we do not have an ever changing vote.
In your own Dutch history during WWII and before are; Archbishop De Jon, Bishop Mgr. Lammers, Fr. Robert Regout to name a few who stood against the Nazis and many Religious who lost their lives in the Netherlands and the colonies. Does this sound like the Catholic Church teaches that whatever current rule of law exists is supreme.
Sorry for the multiple posts, I am a slow thinker.
Edward, what method(s) do you personally use to “intentionally kill” your patients, and how many patients have you “intentionally killed”, if that is something you’ve done? Do you have a particular method that you prefer? Typically, does the family watch and what is your demeanor? Joyful? Sad? Straight-faced? Has “intentionally killing” your patients, if that is something you’ve done, changed you as a person in any way that you’re aware of?
Peggy my love!
“The day I decide to end my patients life on auto-pilot…….”
Has “intentionally killing” your patients, if that is something you’ve done, changed you as a person in any way that you’re aware of?
The change has already happened. The very basis of Catholic bioethics is that a life is valuable from conception to natural death because it is a life created by God. You have said yourself that God’s creations must be loved. Catholic doctors who practice their faith do not decide if the life is worth keeping based on criterion voted at a meeting. If Edward has let a person die naturally then he has intentionally killed no one. The difficult decision to make sometimes is, has the person actually died. This is a better area of argument than is the person worth keeping alive. That is where we have gotten into trouble and when most of Europe, parts of Asia, Italy, and north Africa is destroyed then rebuilt so self indulgent children can grow up to make those same mistaken judgments all over again.
Howard,
“Your position on any subject that deals with morality would exclude God, would it not? Am I correct?”
Not so much god, although I don’t believe such an entity exists, but definately any and all authority based on organized religion, yes. Right now I don’t think the Catholic church should be advicing on anything having something to do with morallity, especially since somehow the Catholic church can’t keep it’s own clergy from doing immoral things.
“Were not the Caesars an occupying force?”
No, it wasn’t. The Israeli government was willing cooperating with Caesar and the Romans.
Jeff,
“Democracy: 2 wolves and 1 kitten holding a vote on what’s for dinner.”
Guess in current day and age when dealing with religion are the kittens. I’ll give you a hint: not the ones sleeping in on Sunday morning.
Lauri,
“The fact is that the Netherlands redefined “euthanasia” to include only “active” euthanasia in its Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act.”
It took me some time to think about this one so I contacted some friends of mine (MD’s from other countries, including the US). The reason why only the Netherlands redefined “passive euthanasia” is because only the Netherlands acknowledged the fact there is something like passive euthanasia. In the US they simply call it “ending treatment” or “terminating life support”; i.e. they kept it completely medical.
“The rational discussion is supposed to center on that exact question: Did the Nazis and the Chinese Communists use similar or even identical arguments to justify mass murder as those who argue in favour of “active euthanasia”?”
Now I own a lot of books on World War II but in none of them I ever read the jews requesting being arrested, deported an killed. I’m no expert on Chinese communists so I can’t answer you on that one for sure but I think it’s a safe bet their opposers didn’t go and handed in a written request to be tortured and murdered.
So no, I don’t think either the Nazi’s or the Chinese communists used “similar or even identical arguments”. I think their arguments involved hatred (Nazi’s) and fear to lose their new positions (Chinese communists).
“Can we rationally discuss the question of whether intentionally killing a dependent human being ever makes any of us better than the Nazis and communists we so despise?”
Well, actually we can’t. You see, as a health care professional I kind of resent being compared with Nazi Germany. Even so much I reported this article to the Royal Dutch Medical Association to be investigated for libel. According to the legal team I spoke there’s a very good chance for a succesful if either the servers or back-up servers are located anywhere within the European Union.
“Edward, your biases and anger sem to make it impossible for you to respect and appreciate the Catholic approach to understanding the truth about and purpose of human life.”
This argument would impress me so much more if the Catholic church didn’t have a very, very, VERY long (and bloody) history of repressing any and all attempts to prove the Catholic truth is incomplete at best. And since when did it become a child’s purpose in life to sexualy satisfy a priest? When that came out I lost the last flinch of respect I had for the Catholic church, like I’m losing my respect for any Catholics who are constantly trying to cover it up, soften it or trying to blindside non-Catholics with unjust arguments.
“In contrast, you rely almost exclusively on your personal experience to define your understanding of “good”, “right”, and “true”. ”
True, and my personal experience has taught me never to trust a religious radical or organized religion ever again. Before you know it you’re burrying a loved one.
Howard,
“I presume you are saying that you are authorized by the state to end a patients life regardless of the families wishes, but do not on your own authority because you see a value in that life?”
Of course I see value in a life. Why would I have become and MD otherwise? I don’t see value in endless suffering with no chance of recovering.
I’m authorized to make any and all medical decisions there are to make and if needed I have no problem ordering life support to be terminated. But I don’t do that unless there is still hope for recovery.
“Does this sound like the Catholic Church teaches that whatever current rule of law exists is supreme.”
No, neither does Cardinal Simonis, stating on Dutch national television the saying “Wir habben es nicht gewusst” (We didn’t know) in relationship to the Catholic sexual abuse scandal. Not only is this saying quite controversial, since it was the sentence used by the German people when information from death camps like Auschwitz came out in the 1940′s, but it also proved to be untrue. The Committee Deetman, responsible for investigating the sexual abuse scandal in the Netherlands, found proof Simonis was aware of 21 cases of sexual abuse when he was Bishop of Rotterdam from 1970 till 1983.
Peggy,
Personally I prefer giving a strong sedative intraveneously, followed by a strong muscle relaxant. The patient will be deep asleep within minutes by the sedative while the muscle relaxant will stop the breathing muscles. I prefer this to a potion patients have to drink that will combine the working mechanisms. Trouble is some patients who are asleep get nauseous by this drug, causing them to vomit in their sleep, suffocating in their own vomit. That seems a terrible sight for the loved ones to me.
Whether or not the patient’s family is there is up to them. Sometimes the family already said their good-byes and don’t want to be there but most of the time at least the partner and/or children are present. To be honest their presence doesn’t bother me like sometimes their absence does. Personally I don’t think a person should have to die alone so if a patients request euthanasia and there are no family members present I stay with them untill they are passed away.
My personal emotions differ from time to time but they don’t show. My emotions don’t matter in these cases. Sometimes I feel terrible when a patient requests euthanasia and sometimes I feel completely ok with it. Also depends on the underlying illness, the age of the patient, the character of the patient and his/her family. But whenever I perform euthanasia I am stonefaced. My emotions have no place in that room at that time.
Same explanation goes for terminating life support. One of the first time I had to do that was on a 17 yo young man who was admitted in the hospital with a simple flu getting out of control. He developed Guillain–Barré syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillain%E2%80%93Barr%C3%A9_syndrome) and suffered from oxygen deprevation too long, causing him to be braindead. There was no chance of him ever waking up again so in accordance to the kid’s own wishes, his family asked us to terminate life support, which we did. Of course it hurts to see a hospital room filled with family and friends cry but, again, my emotions are not important at that moment.
As far as I know I haven’t changed as a person but that’s a question you should ask my husband, not me.
