The assisted-suicide initiative didn’t even get enough signatures in South Dakota to make its petition worth submitting last fall. Attorney General Marty Jackley even snuck some anti-assisted suicide language into a tough-on-meth bill (2018 SB 65*) that appears to increase the criminal penalty for providing drugs that help people end their lives.
But yesterday, Hawaii became the sixth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, as Governor David Ige signed Hawaii’s House Bill 2739**, a measure similar to the failed measure circulated last year here and to laws allowing terminally ill patients to end their lives in five other states. The bill passed 39–12*** in the Hawaii House and 23–2 in the Hawaii Senate. The ayes included several lawmakers who’ve changed their minds since the Hawaii Legislature rejected assisted-suicide legislation in 2002:
Donna Mercado Kim and J. Kalani English were among the 14 senators opposed. Both voted for a similar measure, House Bill 2739, that passed the Senate overwhelmingly on Thursday. Gov. David Ige has said he will sign it into law.
Views change over time, shaped by personal experiences, public opinion, conversations with constituents and stronger legislation, according to interviews with lawmakers and others who have been tracking the issue for years.
“I think more and more people are coming to terms with it,” Kim said Wednesday. “As the population ages, they’ve been caregiving for their parents and relatives and just seeing all the technology to keep people alive, unlike before, and see people suffering” [Nathan Eagle, “Medical Aid in Dying: A Long Journey from No to Yes for These Lawmakers,” Honolulu Civil Beat, 2018.03.29].
Senator Kim practices Catholicism but told Eagle, “As a legislator I’ve always said I have to put my personal beliefs aside.” Another Catholic legislator, Rep. John Mizuno, found Christian reasons to support the bill:
He was influenced by the landmark 1954 segregation case, Brown v. Board of Education; the 1965 Voting Rights Act, about equal rights to the ballot box; and the 1973 abortion case, Roe v. Wade.
“Those are things that started to change the tide for me,” Mizuno said. “Nationally, this is a defining civil rights struggle. To my Christian brothers and sisters, I can defend it.”
He described the Catholics in his district and dozens, if not hundreds, of others who have come out against physician-assisted dying on religious grounds as “kind” and “loving” people. But he said even some Catholics are breaking with the church.
“I tried to look through scripture and even if you talk about Jesus suffering on the cross, the Lord took him early,” Mizuno said. “That’s compassionate care” [Eagle, 2018.03.29].
South Dakota’s assisted-suicide initiative faced angry opposition from religious Republicans. But as we see in Hawaii, even our religious neighbors are able to change their minds.
A Gallup Poll last May found 73% of Americans support euthanasia.
*Legal Grammar Note: The text added to statute by SB 65 is terribly written. It opens with a noun phrase with a modifying dependent clause (“Any person who…”), jumps to a poorly appended independent clause (“…and another person dies…”) that is intended to serve as an additional condition but isn’t grammatically connected, then forgets to give its opening noun phrase a predicate and leaps to start a whole separate independent clause (“the sentence for the principal felony shall be enhanced…”). Governor Daugaard should have style-and-formed SB 65!
**Awesome Participatory Democracy Note: The Hawaii Legislature’s bill webpages include a button to “Submit Testimony.” Users have to sign in—no anonymous testimony, just like in committee—and all submissions are posted for public viewing. South Dakota’s Legislative website includes no such public testimony option.
Plus, Hawaii’s House Journals include transcripts of member floor speeches, whereas South Dakota’s Legislative Journals only include motions and votes.
***Reservations: Hawaii’s legislators can vote “aye with reservations.” Four of the House ayes and four of the Senate ayes were with reservations.
Cory, a couple of comments. First, the failed effort to legalize Assisted-Suicide in South Dakota was Republican led only to the extent that I’m the Republican that developed the Citizens Against Assisted Suicide Board that ultimately did all the work. But as a reflection of the very bipartisan nature of AS, our South Dakota board was very bipartisan. The work to defeat AS in South Dakota was carried out by both Democrats and Republicans.
Also, to provide balance to your readers on the win in HI, it’s helpful to view the measure in the context of state politics where all these battles play out: a handful of states including HI have legalized assisted suicide since Oregon’s law went into effect in 1997, however ten states have passed laws to ban it. Several of these states passed new laws in the last year — Alabama and Utah passed new bans, and Ohio added criminal penalties to its 2003 law allowing for civil penalties. Another 32 states have retained their older statutes or common law bans despite the assisted suicide movement’s repeated attempts against those policies.
