Quote:
Originally Posted by
foxtrot
I try not to cast my morals upon other people, by far and large. (I'm not picking on you, btw).
Why is it considered entirely ethical for a pet owner to undertake euthanasia, but entirely unethical for a person to choose it? This one of society's moores is one of the most illogical, and it's not really rooted in *anything*. Forced euthanasia is clearly wrong, but so is forcing someone to be alive who doesn't wish to be - e.g. terminal patient forced to practically be on life support until every last penny of their estate can be eeked out for medical costs. If it's wrong for a pet to do that, why is it conversely "right" to do the opposite, and force Grandpa to suffer against his own will? Where in religious studies does it declare that all interventions possible must be utilized to forcibly keep someone alive?
In our generation, we need to be careful not to adapt morals and moores that are merely expected of us "just because", we need to apply some reasoning. We are not that far removed from outright superstition in medicine and bizarre practices premised on the most moronic of assumptions - grandpa got sick because of evil spirits, and he deserves his suffering. That literally was a blink of an eye ago; and those carry-overs have not yet left our society. How many people don't walk under ladders, for instance? [although there is some slim logic to that].
Point being, it's not our place to force decisions upon other people based on how we want the decision to be for ourselves. We don't have the slightest right to dictate their morals when the only affected individual is themselves. I do absolutely agree we need to fight any *push* towards, e.g. recommending euthanasia. But if someone elects it of their own free will, people need to stop shitting all over their choice.
ETA:
https://pics.me.me/deadass-spent-2-h...ia-2419109.png
https://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoren...7XD#.ffLb0ORXo
https://www.buzzfeed.com/javiermoren...7XD#.ffLb0ORXo
Addressing the bolded:
Why is it ok to eat animals but not people? Because human life != the same thing as animal life. Would you be ok with cannibalism in this country if the meat were "ethically" sourced, i.e., not murder but the terminally ill who choose suicide, a willing participant who was nucking futs and chose to off themselves for their consumer (looking at you, Germany), etc.? Goodness, I hope your rationalism and desire to win the argument won't say yes on that.
As for terminal patients, I don't know what other claimants to the Christianity say specifically -- at least officially. I do know that your bolded comment would be an extreme position and is certainly not that of the Catholic Church. Terminal patients have no obligation to continue treatment, and pain management is encouraged if needed. Especially egregious would be the notion that one must "practically be on life support until every last penny of their estate can be eeked out for medical costs." As for "Where in religious studies does it declare that all interventions possible must be utilized to forcibly keep someone alive?", that too is a red herring.
To that end specifically:
Quote:
Life Sustaining Procedures: Assisted Suicide and euthanasia are never morally acceptable options, and our care is oriented toward eliminating the demand for these acts that often stem from unrelieved suffering and misguided compassion. Under ordinary circumstances, we are obligated to provide food and water, including medically assisted nutrition and hydration (MANH), until such time as the patient cannot reasonably expect to prolong his or her life through these means. If MANH cannot be assimilated, causes significant physical discomfort or generally becomes unduly burdensome, then it may be declined. However, every effort should be made to safely offer food and liquids that can provide comforting tastes and moisture to the mouth, even if they cannot be fully ingested. While we have a duty to preserve life and use it for the glory of God, at the request of the patient or patient’s appointed guardian, we may reject life prolonging procedures that are insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome.
http://dmsci.org/resources/catholic-...-care%E2%84%A2
Example: I find out in a week that the reason the vision in my left eye has decreased over the past year has not been due to computer use, but a brain tumor pressing on an ocular nerve. It's operable. I should probably look into getting that done. But what if it's inoperable? Must I essentially clean out my wife and kids' future money that they'll need to live on, in order to simply extend the inevitable? Absolutely not. In emotional moments some people do that. It's far more prudent to manage whatever pain, get my affairs in order, and die. I'm going to anyway in such a situation. To do otherwise would likely be a real violation of the virtue of prudence.
Per your other post where you quote SOARS' website:
If you notice in the commandments, there are commandments which qualify with "thy neighbor". There is no such qualifier on the 5th commandment. Suicide IS premeditated murder, and that includes of self.
The "Christians" it references in the Early Church were not Catholics. They were heretics, including Circumcellions, Donatists, and others. This mentality sprung up again in the middle ages with the Cathars.
SOARS' website quoted St. Paul in Acts 20:24. They say he says, “I put no value on my life” and leave it at that. But that results in an interpretive error due to lack of context.