Howard,
“The change has already happened.”
I stopped considering myself being a Christian long before I became an MD. I have no intention of honoring a god who allows someone who vowed to serve him drive an innocent young man to his grave. That chance had nothing to do with my take on euthanasia.
Edward,
Libel, eh? Libel is a consequence of a person making statements, representations or comments (all in writing) about another person that are demonstrably false, with the intent of causing harm to that person or that person’s reputation. Nothing of the sort has been done to you personally. You seemed rather dismissive of a definition that you considered to be incomplete yet you have no problem whatsoever making empty threats in an effort to shut down the argument. If you wish to engage in reasoned discourse, then do so. Leave the threats at the door, especially the empty variety.
Perhaps you should read the original post and keep a close look-out for context. Rationalizing the intentional killing of another is a slippery slope that HAS indeed been used to end the lives of untold millions of human beings throughout history – this is fact and not open to debate. The distance between ‘mercy killing’ and something else is not that great – you prove my point when you make the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. You say that passive euthanasia is not considered ethical and therefore not considered euthanasia, but you offer no explanation as to why that adjective is applied to euthanasia in the first place. A priori we know that a dog is not a cow and we do not feel compelled to refer to a dog as a ‘not a cow dog’. If you are suggesting that passive (non)euthanasia – happy now? – is something unheard of in modern medicine, then I’m afraid you’re ignorant of the facts or you are attempting to mislead. It happens every day. So what if you don’t consider it euthanasia? Should the deceased find some comfort and/or solace in the distinction? And what will it morph into tomorrow? That’s my point. Oh, and if active euthanasia is synonymous with assisted suicide, why do we need all of these other words over which to trip? Language is a funny thing. As George Carlin observed many years ago, ‘shell shock’ turned into ‘battle fatigue’ and eventually into ‘stress-related organizational dysfunction’ – it’s as if we convinced ourselved that a change in terminology would somehow eliminate the pain associated with the condition.
Shutting down the argument is a loser’s trick. So is misdirection. If you are the authority that you claim to be on the subject, demonstrate it by offering a foundationally sound argument in support of your position. The essential question is simple and my position with regard to that question is supported by ample historical evidence that man cannot be trusted with rationalizing the value of another’s life.
Edward? Husband?
The priest scandal is a vulnerable attack point. But, I have one also. I was sexually abused by a doctor when I was 16. He had 2 small children and a wife at the time. A doctor and a bi-sexual or a doctor and a homosexual who was faking it as a heterosexual. It was during a physical exam in his office. About 5 years later his wife divorced him because he was caught keeping a young man in an apartment in the next city. Do you think that I should debate the correctness of my medical treatment with my present doctor based on this experience?
Newsweek magazine, April 7, 2010:
“[E]xperts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. ‘We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else,’ said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children …
“Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer to one in 5 …
“Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations … It’s been that way for decades.”
http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
“Were not the Caesars an occupying force?”
No, it wasn’t. The Israeli government was willing cooperating with Caesar and the Romans.
From Alexander the Great through many wars until tThird Mithridatic War and Pax Romana, Judea was an occupied territory ultimately twice ruled by a cruel king, Herod King of Judea named so by the Roman Senate (in Rome, not Palestine). Do you see democracy for the Jews here?
“That chance (change) had nothing to do with my take on euthanasia.”
A change of your personal reasons for first accepting God and then abandoning Him is not what I meant. I mean the change in a people who were occupied, from being disgusted with a government assigning a negative or positive value to a human life based upon it’s own judgment to embracing that approach itself. I am sure you consider yourself a good person, but to ask an atheist to define what that means, can result in almost anything. Because you herd together (like sheep?) and vote alike does not constitute good. There is objective truth.
Speaking of sheep. A shepherd does not lead his flock to their death. Death is certain no matter what he does. A shepherd leads his flock to a premature death at the slaughter house. Exactly how do you see Jesus as leading us sheep to a premature death? To speak theologically it is just the opposite.
Howard, my love, how as the web the spiders spin and wanton breezes blow, the soft and filmy laces in a swirl around thee flow!
You said “Catholic doctors who practice their faith do not decide if the life is worth keeping based on criterion voted at a meeting.” I would not be surprised if many “Catholic doctors who practice their faith” are influenced, if not directed, by “criterion voted at a meeting”, as prepared by commissions, conferences, councils, legislatures, etc – religious or secular — where votes were taken. Even the decision on a pope is “voted at a meeting”. Anyway, the Church teaches that even “Catholic doctors who practice their faith” (your words) “can fall in good faith” (Church teaching) into an “error of judgment” regarding euthanasia. (CCC#2277)
But who, if anyone, Catholic or not, “decides if the life is worth keeping”? Is that what Edward himself actually decides as a medical doctor? Or is that your characterization. Because I recall Edward saying, “it has to be the patient’s own wish to end his/her life” (except in cases where the family or parents make the decision). Meanwhile, did Abraham actually decide that Isaac’s life was not worth keeping? Was that why he raised his knife? According to Aquinas: “[W]hen Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder, because his son was due to be slain by the command of God, Who is Lord of life and death: for He it is Who inflicts the punishment of death on all men, both godly and ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no murderer any more than God would be.”
Meanwhile, on condemning people, the “Angelic Doctor” said, “[The Church] condemns [the heretic] not at once, but ‘after the first and second admonition,’ as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death.” And, “[The Church] presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death.” To recap, per the Angelic Doctor, the Church gives up hope on the relapsing patient, presumes the patient insincere, and furthermore delivers the patient to be “exterminated”, like a bug, contrary to the patient’s wishes?
And yet, we find in Church teaching, “The Church proposes, she imposes nothing” — but condemns and delivers people to be exterminated against their wishes if they don’t accept her proposal? “It can happen that moral conscience” doesn’t agree with Church teaching, she teaches. And “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.” (CCC#1790)
Howard, the statement “We don’t see…” says just that. We don’t see. It doesn’t say there is or is not an elephant in the room, or how big it is or its religion, etc. Sexual abuse of minors is generally done in secrecy, and the victims often wait many years to report it, if they report it at all.
Similarly, the term “sexual abuse” and the various ways that it’s “rated” / reported are defined differently, often very differently, by different researchers. Some use convictions, some use accusations, sometimes only formally filed official written accusations, some use newspaper reports, some use anonymous surveys, some use insurance claims, some include “suggestive language”, “inappropriate looks” and “feelings”, some use hearsay, etc. The research, like your cited link, has yet to distinguish apples from oranges.
Do Catholic priests molest more or less than other groups? Are victims of Catholic priests more or less likely to report (alleged) offenses than other groups? The “experts” don’t know. They “don’t see”. Even the “experts” have personal agendas, as do priests and (alleged) victims.
You posted a link to “fast facts”, but they may as well be “fast falsehoods”.
I will just say, Edward, that your latest posting only confirms that you are unable to think and argue rationally. To your mind, everything is all about YOU. To my mind, everything is all about God’s love for His creation and His adopted children. I won’t be reading anything else you have to say, as I find little of interest or value in your world view. Good-bye and good luck (with the libel lawsuit.)