As your good friend Margaret Dore recently commented, “Other states are pushing back against assisted suicide. This year, Utah passed a bill clarifying that assisted suicide is a crime. Last year, Alabama passed a bill banning assisted suicide. Two years ago, the New Mexico Supreme Court overturned assisted suicide: Physician-assisted suicide is no longer legal in New Mexico.”
Finally, I have little doubt we will see the AS effort return to South Dakota. When it does, perhaps you could consider blogging on it – not as a Democrat versus Republican issue – but as one of the unique issues that spans across the ideological divide.
Catholic legislator John Mizuno says:
That isn’t what the Bible says, and Mizuno’s claim would undermine the entire Christian faith. On the Cross, Christ endured absolute suffering to pay the ultimate penalty for our sin. He was even offered drugs in a sponge to kill the pain, and He refused.
Taking Him “early” would have left all the rest of us condemned and defeated God’s whole purpose in putting Christ on the earth in the first place.
Ending suffering from a very painful chronic debilitating illness should not be looked at as a sin. Just the opposite, “life is a struggle” says Buddha, and relieving one’s self from a personal struggle of physical and emotional pain should actually be thought of as a beautiful act of dignity for the person.
Jenny writes:
That’s true, but self-murder should.
Fred, I would like to see pubs like you put as much emphasis on the very serious public health crisis of Native American suicides as you do on assisted suicide. Oh, wouldn’t it be nice to see the SD GOP Legislature work on real crises like that instead of worrying if assisted suicide ever becomes legal in SD. But, suicides on SD reservations aren’t really that important to republicans.
Kurt Evans, it is a wonder any devout kristian turns on the lights because of all the evils your religion makes you see. You’d be happier in the dark, to my way of thinking. If you can’t see sin, it can’t possibly bother you.
Another thing, what’s with all these religious lawmakers injecting their ideas of religion into laws when less than 10 years ago right wingers were freaking out that Obama might President as a Muslim?
Question: Would one who sells/gives/provides a handgun o someone who later uses it to end their life be guilty of “assisted suicide?”
so a ptsd riddled person ends it all in an impulsive unchangeable act (and a loaded hand gun happens to be lying around and available), and that is a sin. More societal/religious/republican stigma
Attitudes toward our inevitable death seem odd. We know it will happen. It seems many religious folks believe that there is life after death and that life will be better than life on earth. Yet, they fear their own death and demand that others have no control over when, where and how they die.
Many religious folks abhor abortion arguing it results in death of a human, yet that human will end up in heaven (or where-ever – I am not clear of where aborted Catholics go) since it has not sinned and heaven is the greatest reward eternity offers to non-sinners already forgiven for Eve’s faux pas due to Jesus.
And I am not attempting to speak for all religious people, just relating my observations generally about those religions that describe an afterlife. These beliefs seem to contradict the idea that death is a bad thing to be avoided at all costs.
But it gets even stranger. We are all going to die and the idea seems to be ingrained that the last portion of our life must be the very worst. We have to be extremely ill and allowed to finally die when we can no longer survive whatever is slowly killing us. What a way to go out, unable to control bodily functions, in constant pain, drugged, wasting away, psychologically hurting, immobile, seeing relatives who visit crying as they watch us waste away, and basically being tortured by whatever disease or adverse effects of growing old has stricken.
I have seen arguments that we should be able to make the last days of our lives some of the most enjoyable and rewarding. Imagine the joy of having enough control over your demise that you could have a party with loved ones sharing the good times, and then leave life after the party had concluded. You get the diagnosis from your physician and you are allowed the freedom to plan when and how the inevitable event will occur. People deserve a joyful life and joyful death if possible.
You get the diagnosis from your physician and you are allowed the freedom to plan when and how the inevitable event will occur. People deserve a joyful life and joyful death if possible.
Beautiful post, bcb and I agree, especially with the last paragraph. However, I think most of us realize there are enough strict bible readers out there who will declare you are usurping god’s mercy and judgment (if there is a god) and legislation to allow this would probably not be allowed a vote.
Jenny,
What do you expect the SD legislature to do to reduce suicides on reservations or non-reservations?