What he said (using KJV here):
Quote:
21 Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
22 And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there:
23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.
24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
Acts 20
Douay-Rheims translation is:
Quote:
[21] Testifying both to Jews and Gentiles penance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. [22] And now, behold, being bound in the spirit, I go to Jerusalem: not knowing the things which shall befall me there: [23] Save that the Holy Ghost in every city witnesseth to me, saying: That bands and afflictions wait for me at Jerusalem. [24] But I fear none of these things, neither do I count my life more precious than myself, so that I may consummate my course and the ministry of the word which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.
Acts 20
In other words, he was not going to stop doing what he was doing simply because it might get him beaten or even killed. Even more simplified: the mission was more important than his mere physical life, as he believed its fulfillment to be eternally beneficial.
I'm honestly surprised you of all people would simply quote a suicide advocacy site without offering a counter-point or even looking at their claims to sift the agenda from their sources' supposed claims. If that's how you operate, I'll be reading all your "not legal advice" exactly as such despite the "between the lines" *wink wink nudge nudge* nature of it.
As for suicide being a mortal sin, your comments bespeak an ignorance I've even seen in fellow Catholics, including so-called Traditionalists who pride themselves on being "more Catholic than the Pope"(which ain't hard the past few pontificates).
Mortal sin is comprised of 3 parts to be such: grave matter, full knowledge, full intention (requires untainted rationality, which allows consent). Suicide-as-act is grave matter. In order to qualify as mortal sin, it MUST contain all three elements.
Let's look at it from a non-mortal sin perspective:
Jimmy goes to confession. He's got at least imperfect contrition, and gives a good confession. He's absolved. In view of the Catholic Church, and God, Jimmy is in a "state of grace" -- meaning unless he sins mortally and dies before confessing or making an act of perfect contrition, he will be saved upon death. He leaves and goes to dinner. The waitress recognizes him as the jerk who turned her down for prom in high school. Being a loser who hold grduges, she has a lapse in judgement and spikes his Dr. Pepper with LSD. Jimmy finishes his dinner and goes home. A while later, the LSD kicks in. Jimmy doesn't know what's happening but he is starting to trip balls. He hallucinates and due to it comes to the conclusion that he must shoot himself in the head because: 4 is orange and oranges are grown in Florida, and Florida Man is in his apartment taunting him, and if he can get 4 shots off it cancels out orange, and that cancels Florida, and then there's no Florida Man! He gets 1 shot off into his melon. To the outside world, Jimmy committed the mortal sin of suicide. However, he didn't. He couldn't. He committed the act of suicide, but not the sin of it due to lack of ability to consent and thus he had no element of intention as understood by moralists. Jimmy, welcome to eternity good and faithful servant.
Unfortunately, that is not the case in willful acts of suicide which ARE mortal sin.
But there is, at least in the tradition of the Church some hope (note, I said tradition, not Tradition -- T = oral traditional passed on by the Apostles in an extra-Scriptural manner; t = tradition comprises practices, stories, etc., which are post-Apostolic).
I believe it was St. Alphonsous Liguori, or maybe St. John Vianney, who had a woman in his parish whose husband killed himself by jumping off a bridge into a river. Convinced he was in hell, the widow was beside herself. The saint had a vision that between the point of no return of the jump, and his actual death, the man cried out to God for mercy and was given the grace to make an act of perfect contrition. He was in the transitory place of purgatory, but not the hell of the damned. He was saved.
Let's look at the case of my own patron saint, St. Maximilian Kolbe, Auschwitz prisoner #16670. He did not kill himself, but he did expose himself to death for another's life. Some would call that a form of suicide, but that would be a stretching of the term. There was an apparent escape. Being the understanding lot that the Nazis were, the deputy camp commander ordered 10 men to be placed in a starvation bunker in retribution and to discourage escapes. One of the 10 cried out about how his wife and children would never see him again. St. Maximilian stepped forward and asked to take the man's place. He knew full well he would die, perhaps even for that mere act of defiance of stepping out of formation. He was granted his wish. The other man lived. St. Maximilian was the last to die, not by starvation but by an injection of carbolic acid 2 weeks later on 14 August 1941, and was cremated in the ovens the next day. The only first class relics are some hairs one of the Franciscan brothers saved from a haircut he gave him prior to him being sent to Auschwitz. Everything else flew into the wind or was scraped in the trash like so many others. The "escapees" were later found drowned in one of the latrines (read: outhouse pit).