Peggy darling , “Oh what a tangled web we weave,When first we practise to deceive!”
As you have verbosely said, Catholic or not, men (I don’t want to start another argument of the day) and women can fail.
“But who, if anyone, Catholic or not, “decides if the life is worth keeping”? Is that what Edward himself actually decides as a medical doctor?”
Edward decides that he is in agreement and complies. He decides medically if a life is ending naturally or not based on KNMG rules and Dutch law, an ever changing body of law.
“It would seem that physicians’ interpretations of what constitutes unbearable suffering in the
context of euthanasia requests have become less restrictive than in the period immediately after the Supreme Court ruling.” – KNMG position paper 2011
It also seems that the future that is really being debated here may not be too far off in the Netherlands!
“In the future, physicians will be confronted more than ever before with
seniors in vulnerable positions, ever-more advanced in age and, moreover,
keen to live independently for as long as possible. At the time of writing,
there are more than one million elderly people with multimorbidity. This
number is expected to rise over the next decade to 1.5 million, or almost
ten percent of the total population of the Netherlands.
Many older people have various afflictions that are not actually lifethreatening
but do make them vulnerable. The term vulnerability – also
fragility, or frailty – is used to refer to a concurrent decline in several areas
of a person’s capacity to endure physical stress and threats from factors
in their surrounding environment. They experience a loss of both physical
and mental vitality. Multimorbidity furthermore significantly increases the
likelihood of depression – and therefore vulnerability. Vulnerability stems
not only from health problems and the ensuing limitations, but also the
measure in which people have social skills, financial resources and a social
network. Vulnerability has an impact on quality of life and on prospects for
recovery, and can lead to unbearable and lasting suffering. (22, 23, 24, 25,
26)
When viewed against the backdrop of these developments, and of the
response to these developments within the medical profession, it is wholly
justifiable that vulnerability – extending to such dimensions as loss of
function, loneliness and loss of autonomy – should be part of the equation
physicians use to assess requests for euthanasia.i Before taking any
h Even such steps, however, a physician’s first duty is always to determine if any
suitable interventions or reasonable alternatives can be found (consulting
geriatricians or other experts, where needed).
The sum of this non-linear equation and the complexity of what are usually
non-fatal afflictions is increasing deterioration leading to an unacceptable
existence and thus to unbearable suffering for the patient. (6) Many such
patients have already been through a period of marked physical decline
that has exceeded their abilities to cope. As various other ailments and
complications such as disorders affecting vision, hearing and mobility, falls,
confinement to bed, fatigue, exhaustion and loss of fitness take hold, so
too does their degree of dependence.j The patient perceives the suffering
as interminable, his existence as meaningless and – though not directly in
danger of dying from these complaints – neither wishes to experience them
nor, insofar as his history and own values permit, to derive meaning from
them.
In the KNMG’s view, such cases are sufficiently linked to the medical
domain to permit a physician to act within the confines of the Euthanasia
Law. This view further reflects the second option cited by the Dijkhuis
Committee.
The Regional Review Committees on Euthanasia have on multiple occasions
found that ‘due care’ was taken in cases where the unbearable
suffering was caused by an accumulation of various old-age afflictions or a
combination of factors, and in which the individual ailments were neither
life-threatening nor fatal.k Physicians have been able to make a sufficiently
credible case to these review committees, which are charged with testing
physicians’ actions against the Euthanasia Law, case law and in light of
scientifically-supported medical insights and medical ethics standards, that
these cases equally involved unbearable and lasting suffering.
The KNMG therefore concludes that the current statutory framework and
the concept of suffering are broader than their interpretation and application
by many physicians today.l” – KNMG position paper 2011
In english
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Richtlijnen/KNMGpublicatie/Position-paper-The-role-of-the-physician-in-the-voluntary-termination-of-life-2011.htm
In Dutch
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Standpunt-rol-van-de-arts-bij-het-zelfgekozen-levenseinde-2011.htm
Ain’t the internet wonderful!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Lauri, I’m *this close* to censoring Edward’s comments, but my husband suggested letting him have his say.
People can see first hand the mindset of doctors in the Netherlands. There’s no stronger testimony than their own.
Plus, I pray for him whenever he posts. It may be legal in his country to kill people, but the Dutch judicial system is not the final judgement a man will face.
Wow Howard, thanks!
Peggy Sue,
The Church is made of humans and humans are flawed, saints and heretics. The difference in the Church and say, Planned Parenthood, is that she admitted her mistakes and, the moral miracle that she is, she has sought true justice in human societies — and has in fact led the way to more moral societies on this earth. They crucified Christ, remember.
In the Medieval world, there were still extreme and harsh death penalties carried out by the state. In the Modern world, there are still. The U.S. still practices capital punishment of incarcerated men, and mothers can kill their own children in the womb for a couple hundred bucks. The Church stands as a beacon, a light for true justice against these things and leads the way to understand how we can socially do better.
A quick note about your dismissal of Howard’s clergy abuse statistics: If you are going to dismiss statistics because you believe the data is compromised, then you can’t turn around and use it to make your point. If they are false, they are false.
The Church condemns child abuse too. Who’s side are you on, Peggy Sue?
Peggy my one and only, I am going to help you out because you mean so much to me.
“[W]hen Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder, because his son was due to be slain by the command of God.”
Murder is a legal term, the unlawful killing of a human being. Murder can be committed under one state jurisdiction (or a God’s jurisdiction) and not under another. What we are debating is killing. Abraham was willing according to the custom of the day to offer a human sacrifice to God, even his own son. And God redfused it.
The inquisition and it’s complexities is better left to another thread.
Stacy, I don’t have to “dismiss statistics” to point out their misuse. For example, Howard’s “fast facts” article claimed that “approximately only 4% of all active priests… were even [formally/credibly] accused of [child sexual] abuse – a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.” But the rates then cited by Howard’s article for “the general American male population” such as “one in 10″ and “one in 5″ were not percentages of “the general American male population” accused of child sexual abuse. Instead, they were percentages of men who informally recalled being the victim of child sexual abuse, and under different definitions by unrelated research. That would be apples and oranges, foxes and roosters, and incidence vs prevalence.
Rather than “FACT: Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population,” we don’t know that to be fact. No credible research found a “far lower” (or far higher) rate in the Catholic Church. As stated in the linked Newsweek article, “No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination.”
And as to whether “only 4% of all active priests were even accused of abuse”, the actual number could perhaps be much higher, because not all accusations made the cut. Some perhaps didn’t even get recorded by the diocese to begin with, or were lost, or were deemed by the dioceses to be false, unfounded or were subsequently withdrawn, or the priest had been allegedly exonerated, even if in reality the allegations had been true. And not all dioceses and eparchies returned the surveys. Whatever the actual percentage of accused priests, it’s also likely not the percentage of abusing priests, which again could be higher (or lower).
And one other example, Howard’s “fast facts” claims “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY: A MODEL FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN… The Catholic Church’s record of aggressive and proactive protective measures is unparalleled in any organization today. Since the beginning of the abuse crisis, the Catholic Church has instituted a ‘zero tolerance’ policy in which any credibly accused priest is immediately removed from ministry.”