Such a stupid controversy that is ground in religiously shrouded myth, legend, and folklore. Human aged-infantalism, aged suffering, constant administrations of morphine to relieve the pain, warehousing folks and creating industries for it, loss of the ability to control your bodily waste functions (and dignity) – yeah, call it life if you want, but it appears as a living hell after a life well-lived. Those of us who witnessed it and are witnessing it, chose to not subject our selves or progeny to it. Society can f’off. If I’m not taken before age ravages me, then when age ravages me I’m taking matters into my own hands, in my own dignity, whether or not society, or a regressive state dignifies it.
bcb,
To be clear, Catholic theology does not view death as “a bad thing that must be avoided at all costs.” On that contrary, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “death has a positive meaning” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2I.HTM
In fact, when it comes to discontinuing medical procedures at the end of life:
Not looking to start any debates, but I wanted to clear up what the Church teaches in that regard.
As for babies that die before birth, there is no official Church doctrine that has been formally developed. Limbo is not an official doctrine, although many believe in it. Many also believe that the babies receive special grace from God, as they have only the stain of Original sin but no actual sin.I have heard from theologian friends that we might see an official doctrine on this develop in the next decade or two.
Great topic Cory. Excellent comment BCB, and I’m with you John. “Off with my head!”, metaphorically speaking. The older I get, 65 next week, the more certain I become that, barring something unforseen, I will choose my own death because it is entirely my business. There are some who will care, and they already know me and my decision, which they’ll be free to share.
Oh, BCB, per Genesis it was Eve AND Adam who decided to disobey the prime directive and chow down in the Eden myth.
Once upon a time I worked in a nursing home and witnessed about 1/3 of residents choosing their death. Due to incorrect understanding and unfair stigmas, their only choice was to slowly starve themselves to death. That’s what they did and those of us working there knew it. The medical professionals knew it. There was no physical reason for the resident to suddenly refuse food, except that they had decided they were done and it was time to die. Because they wanted their life insurance to pay, they never told medical or administrative people, but they often told others. I respected their choice as their right as an adult.
Oh, my uncle was chief nursing administrator in more than one location for many years. He attested to the same thing. An assisted suicide law would end the cruelty of these slow, lingering deaths.
Debbo,
Most life insurance policies have a two year limit on suicide, so I don’t understand why you say they would not tell people they are going to starve themselves to death for that reason.
Jason
Did you get your Lalley/Cory debate scheduled?
Jason, only an economic idiot carries more than a term life insurance policy. One needs life insurance with a young family. As ones savings and investments grow a need for “life insurance” – which not insurance of life, but for dependents, decreases to a nullity.
John,
My post was about the suicide clause in life insurance policies.
I do agree with your post about life insurance in general.
Then you had no point, as usual. As it is rare for suicide cases to involve whole life insurance.
John,
Are you an idiot?
Debbo is the one that brought up suicide and life insurance.
Jason still won’t admit he is afraid to debate Cory.
Cory,
To turn us back to the topic, I am curious as to what your official position is on assisted suicide.
I looked at all the articles you have written on AS, as well as gone through the comments. You are never explicit regarding where you stand on the issue (although I would lean towards you supporting AS, but only because of how you criticize the other side in your comments.)
If this is likely to turn back up on an SD bill, I think it would be very beneficial for voters to know your position on this issue.
Debbo, you are right, I should have included Adam. My mistake.
To me it’s a very personal choice
There is that word again – choice
To me it’s a very personal choice
Dead on, Owen. (no pun intended) Isn’t that the way these medical decisions should be made? We don’t need big Brother’s nose under the tent wall.
“mike from iowa” writes:
Here’s how Christ Himself explains it:
“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.”
—Jesus Christ
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=John+3:19-21
“mike from iowa” continues:
Muslims reject the historical evidence that Christ rose from the dead.
“Bucko Bear” asks:
Would one who provides a car to someone who later uses it to end his life be guilty of assisted suicide? That depends on whether the provider was trying to help him kill himself.
Joe Nelson writes:
In Roman Catholicism they tend to let their popular mythologies marinate before declaring them official doctrines. The story that Mary’s physical body was “assumed” into heaven at the end of her earthly life, for example, was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII in November of 1950, around 1,900 years after it supposedly happened.
