toldailytopic: Euthanasia.

[Psalmist]

Yet I don't think you'd support a patient telling their doctor to euthanize them and having it done. And I would take that next step under the appropriate circumstances.

No I would not.

I favor Living wills, advance directives, Three Wishes, etc., which have no euthanasia language or provision in them. You determine at what point in your life you want to put advance directives in place to determine what you want done should the medical practices no longer work, in advance should you become terminal. Most people fill living wills, advance directives, Three Wishes, etc., paper work out of their own free will, having something in place before they become terminal. I think that a person who health that is progressing to a worse condition without hope of getting better would want advance directives in place.

Such directives, ask the question before filling them out, do you do this of your free will, were you coerced by and individual or family member to fill these advance directives, were all options and care procedures explained to the best of your understanding.

Such orders can be changed, but only the person named in the advance directives.​

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

A Seattle conservative? :think: That's a bit like being the biggest fish in the desert.

I often compare it to a pearl floating in a "full" toilet bowl. (I only hope that I'm out of town before God decides to flush).

Thus far I'm feeling right at home with youz guyz.
________
Rob Smedley

 

[Selaphiel]

Are you involved in health care?
My husband died of metastatic adenocarcinoma. Right up to the last two weeks of his life we were able to manage his pain well. He claimed that he was comfortable and he was able to sleep without visible signs of pain on his face.
The last week of his life he became semi-comatose. I helped him to perform his ablutions and he whispered to me "I don't want to let go. I don't want to give up." I dosed him with pain meds according to Doctor's direction. His last three days he couldn't really respond verbally. But he appeared to be pain free with medication.
It is painful to speak of this but important I think.
My husband knew he was safe with me. I did honor his wishes.
He died at home surrounded by loved one's.
No one should suffer agonizing, unremitting pain. I have been at the bedside of many dying persons and, as far as we could ascertain, we did manage their pain.
There is no easy, "one size fits all" answer to this question. peace, bybee

I do not work in health care, but I have served as a minister in a hospital during my studies.

I have experienced something similar though. My mother died from metastasized cancer after around 1 month in palliative care. I think the outcome you sketch here happens in most cases, and that is the conundrum of this subject, people can defy inhumane pain.
My point is the minority that can not handle it or are not surrounded by family and other loved ones to cling to and to inspire them.
Loving care and dignified treatment should always be the priority for health care, I just think that in a minority of cases that care can be the mercy of granting a death that is inevitable anyway, to relieve them of unspeakable suffering.

Sorry about your husband.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

If Seattle's a big boy I'm sure he doesn't need you running interference for him. And if anyone else actually wants to discuss the topic, please feel free.

The "big boy" made serveral attempts at discussing the topic, only be be called numerous names by the resident atheist of theologyonline.com.

So tell me Granite, why did an atheist such as yourself come to a theology site; to convert others to the religion of moral relative nothingism? Or perhaps you're looking to find the ultimate truth yourself? With upwards of 25,000 posts, if it's the latter of the two, I'd say you're a slow learner.

Here's what it all breaks down to on this topic as well as numerous others: either God is sovereign over our bodies or man is. I'll go with the first. Tell me why I should be able to "off" myself for any reason whatsoever. After all, it is "my body", right Granite?
________
Cl72

 

[Granite]

The "big boy" made serveral attempts at discussing the topic, only be be called numerous names by the resident atheist of theologyonline.com.

There's more than one atheist around here, bubba...

So tell me Granite, why did an atheist such as yourself come to a theology site; to convert others to the religion of moral relative nothingism? Or perhaps you're looking to find the ultimate truth yourself? With upwards of 25,000 posts, if it's the latter of the two, I'd say you're a slow learner.

Not that you'd care and I suspect I'm opening a can of proverbial worms but I first registered when I was still a Christian. Posts add up after seven years. Do the math. I come here for my own gratification and because there are many folks here (some Christians included) whose insights and opinions I happen to value. This isn't the real world, in case you hadn't noticed. This is entertainment.

Here's what it all breaks down to on this topic as well as numerous others: either God is sovereign over our bodies or man is. I'll go with the first. Tell me why I should be able to "off" myself for any reason whatsoever. After all, it is "my body", right Granite?