Meanwhile, the 2011 Philadelphia grand jury found that “six years after an earlier grand jury documented sexual abuse by priests whom church officials shielded for decades, and in the face of current assurances that Archdiocese procedures now protect families, credibly accused priests have routinely been permitted to stay in ministry.”
Howard, maybe Edward’s patients are due to be slain by the command of God and Edward is willing according to the Netherlands custom of his day.
But for me, I don’t swat even a mosquito.
Peggy, the Church is a vast enterprise responsible for as many members as are people in India. You pick at wounds gleefully but never recognize efforts to cure ills or the good faith of good people. You speak more like a Pakistani than an Indian – always with a bias and intent to do harm. The teachings of the Church have remained intact through the centuries regardless of the problems.
From USCCB.
WASHINGTON (May 18, 2011)—A landmark study by researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, which examined the causes and context of the clergy sexual abuse crisis in the U.S. Catholic Church, concluded that there was no single cause or predictor of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. The report added that that situational factors and opportunity to abuse played a significant role in the onset and continuation of abusive acts.
“The bulk of cases occurred decades ago,” said Karen Terry, PhD., John Jay’s principal investigator for the report. “The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time.” She also stated that “social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of individual priests whose preparation for a life of celibacy was inadequate at that time.” Terry also said that neither celibacy nor homosexuality were causes of the abuse, and that priest candidates who would later abuse could not be distinguished by psychological test data, developmental and sexual history data, intelligence data, or experience in priesthood. The development of human formation components of seminary preparation for priesthood is associated with the continued low levels of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States, she said.
I lived as an adult through the 60s in New York City and San Francisco, both the very centers of the new morality that was sweeping the country. This was a time when the younger generation was rejecting everything that came before and creating it’s own morality from scratch, based on feelings. Along with VAT2 changes, I am surprise that the Church survived as well as it did since it’s survival depended on new members, new priests and religious. Young people to enter seminary, to teach in seminary and to carry the Church foreword, but born into a new age with incredible peer pressures to conform. Often with only a educational background that emphasized the new age. We are now trying to recover from this era.
More recent news of Phili:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j49pRS6uSh9iitVBmutf2VxyF4mA?docId=CNG.3c592d471907ea930dadbbc8ded4ad6c.d71
“But for me, I don’t swat even a mosquito”
Interesting. Have you ever read Albert Schweitzer’s “Reverence For Life”. I know a true story of a time when he stopped work on a building project because a line of ants needed to pass through. But, as a doctor he slaughtered gazillions of life forms with antiseptic. We tend to have our favorites don’t we?
Peggy,
This is off-topic, but hey, Catholics are used to people derailing every single discussion with “Preeeests are all sex abusers!!!”
I’m interested in your comment though.
On what basis do you dismiss this?
Is that guy just clueless?
Jose,
“Libel is a consequence of a person making statements, representations or comments (all in writing) about another person that are demonstrably false, with the intent of causing harm to that person or that person’s reputation. Nothing of the sort has been done to you personally.”
Written statements, check. Demonstrably false, check. causing harm to a person’s reputation, check. And the best part is, in Europe it doesn’t have to be about me personally. Since you addressed a group of which I am a member it is also addressed to me. And since most American companies have back-up servers in Europe nowadays to avoid some of the less apealing American laws these companies are making people vulnurable for European laws.
But, as we established already, I’m not a lawyer. I was just insulted by the original article and therefor consulted a legal team from the Royal Dutch Medical Association of which I am a member. They said they think they have a case. That wasn’t me.
“You say that passive euthanasia is not considered ethical and therefore not considered euthanasia,”
Where on earth did I say terminating life support is not ethical? I consider it unethical to prolong life support if either the patient is suffering or if the patient is already dead but the body doesn’t know it yet.
“If you are suggesting that passive (non)euthanasia – happy now? – is something unheard of in modern medicine, then I’m afraid you’re ignorant of the facts or you are attempting to mislead. It happens every day.”
I know it happens every day. I never said it didn’t. I alone terminate either life support or treatment several times each month. But, like I said, that’s a medical decision and has absolutely nothing to do with euthanasia.
“what will it morph into tomorrow? That’s my point.”
Like I said already several times, it’s a pure medical decision. And since our previous government has passed a bill forbiding anymore government involvement in medical-ethical affairs it will stay that way.
“if active euthanasia is synonymous with assisted suicide, why do we need all of these other words over which to trip?”
Because euthanasia is always linked to the medical profession. You need to be ill to be able to request euthanasia and even than there are strict criteria you need to meet. It’s a little more than just “assisted suicide” but that is indeed a large part of it, yes.
“The essential question is simple and my position with regard to that question is supported by ample historical evidence that man cannot be trusted with rationalizing the value of another’s life.”
And yet you have no problem allowing the Catholic church to dictate the direction of your life, adding value to how you live it. Seems a contradiction, doesn’t it?
Howard,
“Edward? Husband?”
Yes. Didn’t you know? Since 2002 gay couples can get married in the Netherlands.
“I was sexually abused by a doctor when I was 16. Do you think that I should debate the correctness of my medical treatment with my present doctor based on this experience?”
I wouldn’t blame you if this damaged your trust in medical professionals. There is, however, one huge difference. As a doctor I don’t preach to you about morals. Priests do so it’s more than reasonable to demand a higher standard for priests. But sexual abuse by health care professionals is being battled by instating the rule health care professionals need a statement from the Justice department they’re behaviour is beyond any doubt. A similar law was ready to be instated for religious professionals. However, the Catholic church in the Netherlands succefully fought that law, stating the Justice department had no business giving out such statements for priests since this was a violation of the freedom of religion.
So, apparently, the Catholic church has no intention to battle sexual abuse. The Catholic church is more interested in keeping the behaviour of it’s priests a secret.
“There is objective truth.”
To you, maybe. To me, as an atheist, there isn’t. And I’m totally ok with that.
“Exactly how do you see Jesus as leading us sheep to a premature death?”
By killing your individuality and your ability to think for yourself and decide for yourself.
Peggy Sue,
“But who, if anyone, Catholic or not, “decides if the life is worth keeping”? Is that what Edward himself actually decides as a medical doctor?”
As an MD I don’t decide which life is worth keeping. I do, however, decide which life has a fighting chance. If a patient comes to me and demands being treated for stage IV lung cancer it’s well within my rights to deny that request. Stage IV lung cancer is uncurable. However, if that patient tells me his daughter is getting married in three months and he really needs to be there that day, that is something I can (and most of the time will) help him with. But I will keep telling him it’s only delaying the inevitable.
So I do decide who receives treatment and who doesn’t, but only in the cases that are doomed anyway.
Stacy,
“Plus, I pray for him whenever he posts. It may be legal in his country to kill people, but the Dutch judicial system is not the final judgement a man will face.”
Since I don’t believe there is a god I’m not worried about that.
“The difference in the Church and say, Planned Parenthood, is that she admitted her mistakes and, the moral miracle that she is, she has sought true justice in human societies — and has in fact led the way to more moral societies on this earth.”