Joe writes to Cory:
I think you are trying to bait Cory into some sort of linguistic trap. Stop it. It is disingenuous and un-Christian. I don’t always agree with what Cory says, but I don’t try to trick him into saying something or try to setup some pseudo-straw-man to attack.
DISCLAIMER: The preceding paragraph is intended as irony.
https://dakotafreepress.com/2018/03/27/jackley-excludes-everyone-but-christians-from-his-governing-vision/#comment-100180
Kurt,
Doctrines develop over time, and often a “known” truth is believed and taught, but not doctrinally defined, until a heresy or question comes up regarding the issue (basically every Church Council was called to doctrinally define a piece of theology, because of a heresy popped, i.e. the hypostatic union of Christ was not doctrinally defined until a bunch of heretics popped up spreading nonsense about the divinity of Jesus.) Sometimes there was even fisty-cuffs (St. Nick vs. the Arians). With the Assumption of Mary, Gnostics way back agreed with it, so there was no need to defend it or define it. But, it is an ancient and well documented belief (in that there is documentation that the Early Church believed this, obviously there is no physical evidence that Mary was assumed into Heaven). Anywho, glad to see you have an interest in Catholic thought. (WARNING: If you don’t like the idea of the Assumption, you will definitely not like the idea of the Immaculate Conception).
Irony, eh? How are you defining irony in this case? Or do you rather mean your were being sardonic? Facetious?
BCB —— wow. Just perfect. Perfect.
I know I’ll catch flack for this in my “comparison”, but here it goes anyway. I had to put my 16 year old dog to sleep last weekend. He had been with me since he was a puppy. His last couple of weeks on earth weren’t the best, and his quality of life was decreasing horribly. I was relieved for me for the decision I made, but more for him that I had the choice and the option to let him go peacefully, without any pain, and to provide him some form of dignity as his heart stopped beating.
Compare that to…… I’m watching my uncle, diagnosed with Ahlzheimer’s about 3 years ago. Went from a strong and physically healthy, happy go lucky man (diagnosed when he was 75) to now? As the disease has progressed, his quality of life is horrible. He walked in on his own power into the memory care facility, able to feed himself, drink a beverage and for the most part — change his clothes. Now? He can’t communicate to the staff when he has to urinate/defecate. They just “change his clothes” and clean him up every few hours. He can’t feed himself and barely understands what the staff is trying to do as they spoon feed him. He can’t get out of bed and into his wheelchair without assistance. Then, when he is in the wheelchair? He is sleeping most of the time. The muscles in his neck have atrophied so bad, he can’t hold his head up anymore. A couple of months ago, he cut himself somehow (it is still a mystery) However, because he can’t communicate AND he can’t or doesn’t know that he is in pain —- he had a gaping wound in his lower leg that got infected (was life threatening) . The staff didn’t discover it until they took his clothes off to put his pajamas on. (wound that didn’t bleed much). He could not tell them that he was injured!! GAWD. He would be horrified if he knew that he was “living” like this. (wait a minute, I correct that. This isn’t “living”)
Luckily, my uncle made out his wishes that if/when something happened to him he could no longer eat and a feeding tube was needed for nourishment, he refused to have that done. Yes, that means he will starve to death. Horrible, isn’t it? But what a choice he had to make, because no other options are available to us. Maybe I need to move to Hawaii (or some of these other states) so that when I am in that place, I can die with dignity.
Dana, I am so sorry for your loss and what your uncle had to suffer. My condolences.
I offer my sympathy to you too Dana. No one should have to die that way.
This is to make a point:
I used to keep dwarf hamsters as pets. They’re mouse sized rodents, very funny, entertaining and fun. They live about 2.5 years. I had 4 of them. When they get near death it’s very apparent. They clean themselves like cats and their fur is very soft but suddenly it loses luster and they begin to behave erratically. What I did, when it became clear that they were dying, was put them in a zip lock baggie in the freezer. It was over quickly for them, but it really sucked for me because I grew very attached to the little vermin. I taught them tricks, their names– Vera Wang, Gina Lollabridgida, Katherine Hepburn, Lauren Bacall –and so on. With #4 I decided I would let Lauren die naturally. It took 3 days while she grew more hunched, mangy looking, and all she did was climb the side of her cage and fall all the way back down. For THREE DAYS! I never got another hamster because I just couldn’t stand the dying any more.