I support the choice to opt for euthanasia in cases of extreme suffering or terminal illness (which you'd know if you actually read my posts; I suspect you just skim them). And it is your body, so if you want to drive into the ground or misuse it to your heart's content (discontent?), be my guest. If you're looking for a reason from The Big Bad Baby Eating Atheist as to why suicide is fine and dandy, you've come to the wrong guy. Generally, it's an idiotic, selfish, or (often) very hasty and ill-regarded choice.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

There's more than one atheist around here, bubba...

I figured as much (I didn't think you could create that stench all by yourself).

Not that you'd care and I suspect I'm opening a can of proverbial worms but I first registered when I was still a Christian. Posts add up after seven years.

So the writings of Lenin, Marx, Mao and Ayn Rand had more of an influence over you than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? (I would have sought out a new pastor instead of leaving Christianity behind for a "religion" that only brings pain, misery and death).

I support the choice to opt for euthanasia in cases of extreme suffering or terminal illness.

Suffering is a subjective term. Where do you draw the line? ("I just broke up with Britney and I can't take the pain of life another minute!"). Regarding terminal illness: if you'd read the link about Dylan Walborn, cerebral palsy isn't a "terminal illness".

And it is your body, so if you want to drive into the ground or misuse it to your heart's content (discontent?), be my guest. If you're looking for a reason from The Big Bad Baby Eating Atheist as to why suicide is fine and dandy, you've come to the wrong guy. Generally, it's an idiotic, selfish, or (often) very hasty and ill-regarded choice.

Be consistent here. If a person does indeed "own" his or her body, what right do you have to be opinionated on what they do with it?
Abortion, homosexuality, recreational drug use, prostitution, suicide; do your own "thing", right?
________
Easy Vape Vaporizer

 

[Granite]

I figured as much (I didn't think you could create that stench all by yourself).

:yawn:

So the writings of Lenin, Marx, Mao and Ayn Rand had more of an influence over you than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? (I would have sought out a new pastor instead of leaving Christianity behind for a "religion" that only brings pain, misery and death).

Shows what little you know. Lenin was a murderer, Marx was a drunken self-important buffoon, and Rand's purpose in life seemed to have been as unpleasant and as unreadable as possible. Show me a "Randian" and I'll show you a socially-challenged stuffed shirt with zero fashion sense. The grab bag of stereotypes you just went for have zero bearing on me. Try again next time.

Suffering is a subjective term. Where do you draw the line? ("I just broke up with Britney and I can't take the pain of life another minute!").

That's the first good question you've asked since you came here.

I'd reserve the right to die for those with a clinically diagnosed case that is terminal, unequivocally intolerable, and medically documented to pose non-stop (and untreatable) agony and suffering. In other words you couldn't just get a doctor's note authorizing you to legally off yourself if you had a rotten day in tenth grade. You'd also have to be of legal age and of sound mind (although, for obvious reasons, not of sound body) for euthanasia to be approved. This is a personal decision made by someone whose mind is still clear and who grasps the full ramifications of what they're doing--if you've seen The Shootist, where the Duke turns in (for me, anyhow) his finest performance, you might have an idea where I'm coming from with this.

In short, the patient in question is essentially skipping the agony, suffering, and undeserved tribulations and pre-empting the inevitable...legally, cleanly, and freely partaking of a medical "out" to a situation with a decidedly gruesome end game, one way or another. It's just that our society does not condone this choice, and I believe it should.

Regarding terminal illness: if you'd read the link about Dylan Walborn, cerebral palsy isn't a "terminal illness".

The sad case of Dylan Walborn is not a new one on me. Stop presuming you're telling me anything I haven't already heard.

Be consistent here. If a person does indeed "own" his or her body, what right do you have to be opinionated on what they do with it?

I'm not, terribly.

Abortion...

I'm pro-life. Try-try again.

homosexuality, recreational drug use, prostitution, suicide; do your own "thing", right?

Why ever not?

 

[Town Heretic]

I often compare it to a pearl floating in a "full" toilet bowl. (I only hope that I'm out of town before God decides to flush).

Thus far I'm feeling right at home with youz guyz.

Well, real pearls don't float so you might want to double check what you picked out of the thing. :shocked:

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

I don't think anyone here is advocated (or has advocated) a government-mandated program; what I favor is the ability for an individual to make this choice.

Where have I heard that one before?