Really? Quite a contradiction to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7553989/Cardinal-tells-Pope-not-to-be-distracted-by-petty-gossip.html
Especially when a month later he’s implicated himself in the cover up: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100034047/cardinal-sodano-dean-of-the-college-of-cardinals-implicated-in-legionaries-scandal/
“The Church condemns child abuse too.”
Yes, you keep saying that but time and time again evidence of exactly the opposite is shown.
Stacy,
“Is that guy just clueless?”
No, that guy is a spin doctor, performing damage control, being paid for by your church.
Do you really think the Catholic church has anything to gain with publishing the true numbers? Come on. Even you cannot be that naive. Or is a coincidence in all the provided files in the Netherlands, Belgium and France the investigating committees could not find a single case within the limitation of statutory rape? Sorry, but I simply don’t believe all priests stopped abusing children in 1985, although that is the year all files ended. In none of the files the investigating committees received from after 1985 (so within the limitation of statutory rape) did the committees find any proof of a crime while almost all files from before 1985 did show proof of sexual abuse and rape.
No one believes the numbers are true just like no one believes there are no victims after 1985. And because no one believes this there are very little people who believe the Catholic church is indeed doing everthing it can to battle child abuse now, especially since it did nothing before.
Edward, LOL. If the Royal Dutch Medical Association sues a Catholic mommy blogger in the U.S. for damaging their reputation just because she announced that euthanasia is evil — I have two words.
Bring it!
“Yes. Didn’t you know? Since 2002 gay couples can get married in the Netherlands.”
Among all the countries in the world the Netherlands is one of those that has no interest for me. If Europe survives its own problems of Muslim migration, overspending and huge unemployment I could care less. I had suspected that you are a homosexual because you exhibit a familiar combative attitude towards others.
“There is objective truth.”
To you, maybe. To me, as an atheist, there isn’t. And I’m totally ok with that.
You can’t wish objective truth away, it is in the definition. I wish you luck when you tell your banker that you THINK your balance is higher therefore it should be.
“Exactly how do you see Jesus as leading us sheep to a premature death?”
By killing your individuality and your ability to think for yourself and decide for yourself.
You better stick to general medicine and stay away from psychology. Since I have been an agnostic for most of my life and only a member of the Catholic Church since 2010, how do you explain that my view of euthanasia and homosexuality has not changed in several decades? If you knew about my life I don’t think you would describe me as not expressing individuality. I think what you mean is, anyone who disagrees with you can’t possibly be thinking for themselves.
“I wouldn’t blame you if this damaged your trust in medical professionals. There is, however, one huge difference. As a doctor I don’t preach to you about morals. Priests do so it’s more than reasonable to demand a higher standard for priests.”
Actually it hasn’t. Two weeks ago when my doctor asked me if I wanted a digital exam, I said no only because my PSA was low after my radiation treatments for prostate cancer. The past unpleasantness was not even remembered. But, I do not know why I should feel any more violated if it was a priest – trust is trust. Actually this doctor didn’t get very far. We came to an understanding very quickly! It was a disgusting experience, and he appeared to me to be a very pathetic person. I made excuses and asked to have my own doctor because I was working. I had an understanding with this man and trusted him enough to allow him to hypnotize me for a college psych paper a few years later – he used hypnosis in his private practice. About 10 years after we played scrabble once a week with 2 others. He was a brilliant person and usually won. He died divorced and miserable but not completely friendless. You as many others don’t really care about the abused person, you only use this subject to attack the Church.
How pathetic – I’m not sure which is more pathetic – that the Royal Dutch Medical Association believes it has a libel case based on its own definiion of euthanasia….
or Edward gloating about it….
Stacy,
“If the Royal Dutch Medical Association sues a Catholic mommy blogger in the U.S. for damaging their reputation just because she announced that euthanasia is evil”
No, not for stating euthanasia is evil. There are enough people who think that just like you. Comparing health care profesionals with Nazi germany and hospitals with Auschwitz is something completely different, though.
And I don’t think they’ll go after you. They have little to gain from that. Your hosting provider, however …….
Howard,
“You better stick to general medicine and stay away from psychology.” Psychology is not a medical specialty. Psychiatry is.
“Since I have been an agnostic for most of my life and only a member of the Catholic Church since 2010, how do you explain that my view of euthanasia and homosexuality has not changed in several decades?”
I don’t have much to say about that except that it proves to me narrow mindedness is not the exclusive terrain of the church. The fact you willingly joined the flock says the rest, I think.
” I think what you mean is, anyone who disagrees with you can’t possibly be thinking for themselves.”
No, more that I don’t think anyone who agrees with the Catholic church and can’t see through it’s lies and very messy history can’t possibly be thinking for themselves. Freud already said the only psychiatric illness that would prove to be incurable would be religious faith.
“But, I do not know why I should feel any more violated if it was a priest – trust is trust.”
Never said you should feel more violated. Abuse is abuse. Fact is, however, priests think they can tell others how to live a morally good life. In order to do so they have to be of irreproachable conduct. Since the abuse scandal they no longer are, especially since the Catholic church refuses to take action to prevent future misconduct.
“You as many others don’t really care about the abused person, you only use this subject to attack the Church.”
I can’t deny I won’t shed a tear over the trouble the Catholic church is in nowadays. But I do resent the idea I don’t care about the victims. There is not much I can do for them but making sure the world won’t allow the Catholic church to bury this like so many other things in the past. The current victims may not be helped by that but future victims can be prevented that way.
AMC,
“I’m not sure which is more pathetic – that the Royal Dutch Medical Association believes it has a libel case based on its own definiion of euthanasia….”
Hmm, not it’s own definition. The definition which includes the patient’s wishes is formulated by the WHO, in association with the AMA. It’s also the legal definition of euthanasia in most of the European countries and, if I’m not mistaken, in the US. So I think this definition has a broader support base than the Catholic one.
“You better stick to general medicine and stay away from psychology.” Psychology is not a medical specialty. Psychiatry is.”
Yes I know, I was speaking of your expertise. You are trained to look for symptoms and work your way to a cause and cure. What does this exchange tell you about your own thinking:
“Is that guy just clueless?”
No, that guy is a spin doctor, performing damage control, being paid for by your church.
Or after a lecture on making decisions for myself you say:
“I don’t have much to say about that except that it proves to me narrow mindedness is not the exclusive terrain of the church.”
Or how about this gem:
“There is objective truth.”
To you, maybe. To me, as an atheist, there isn’t. And I’m totally ok with that.
And that while you keep arguing for a recognition of thought and behaviors that you consider to be true and good. What is your authority for trying so hard to convince, if we can all just think what we want,or, is it just you who would be allowed to do that in your utopian Neverlands society. I know what it is, its the ever wise vote isn’t it.
Edward, you are full of insult and desire for others to conform to your will, but weak on self understanding and I have had enough of you.
Edward,
I have your IP address and email on moderation.
If there is any blashpemy or insult to the Church or to Catholics, your comment will not be published. You are welcome to argue your views, but you must do so without violating those things. I think we’ve all had enough.
I did some more research on this subject and discovered a very telling but not unexpected story. It seems that the decision that a family may make to euthanize a family member could be influenced by decisions to provide or not provide extended treatment for some types of patients. Where could this subtle influence take us all? Is euthanasia, however it is allowed, a substitute for the expense or desire of caring for a relative? Not as simple as – he wanted to die!
