News-Record.com

This needs clarification -- it's not just for those who WANT to die, but for those who are terminally ill and have nothing to look forward to but suffering. In places were assisted suicide is legal, there are serious controls in place to restrict its use to those who really need it. That is something that needs to be pointed out. Making sure that abuses are extremely difficult has to be an important part of the discussion.

What is more ethical and humane: watching a family member or friend literally waste away to a bag of skin over bone into death; or that person having the ability if so chosen to quietly and peacefully end his/her life?

Or would people rather see that loved one without an option such as the device in the linked article and take a gun and complete suicide?

This issue has been debated and a physician tried, convicted, and put in jail. Too many of the evangelical Christians in the US are anti-everything, regardless of the good that could come from it. It is due to this that far too many people live futile lives in the US. What a shame.

Shalom

darryl says,
"Too many of the evangelical Christians in the US are anti-everything".............................. "due to this that far too many people live futile lives in the US"...........................
i admit i'm evangelical.....................
is this where i apologize for all the woes of the world ? it is according to darryl, because i would spread the gospel (i.e. evangelize), share the hope He offers thru His son Jesus Christ that i am responsible for the futility in other peoples lives. i would say it is secular christians who have no hope to share (other that to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps) with a world starving for a word of encouragement and hope, they are the one who add to the chaos and futility in the world today. if introducing Jesus Christ (i.e. evangelizing) is the cause for futility darryl, are you part of that ?

" . . . watching a family member or friend literally waste away to a bag of skin over bone into death"

A couple of things here. One is that you are correct, Darryl. It IS horrific to see the downward slide of a loved one into pain and suffering. As a minister, I have seen it far too many times. But, with Christ, there is always dignity and expectation. We have the possibility of people lasting far longer in their afflictions than, say, a hundred years ago, because of advances in medical science.

Extended treatment CREATES the problem/possibilitiy of long-term survival wiht pain. The same with withholding tretment, feeding tubes, living wills, etc.
IOWs there is much pressure to use these techniques. Ironically, at the same time we are clamoring for the ultimate anesthetic - death.

The problem with convenient bourgeois suicide, ethically, is that it gives someone the prerogative to kill a human being - themselves - which reflects the humanist idea that we are the captain of our fates, and that our bodies belong to us as our sole property. Whereas the Scritpure says:

"Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are NOT YOUR OWN? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. (I Cor. 6: 19 & 20)

I don't expect agreement on this from non-Christians; just that, for Christians, their bodies are God's: "Present your bodies a living sacrifice holy, acceptable unto God" (Rom. 12:1); which means that EVERY aspect of our lives is for His use and final disposition. To abuse our lives, or take them ourselves, is thus sin; and thus abhorrant. Christians can fully trust in the scripture that proclaims:

"we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose." including sickness, pain and death.

That said; I realize there's a real issue of pain and suffering to be dealt with, and that its easy to be detached and smug when it's someone else's extremem pain. Therefore, I am all for devising more and more effective means to allay human pain. Jesus attended people's needs in this regard throughout his earthly ministry. Our efforts should be here, rather than contriving Kusch-y death machines.

"Too many of the evangelical Christians in the US are anti-everything"

This is just the old "you NEVER" routine. I could just as easily say that humanists are always coming out with something they are against: traidtional marriage, live inconvenient babies, sodomy laws, state's rights, etc. The fact is that Christians are indeed on the defensive, since leftwing humanists are always assualting biblical morality and socio-family models. Our secularized, post-Christian culture presents mchh to be opposed by biblical Christians. So, I guess you have a point - but I think our anti's are justifiable.

Nikos, at least we have a better comprehension of the human suffering situation. While there is an overall disagreement on this issue, at least we agree on the angst of human pain/suffering.

And for the record, I know some Christians of the more liberal (progressive) view who are opposed to things such as this suicide-assisting device. So my evangelical comment is somewhat misleading.

Shalom

Although the Dutch "Remmelick Report" is over 15 years old, it does highlight some of the attendant problems of assisted suicide - of interest whatever one's moral positon may be.

"1,040 people (an average of 3 per day) died from involuntary euthanasia, meaning that doctors actively killed these patients without the patients' knowledge or consent.(9)

14% of these patients were fully competent. (10)

72% had never given any indication that they would want their lives terminated. (11)

In 8% of the cases, doctors performed involuntary euthanasia despite the fact that they believed alternative options were still possible. (12)

In addition, 8,100 patients died as a result of doctors deliberately giving them overdoses of pain medication, not for the primary purpose of controlling pain, but to hasten the patient's death. (13) In 61% of these cases (4,941 patients), the intentional overdose was given without the patient's consent.(14)

According to the Remmelink Report, Dutch physicians deliberately and intentionally ended the lives of 11,840 people by lethal overdoses or injections--a figure which accounts for 9.1% of the annual overall death rate of 130,000 per year. The majority of all euthanasia deaths in Holland are involuntary deaths."