50 million unborn human beings dead in the name of "choice" in a 37 year period; 99% done out of "convenience".

Do you have any concept of the role of the civil magistrate? (Hint, it's to make "just"laws).

Romans 13, considered the key New Testament chapter on civil government, is one of the most neglected and misread chapters in the Bible. It is for this reason that it is all the more important to develop an understanding of our Lords requirements for magistrates and governmental activity. The word of God in Romans 13 teaches very clearly that the ruler, the magistrate, is a minister. First, the ruler is ordained of God, for he is definitely a power, and "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Rom. 13:1). Just as ministers in the Church are ordained of God, so the civil governors are ordained of God.

Second, the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor. If the ruler is the minister of God to men for good, then he must rule in accordance with God's judgment of the good, not man's willful, subjective desire to redefine the good. If the ruler is a minister to men for good then he must enforce God's law, not man's desires: there is no other alternative.
http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
________
Xk120

 

[Rusha]

I don't think anyone here is advocated (or has advocated) a government-mandated program; what I favor is the ability for an individual to make this choice.

Where have I heard that one before?

50 million unborn human beings dead in the name of "choice" in a 37 year period; 99% done out of "convenience".

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what Granite (who is prolife) said on the topic of euthanasia.

Unlike an unborn baby, individuals DO have the ability to decide whether or not they wish to linger on in pain when they have absolutely no chance of recovery.

The *choice* to live or die, in this case, is their own and being done for THEIR convenience.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

Well, real pearls don't float so you might want to double check what you picked out of the thing. :shocked:

Some pearls "float like a butterfly and sting like a bee". :comeout:
________
Daihatsu Esse History

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

[/B]


Which has nothing whatsoever to do with what Granite (who is prolife) said on the topic of euthanasia.

Unlike an unborn baby, individuals DO have the ability to decide whether or not they wish to linger on in pain when they have absolutely no chance of recovery.

The *choice* to live or die, in this case, is their own and being done for THEIR convenience.

It's obvious by your post that you're not familiar with the "culture of death". You and Granite are just pawns in the game.

From "Architects of the Culture of Death":

"The phrase, "the Culture of Death", is bandied about as a catch-all term that covers abortion, euthanasia and other attacks on the sanctity of life. In Architects of the Culture of Death, authors Donald DeMarco and Benjamin Wiker expose the Culture of Death as an intentional and malevolent ideology promoted by influential thinkers who specifically attack Christian morality's core belief in the sanctity of human life and the existence of man's immortal soul. In scholarly, yet reader-friendly prose, DeMarco and Wiker examine the roots of the Culture of Death by introducing 23 of its architects, including Ayn Rand, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Jean-Paul Sartre, Alfred Kinsey, Margaret Sanger, Jack Kevorkian, and Peter Singer."

"Still, this is not a book without hope. If the Culture of Death rests on a fragmented view of the person and an eclipse of God, the future of the Culture of Life relies on an understanding and restoration of the human being as a person, and the rediscovery of a benevolent God. The personalism of John Paul II is an illuminating thread that runs through Architects, serving as a hopeful antidote."
http://www.ignatius.com/Products/ACD-P/architects-of-the-culture-of-death.aspx
________
Og Kush Marijuana

 

[Rusha]

It's obvious by your post that you're not familiar with the "culture of death". You and Granite are just pawns in the game.

Rather than making unfounded accusations, feel free to explain to me how I support the *culture of death*.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

Shows what little you know. Lenin was a murderer, Marx was a drunken self-important buffoon, and Rand's purpose in life seemed to have been as unpleasant and as unreadable as possible. Show me a "Randian" and I'll show you a socially-challenged stuffed shirt with zero fashion sense. The grab bag of stereotypes you just went for have zero bearing on me. Try again next time.

Yet like you, they acknowledged no Ultimate Truth, only themselves as "god" and their relative beliefs as moral.

I'd reserve the right to die for those with a clinically diagnosed case that is terminal, unequivocally intolerable, and medically documented to pose non-stop (and untreatable) agony and suffering. In other words you couldn't just get a doctor's note authorizing you to legally off yourself if you had a rotten day in tenth grade. You'd also have to be of legal age and of sound mind (although, for obvious reasons, not of sound body) for euthanasia to be approved. This is a personal decision made by someone whose mind is still clear and who grasps the full ramifications of what they're doing--if you've seen The Shootist, where the Duke turns in (for me, anyhow) his finest performance, you might have an idea where I'm coming from with this.