“Dutch royals grieve like any family over brain-damaged prince”
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0306/1224312852095.html
“It is unlikely that prince Friso, left seriously brain damaged and in a coma after a skiing accident, will be cared for in the Netherlands because there is no specialist institution to take him, according to media reports.
The Netherlands has one centre which focuses on stimulating coma patients but it will only take people under the age of 25. The prince is 43.
There is no pressure to set up a specialist clinic for adults in the Netherlands because treatment to try to wake up older coma patients is not covered by Dutch health insurance, website nu.nl states.”
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/02/prince_friso_unlikely_to_be_ca.php
s Royal Highness Prince Friso, 1 March 2012, 18.18
RVD, 1 March 2012: On behalf of the Royal Family, the Government Information Service wishes to issue the following communiqué. His Royal Highness Prince Friso was admitted to the Wellington Hospital in London today.
The hospital was chosen on the recommendation of experts, since it can provide the best possible care for the Prince in his current condition.
http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/globale-paginas/taalrubrieken/english/news/
You know Edward – I must apologize for calling you and the Royal Dutch Medical Association – pathetic. In fact, I have learned quite a bit from your views…. and the facts provided by all your detractors…..
I believe that this blog post and your opinions should be spread far and wide…..
Oh by the way – the fallacy of the slippery slope – pshaw – just that…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140702/South-Korea-customs-officials-thousands-pills-filled-powdered-human-baby-flesh.html
“Headline is not misleading. They are taking aborted babies, drying them in medical microwaves, grinding up the dried skin, and selling it. I mean, eating powdered rhino horn is bad enough. The insane belief that torturing dogs to death makes them taste better is pretty sick. But now we’re eating baby skin? This is a thing? Srsly, guys, what is up with China?” JL
Stacy, you asked about the man’s comment that “We don’t see the Catholic Church as a hotbed [of child sexual abuse]”. If you are really interested, here are some thoughts. To begin, the issue of public concern relates to child sexual abuse by the ordained priesthood of the Catholic Church and not by lay Catholic persons such as yourself. With that in mind, there are some things we can see, namely what has been reported. For example…
In the U.S., according to the 2011 CARA report, “This year 704 victims/survivors came forward for the first time to report abuse to dioceses/eparchies… victims/survivors are just now finding the courage to report it.” These were 704 reports of child sexual abuse by priests/clerics that occurred at some time during the childhood of these 704 people. The CARA report does not identify the size of the priest population during this time period, but CARA has previously reported “a total of 94,607 priests for the period 1960-2002.” Therefore, using this figure, among 94,607 priests, there were 704 instances of child sexual abuse reported during 2011, for an average of one instance of child sexual abuse reported for every 134 priests during 2011.
Meanwhile, according to the 2010 report of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there were 63,527 reported instances of child sexual abuse in the U.S. that also occurred sometime during the childhood of the abused, but this is more broadly defined as sometimes including instances reported where the child was only “at risk” for sexual abuse. Nevertheless, with 234,564,000 million possible adult offenders according to the 2010 census, that is an average of one instance of child sexual abuse reported for every 3692 adult persons.
Using these numbers, the 2011 rate of reported child abuse by priests (i.e. 704 allegations reported in 2011 among 94607 priests) is nearly 28 times HIGHER than the annual rate of reported child sexual abuse by adults in general (i.e. 63527 allegations reported in 2010 among 234564000 adults.) By that standard, it would look like a “hotbed”.
(Some people might argue that we should only use the adult male population in the U.S. for comparison purposes, but the HHS data counts sexual abuse by both men and women. And even if we used only the adult male population, it would only cut the figure by a bit less than half, and the Catholic Church would still appear as a very hot “hotbed”. Also, the HHS numbers are not limited to child sexual abuse perpetrated by adults but also even by minors, and if I had used the larger U.S. population incorporating anyone age 14 and older as a possible offender, then the result would have been that the rate of abuse by priests was 30 times higher rather than just 28 times higher than the rate by the population age 14 and older. In short, the Catholic Church would have appeared to be an even hotter “hotbed”.)
Nevertheless, we could fudge the numbers and not count instances of abuse that occurred in years previous to when it was first reported, and also exclude any victim who turned 18 that same year he was molested as a minor. But the HHS data I have does not support such manipulation because it does not separate the 63,527 reports for 2010 in that manner. However, for the Catholic Church in the U.S., according to the 2011 CARA report, when such manipulation is applied to the 2011 data, we can manipulate away 683 of the 704 abuse allegations for 2011, leaving 21 instances of child sexual abuse by priests reported in 2011 where the child sexual abuse was reported to have actually occurred in the audit year 2011. Accordingly, we would then have to use a much smaller number of priests, just those reported by CARA for 2011, which is 39,466 total priests. The average would then be 39466 / 21 which is one instance of child sexual abuse reported in 2011 as actually occurring in 2011 for every 1794 priests. However, that is still a rate TWICE as high as the HHS reported numbers for the U.S. adult population, and thus still a “hotbed” even after such gross one-sided manipulation.
We could then fudge the number of child sexual abuse allegations still further by not counting any allegation classified as “under investigation” or which hadn’t yet been investigated or which the diocese thought was false or which were labeled “boundary violations”. But again, I can only oblige that game so far, because the HHS data I have does not slice the fudge in that manner. But CARA provides us with that knife for its data, cutting the 21 down to just 7. Then, with that additional one-sided manipulation, the fudged rate could appear to be less than or equal to the rate among the U.S. adult population, and the Catholic Church would no longer appear to be a “hotbed” of child sexual abuse.
Just some “fast” thoughts after reading numbers found in the links from Howard’s “fast facts” page. Thank you for your patience.
—–Peggy dear, this could be looked at a little differently. The report I cited seems to be talking about the current situation. This has been a non-linear event, on both sides I believe. An accurate picture can only be seen when the year of the incident is compared to the same year of incident nationally.
From the John Jay report, “When the incidents recorded in the surveys are tallied for each year of occurrence (of each incident),the resulting figure shows that 75% of the events were alleged to occur between 1960 and 1984.”
—-Also the “child abuse” tag that never seems to be corrected.
“The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small
Percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.”
“According to CARA, here are the numbers of accusations involving a current minor that were even deemed “credible” each year from 2005 to 2011:
Year / # of accusations
2011 7 total priests = 39,466 / 7 = 1 in 5,638 if we use 21 we get 1 in 1,879
2010 8
2009 6
2008 10
2007 4
2006 14
2005 9
Meanwhile, according to government numbers, in 2010 alone, there were some 63,527 reported cases of child sexual abuse in the United States – an alarming societal problem that has received scant media attention.”
—-If you look at the graph the drop is dramatic.
http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/
“Alexandria, VA – February 28, 2007 – According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), there are an estimated 603,000 registered sex offenders in the U.S. today. However, of that number, at least 100,000 sex offenders are noncompliant and no one knows where they are.