The definition of "unbearble pain" in Holland has now been expanded to include various types of mental suffering. The tendency seems to be augmenting the parameters of suicide to the point of "encouraging" it or creating an aura of acceptability, even nobility.

Like abortion, assisted suicide is opting for death as a means of dealing with pressing issues and problems. One of the concerns is that when we open the Pandora;s Box of death-solutions we may decry the long-term Brave New World results. The key here is that we no longer understand the devices and consequences of the sin nature, and think we can do and initiate just about anything, and it will forvever stay within the "guidelines" we set. This is utterly naive - and dangerous.

Nikos, are there any current reports to cite?

Shalom

The Netherlands and Belgium have had laws regarding assisted suicide and euthanasia in place since 2002. So the questions regarding the practice should cover that period.

What procedural safeguards are in place to assure that only competent, short-term terminal patients have access? Most likely there are abuses of the system, but how prevalent are they and what criminal statutes are in place to prosecute those that do wander away from the legal boundaries of the system?

In any case, please detail the "danger" that would arise in a carefully regulated and protected system set up to allow people in carefully defined need to end their lives in a humane way.

I don't know. I'm sure there are; but they're probably even more disturbing, according to some reports I read recently. It just seems to have too much potential for abuse.

Nikos, thanks. However, do not many things have too much potential for abuse; lotteries, smoking, alcohol, driving, eating, sleeping, shopping, vanity, etc., etc.? I believe that the things I listed have much, much more potential for abuse than an assisted suicide device and/or person.

Shalom

Agreed, Nikos. Such a concept is a very serious step for any society to take, and the potential for abuse is a major factor to consider. People need to look over all sides of such a step before deciding to try it. IMO, the benefits of making the practice available would be worth the trouble. So long as avenues for abuse are sufficiently difficult and sanctions against abuse are very strong.

I don't know, Darryl; the things you mentioned range from botherosme, to injurious to one's health, to potentially lethal. With assisted suicide we are talking about absolute finality. I understand the reasons for instituting it; I really do.

IMO, Namtac, the risks aren't worth it: partly because of the potential for abuse, but primarily because it's contrary to the Commandment to do no murder. Just because it's self-murder does not change the reality. This mindset seems to seg with the feminist idea that a woman's body is hers to dispose of as she wishes, including any inconvenient babies within. And for the doctors who presume to make the call whether the infirm should live or die it becomes homicide.

The evolutionary, atheistic view of man as just another animal (a danger to the planet at that) implies that non-viable specimens are expendible and worthless. Why not assist in the survivial of the fittest by killing the weak and inconvenient, the sickly and burdensome?

I do believe in living wills that give the patient the option to forego undue and escessive procedures - which would simply approximate what was once the norm for dying persons. But I think we are treading on very dangerous ground by actively and purposely "killing" the patient. We simply do not need to go there.

"The evolutionary, atheistic view of man as just another animal (a danger to the planet at that) implies that non-viable specimens are expendible and worthless."

You are making unreasonable extrapolations again, Nikos. All this topic is about is treating those who are dying and who are still competent to make their own decisions humanely, and to allow them to have the option to end their lives on their own terms. No one is advocating a Spartan philosophy here. I don't know any atheists who do.

"So my evangelical comment is somewhat misleading"......................
understanding that you never apologize for anything you've said on these blogs - i'll take that as a close approximation......approximation accepted :-)

"You are making unreasonable extrapolations again, Nikos. All this topic is about is treating those who are dying and who are still competent to make their own decisions . . ."

I am definitely not making "unreasonable extrapolations." It is really about own philosophy/view of man. Is he obliged to submit all things, even his daeth, to God his Creator; or does he have the option to take his own life. If you see man as simply an big-brained ape, then there is no one higher than he to consider in making such a final decision as suicide. If he is made in the image and likeness of His Creator, and thus has transcendant worth, he is obligated to treasure his life to the end, trusting God to see him safely into his heavenly reward.

Yes, we most certainly should do all in our power to see that pain is relieved by all reasonable means, but IMO we do not have the authority or right to take our own lives. The humanist worldview says that we do, because it sees man as the final arbiter of his fate in all things: death, abortion, sexual morality, etc.

"I am definitely not making 'unreasonable extrapolations.' "

I'd ask you to discuss this, but you have never been interested in learning what others really think about philosophical matters. Instead, you prefer to make up your own beliefs about such issues and pretend that you "know" these as facts.

So I'll just close out my participation here by saying "Are too!"