What if those "decisions" are made by someone else other than the patient? What if Joe Jr. thinks dad's health doesn't look too good, but his bank account does? How about that hospital bed that could be used for someone else other than a terminal cancer patient? When man starts playing God, be prepared for ungodly acts.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1715

In short, the patient in question is essentially skipping the agony, suffering, and undeserved tribulations and pre-empting the inevitable...legally, cleanly, and freely partaking of a medical "out" to a situation with a decidedly gruesome end game, one way or another. It's just that our society does not condone this choice, and I believe it should.

You're using talking points used by the culture of death.
In M. Scott Peck's "Denial of the Soul", he talks about the topic of pain management: "If I ever encountered a patient suffering serious chronic pain for which there was no hope of relief, I would consider euthanasia -- physician-assisted suicide -- a valid option," says Peck. But that justification is "purely theoretical for me" since "I've never actually encountered such a patient."
http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1997/06/02/peck

The sad case of Dylan Walborn is not a new one on me. Stop presuming you're telling me anything I haven't already heard.

Yet like abortion, the face of things to come.

I'm pro-life. Try-try again.

It appears that you didn't leave all of your Christian beliefs behind.
________
FZ750

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

"Rather than making unfounded accusations, feel free to explain to me how I support the *culture of death*."

"The *choice* to live or die, in this case, is their own and being done for THEIR convenience."

Simplistic thinking such as yours leads to a death culture. (as mentioned, we've seen that mentality with abortion).
________
Ipod games

 

[Rusha]

The *choice* to live or die, in this case, is their own and being done for THEIR convenience.

Simplistic thinking such as yours leads to a death culture.

So let's just be clear here: Do you believe that a physician should have the right to force their patient to stay on a ventilator and be kept alive AGAINST their will?

 

[Granite]

Yet like you, they acknowledged no Ultimate Truth, only themselves as "god" and their relative beliefs as moral.

I see, so even though I disagree in every way with the individuals you rattled off, you somehow think they're important or significant to my worldview. "They all look the same to me" definitely comes to mind...

What if those "decisions" are made by someone else other than the patient?

See, you're really not paying attention. I am not describing nor am I advocating this decision being made by ANYONE other than the actual patient.

What if Joe Jr. thinks dad's health doesn't look too good, but his bank account does?

Then it's called murder, Seattle. And that's not the scenario I just described. Are you actually reading my posts, or just skimming them?

It appears that you didn't leave all of your Christian beliefs behind.

You really do not seem to be paying attention to what I'm actually saying. And newsflash: you people do not have a monopoly over abortion opposition. My being pro-life has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

So let's just be clear here: Do you believe that a physician should have the right to force their patient to stay on a ventilator and be kept alive AGAINST their will?

No. What's your point?
________
Toyota Racing Specifications

 

[Rusha]

No. What's your point?

*My point*? IF that is the case, than why have you been blathering on and making accusations towards myself and Granite on this thread? Neither one of us are advocates for euthanasia or abortion.

You need to back up your comment of "Simplistic thinking such as yours leads to a death culture".

 

[aSeattleConserv]

Go

Go

*My point*? IF that is the case, than why have you been blathering on and making accusations towards myself and Granite on this thread? Neither one of us are advocates for euthanasia or abortion.
You need to back up your comment of "Simplistic thinking such as yours leads to a death culture".

Perhaps you should read your own posts (as well as the guy you're defending):

Rusha wrote:

"Means that terminal patients should get to decide if they want extra measures taken to prolong their existence.

When someone is lingering on and has no chance of surviving, their wishes should be the deciding factor as to what medical care is forthcoming."

(Would "medical care" include lethal injection?).

Granite wrote:
"I support the choice to opt for euthanasia in cases of extreme suffering or terminal illness (which you'd know if you actually read my posts; I suspect you just skim them). And it is your body, so if you want to drive into the ground or misuse it to your heart's content (discontent?), be my guest."

"I'd reserve the right to die for those with a clinically diagnosed case that is terminal, unequivocally intolerable, and medically documented to pose non-stop (and untreatable) agony and suffering."
________
MAGIC FLIGHT LAUNCH BOX