“We know that two-thirds of sex offenders who are in state prisons have admitted that their victims were children,” said Allen.
http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/NewsEventServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=3081
603,000 * 2/3 = 402,000 living now 100,000 2/3= 66,666 can’t be found.
Your population figure of 234,564,000 for 2010 is for 18 years and over male and female. Priests usually require 8 years of study so a more accurate figure would be 26 years and over, and probably only males. 18 to 24 is 30,672,000 male and female.
25 and over, male = 113,836,000 – 15,662,000 = 98,174,000 males in 2010 over estimated by 2 years of age.
If we use men and women we have 234,564,000 – 30,672,000 = 203,892,000 pop for 2010.
So 203,892,000 / 402,000 = 1 in 507.19 convicted offenders now existing in the population.
So 98,174,000 / 402,000 = 1 in 244.214 convicted male offenders.
If we use your 2010 reported 62,527 figure against 98,174,000 we get 1 in 1545.39 incidents.
Now, general population access to young people comparable to priests would not be found in the general population. A more accurate figure would be to compare teachers and the like.
——–Different ways to look at data.
Essentially women should be left out of the figures but the calculations could be refined further.
“National criminal justice statistics reveal that of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities for sex crimes, females account for less than 10% of these cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for other sex offenses.”
http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf
Ok I’m back, maybe for a while, maybe not for long.
from Oxford dictionary:
“the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.”
From Websters:
“the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy ”
So yes it is intentional, and yes it can be called killing, but from two what I would say more reliable sources for defining words, nothing about “alleged benefits”
So Jose’s definition is a. flawed and b. self serving.
And I know how Stacy abhors any attempt to redefine a word.
So now ask yourseleves this very important question. Someone you love is in a chronic vegetative state or brain dead. For whose benefit are you keeping them alive by tubes and wires?
Or they have a known fatal illness, and they deny treatment. Should that not be their right?
Also I am not interested in discussing the church sex abuse. I don’t find it pertinent.
Alan, yer back.
I read this as a clarification not a redefinition.
Oxford doesn’t mention the reason.
Webster mentions Mercy.
Benefit can be assumed for both, alleged does add a question mark.
Which is the most authoritative?
sorry Howard, “alleged benefit” changes the intent of the whole definition. Thus it changes the defintion. I stand by what I said.
Now lets see if you can answer the questions posed?
I am still on the first part. Which definition do you want to use?
questions dont need definition to be answered
Alan, maybe someone else can answer you.
Not sure I understand Howard, the questions at the end of my post are simple enough to answer and don’t require a definition of euthanasia to answer them.
If you choose not to great.
Peggy Sue,
I was more asking why you discredit Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. But you went to a lot of trouble to find some numbers, thank you.
Here’s what stopped me first. You can’t assume that all the people who reported abuse from clergy in 2011 for the first time ever were under 42 years old.
Howard,
Thanks for that. I haven’t jumped into the reports like you have, but I would trust my children at church a million times more than in some public schools.
Howard, you wrote that “The report I cited seems to be talking about the current situation.” The current situation, as of the April 2012 CARA report, includes the fact that 704 additional victims came forward for the first time in 2011. The report you cited doesn’t even mention that. Instead, the report you cited ignores 697 of those 704 victims by reporting only 7 for 2011, sweeping 697 victims under the rug. Indeed, if a child were sodomized by a hundred priests from 2001 to 2011 but the child did not report it until 2011 when he turned 18, your report and the CARA report treats it as if it were “historical” and not current. Only if the child reported it while he/she was still a minor would it be counted by your report, regardless of when the abuse occurred or how much abuse was inflicted or how many priests were involved. The current situation is that 99% of the victims who came forward to report the abuse are ignored by your report.
Then, after discounting “historical” abuse by priests, your view apparently allows historical abuse by non-priest offenders to be counted, citing figures for registered sex offenders. That’s inconsistent. You then cited an unproven and vague remark that “two-thirds of sex offenders who are in state prisons have admitted that their victims were children,” and proceeded to calculate a 2/3 figure based not on the number of “sex offenders who are in state prison” but based on the total number who are registered. Whatever the number of registered sex offenders who allegedly committed crimes involving children, such a pool covers a broader range of offenses (such as possessing or distributing child pornography) than those covered by the child sex abuse by priests analysis. And if I might point out, you also calculated “100,000 * 2/3= 66,666 can’t be found” but your quote said “100,000 sex offenders are noncompliant and no one knows where they are”. Whatever their numbers, even when we supposedly knew where the priest offenders lived, they were molesting children. The problem wasn’t that the priests were registered sex offenders or that we didn’t know the location of the rectory. And unlike registered sex offenders, priests are exalted in society and claim to be teachers of morality and that is part of the basis by which they gain the trust of their victims and their families and what outrages so many people.
You wrote, “If you look at the graph the drop is dramatic.” The graph is misleading. The graph is titled “Reported Incidents of Sexual Abuse of Minors in U.S. Catholic Church 1970-2009.” It shows only a handful were reported in each of the years 2003-2009, when in fact there were hundreds of incidents reported in each of those years, just as there were 704 victims (and thus at least 704 incidents) reported for the first time in 2011 — but not on the graph.
I also note that the graph and your list of “Year / # of accusations” do not match. For example, while you list just 4 accusations for 2007, the graph shows about 17.
As to the 2004 John Jay statement that “When the incidents recorded in the surveys are tallied for each year of occurrence (of each incident), the resulting figure shows that 75% of the events were alleged to occur between 1960 and 1984″, that’s in large part because child victims of priests can take decades coming to grips with the sexual abuse before coming forward to report it. For that matter, even if we were to suppose that priests today are abusing fewer children today than in the past, and that the magnitude of child sexual abuse today in general is less than it was in the past, it doesn’t mean that the priesthood is not a “hotbed” of child sexual abuse today compared to other groups in society today.
You wrote that “Your population figure of 234,564,000 for 2010 is for 18 years and over male and female. Priests usually require 8 years of study so a more accurate figure would be 26 years and over, and probably only males. 18 to 24 is 30,672,000 male and female.” As I’ve already said, the HHS figures are for offenses by males and females and include juvenile offenders as well as adult. That calls for a population figure LARGER than 234,564,000, not smaller. If we wanted to examine only offenses by male persons aged 25 and up, we’d have to use a smaller number of incidents than the 63527, but the HHS data does not provide the numbers for that. (In addition, while the CARA data reported 704 victims of priests in 2011, the HHS data reported incidents, not number of victims. We should keep in mind that the number of victims and number of incidents are not the same thing. For example, a woman in a custody dispute can call CPS 10 times reporting her husband as allegedly molesting his daughter, and it would be counted as 10 reports for HHS purposes, but it would be counted as at most one victim and perhaps not at all if she called the diocese 10 times to report her daughter as a repeat victim of a priest.)
As to “Essentially women should be left out of the figures but the calculations could be refined further”, no, essentially they should not be left out of the HHS figures because they are in fact not left out of the HHS figures. They are embedded to an unreported and indistinguishable extent. You cite that “females account for less than 10%” of reported sex crimes, but the HHS figures are not figures for reported sex crimes. Of the 63527 reports, only an unidentified fraction end up being reported as sex crimes. And as I’ve already pointed out, the 63527 reports of “sexual abuse” in the HHS figures include not only reports of actual sexual abuse but also reports of situations where children were “at risk” of sexual abuse. For example, a caller may be concerned about a woman’s kids being “at risk” for sexual abuse because their mommy is a suspected prostitute carrying on her business at her residence while her kids are in the other room, and if she calls 10 times, it counts as 10 reports. But if I were to call the diocese 100 times to express grave concern that children are “at risk” for sexual abuse by the parish priest, best I can tell is that my calls would not be counted even once in CARA’s published tabulation of the number of victims who came forward.
And you wrote, “general population access to young people comparable to priests would not be found in the general population. A more accurate figure would be to compare teachers and the like.” No, the immense size of the public school system and the enormous amount of time and contact that public school teachers have with children is hardly comparable to the miniscule contact that priests normally have with children. Most children, including even Catholic children, have little to no contact with Catholic priests. For example, even Catholic children who have attended public school, weekly Mass and Catholic catechism classes have perhaps had more contact during their childhood with clerks at McDonalds than with Catholic priests.
I appreciate your attempt to present an alternative view, but it in no way proves as “fact” that “Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population” as was claimed in your “fast facts” report.
Stacy, you wrote, “I was more asking why you discredit Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.” I didn’t discredit him or his statement. I actually affirmed what he said. Like he said, like I said, the statement “We don’t see…” says just that. We don’t see. Sexual abuse of minors is generally done in secrecy, and the victims often wait many years to report it, if they report it at all. And what little is made known is often filtered through agendas. Do Catholic priests molest more or less than other groups? Are victims of Catholic priests more or less likely to report (alleged) offenses than other groups? The “experts” don’t know. As stated in the linked Newsweek article, “No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination.” We don’t see.
You wrote, “You can’t assume that all the people who reported abuse from clergy in 2011 for the first time ever were under 42 years old.” The report doesn’t seem to specify their ages, and I don’t know, and so I might assume any of a number of possibilities, one of which might be that first-time reporting victims in 2011 were all under 42 years old. But the key age seems to be the age of majority (18 I presume), such that unless the victims who came forward in 2011 were still minors when the 2011 reports were analyzed, they’re discounted as “historical”, even if the sexual abuse happened to them within recent years. In Howard’s “fast facts” page, I don’t see where these victims are counted at all, and instead 99% of the abuse victims who filed in 2011 (697 of 704 victims) appear to me to have been swept entirely under the rug. It’s important to respect their abuse and how long it took these many, many victims to come to grips with the abuse they suffered and to report it, even if they’ve had their 18th birthday or it’s still “under investigation” or whatever. Otherwise, it hides the fact that such abuse can take many years before it becomes known, and it hides the extent of the problem. Even 20 years from now, we won’t know how many children have been abused by priests recently, like we don’t know how many were abused 20 years ago. I don’t think it’s unfair to say that many have yet to come forward, and many never will. And whether they come forward or not, or whether they came forward last year or 10 years ago, the abuse is still quite “current” to us all, to the particular victims, their families, the Catholic Church and society at large, as we all live with the effects for a lifetime and beyond.
So, Peggy Sue, what are you really trying to prove?
Could you re-center the discussion at hand and just re-state what you are trying to prove, in only a few sentences (I need simple).
Stacy, as I have pointed out, the “fast facts” report that Howard cited alleged “FACT: Catholic priests abuse at a rate far lower than that of other males in the general population.” I respect the dramatic possibility, but the scant evidence available does not prove it to be “fact” nor warrant the label and it is not a doctrine of the Church. It may even be unhealthy to believe it. I don’t say whether it is or isn’t, and I don’t venture to “prove” it.
Alan, you asked good questions and I too spotted the “alleged benefit” phrase in Jose’s definition as something of contention. First, in response to your questions about “tubes and wires” and “they have a known fatal illness, and they deny treatment. Should that not be their right?”, perhaps the following from the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s “Declaration on Euthanasia” and Catechism may help to clarify:
“When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.” And, “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.” And, “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.”
Second, you may prefer the Church’s definition o “euthanasia” that does not include the contentious “alleged benefit” phrase: “By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used. It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly, nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity. It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.”
“No one can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.”
Peggy Sue
thank you for the thoughtful answer (ish) to the questions.
But it still remains out there, who benefits from putting tubes and wires into people to keep them alive?
And how is it intentionally killing someone to not put those tubes and wires into them to keep them alive? I understand if you give a gravely ill person an overdose that kills them that is intentionally killing them, but the other really is not.
Do people really think god inteneded or wants to keep people alive when they really aren’t?
Alan, you asked, “who benefits from putting tubes and wires into people to keep them alive?” In the words of the pope, “Life is a gift [that] remains precious even when marked by suffering and limitations” and “it is good to be alive”. Thus, there is a “benefit” to the recipient of the gift of life, the person who is alive, that we may all celebrate.
You also asked, “how is it intentionally killing someone to not put those tubes and wires into them to keep them alive?” If it’s an act of the will by which that faculty efficaciously desires to reach an end (i.e. the death of the patient) by employing the means (i.e. not putting those tubes and wires in).
But then you asked, “Do people really think god intended or wants to keep people alive when they really aren’t?” The decision whether a patient is “really” alive is above my pay grade. By the word “keep”, you and your question seem to presume the patient is still alive, and therefore you operate on that presumption.
Edward,
I find it interesting that you have no problem engaging in libelous behavior yourself. Stick to the question at hand and stop whining. It is unbecoming. Clearly, you are not a lawyer – if you had familiarity with the law, you would know that the truth is a defense in absolute. What I wrote was factual and cannot be considered libel.
The question remains – Can Man be trusted to appropriately, correctly and ethically value the life of another? You evade answering that question and offering support for your position beyond reliance on classic logical fallacy – an appeal to authority that you are a medical professional. Why?
Your comment on a previous government passing a bill that settles the issue in perpetuity reveals a naive view of how governments function. Do you mean to say that The Holocaust occurred because it was not illegal at the time? Laws, truth and all manner of societal norms are shredded by tyrants without a second thought. You may know medicine, but it is clear that your knowledge of history is lacking. I encourage you to spend a little time researching the ascendancy of tyranny and the rationalizations surrounding the great calamities and crimes perpetrated on innocent people throughout human history. A common theme will quickly emerge, that theme having to do with groups of individuals in power rationalizing the value of the lives of others.
You should think about it deeply. That you went to medical school does not make you an historian or a lawyer.
Lastly, I did not mention my faith in my original post nor have I mentioned my faith in my two responses before this very sentence. Why did you bring that up? People with axes to grind don’t make much sense at times and often look foolish.
Peggy,
I wish I had a response to you that would make sense.
You seem to think that keeping people artificially alive with tubes and wires is moral. I think that crazy. How long are we to keep someone like that alive? And yes if they are breathing they are technically alive, but what is that kind of life?
We keep them alive for ourselves, for the hope that they will get better, and now people seem to claim that god wants that, because only god can end a life. Well unless god comes down and shoves the tubes and wires in we are not doing it for god. Sorry, but again you will just not get me to see it your way.
Guess this is just another thing we will disagree on.