But we self-righteously let human beings, our “loved ones,” suffer needlessly for weeks and months. Does that make us some kind of monsters?
I’d written:
Joe Nelson writes:
There’s credible historical evidence that Saint Nicholas attended the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, but as far as I’m aware, the earliest claim that he struck one of the Arians there was written in the late 1300s. That doesn’t prove it didn’t happen, but I’ve spent a lot of time studying the history and hagiography surrounding Nicholas, and I’m not convinced.
Luke apparently interviewed Mary and gave her more prominent treatment in his Gospel than Matthew, Mark or John did. Luke also wrote the highlight reel of the early church in the book of Acts. If Mary’s body had been assumed into heaven, it seems to me that Luke would have mentioned it in Acts.
You’re right. I definitely don’t.
The use of words to express something other than the literal meaning.
No.
BCB/Debbo – thank you so much. Appreciated.
Debbo makes the point, better than I did. While I’m sad to have lost my dog, I am so happy that I had the choice to release him from his pain and suffering. I am so relieved that I have that option as a pet owner.
But for humans, we don’t have that choice. My uncle, wasting away. Still. When family visits him, he has no idea who we are. Sitting in his own waste, beginning to not eat even when spoon fed by staff. Doesn’t walk anymore. He has contracted pneumonia twice since he has been in the memory care facility. Something that more than likely could have been headed off if only he was able to verbalize that he was getting sick. And when we go to visit him, we see all of the other patients. All of the other people who have zero quality of life. Zero dignity.
My uncle expressed many times during his life that he “would not want to live that way”, when not even knowing what his future would be. Statements like, “please put a bullet in my brain before I’m condemned to a lifetime of suffering and disgrace”. At least, he made up his last wishes so that when he gets to “that” point, the end will be quicker for him. That was his only option. Who knows how much longer he will have to live like this. It is sad that he HAS to live like this. It is not living.
Dana P. writes:
How do you presume to judge the “quality of life” and “dignity” of all the other patients? Do you want to kill them all?
Are you claiming that’s an actual quote from your uncle? If so, it sounds like he was more concerned with minimizing his own suffering than he was with keeping others out of prison.
If you’re close to your extended family, and you live to be 40 years old, you’ll probably see several of your loved ones endure horrible deaths. The 96-year-old mother of my late father has been in physical decline for many years, and her current condition is comparable to your uncle’s except that she’s still able to verbalize her suffering, and does, often continuously.
Grandma will be gone soon enough. Healthy people aren’t ruminating on the possibility of killing her.
“Healthy people aren’t ruminating on the possibility of killing her.”
Kurt, there is an enormous difference between allowing a loved one to die per their choice, and “killing” them in the minds of millions of Americans, though using the word “killing” does sound more dramatic, pejorative, and serves a goal of not allowing people to die as they wish.
Millions of people are deeply opposed to allowing that, which is fine. If a death choice law were enacted, it wouldn’t be mandatory. It’s what I prefer, but I certainly don’t insist that anyone else do the same.
I feel that as a sentient, responsible, fully functioning adult, I should be entrusted with my body, my life and my death.
Debbo,
Where does a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) fit with the Assisted Suicide debate. I have a DNR stapled to all my medical records and it has never raised any eyebrows
Debbo
I meant to ask if there are any moral or religious objections to a DNR?
Roger, I have heard from reliable sources that some docs ignore DNRs. Since its a legal document, I’d think they could be sued for malpractice, or something similar.
From a Christian doctrinal position, I’d have to say it varies by denomination. The more conservative denominations seem to want to exert more control of many, many aspects of each person’s life.
Mainline denominations hold life as sacred, but that covers all lives, regardless of age, and includes quality of life, not merely it’s existence. Also, they seem to be more comfortable with leaving final decisions to individuals and judgment to god.
Roman Catholic doctrine aligns more closely with the conservative denominations in wanting to closely monitor and control lives, but they include quality at all ages like the mainline Protestants.
I believe the range of Jewish and Muslim denominations is about as broad as the Christians, so there is no one position. Most religions have that broad range unless they’re very, very small or incredibly rigid.
Ms. Debbo, I have heard from both reliable and unreliable sources that some Doctors of Medicine do not ignore personal advance directives. So there. Proof.
I agree Grudz. I think most docs honor DNRs, and there are some who don’t.
Our sources are indeed reliable, Ms. Geelsdottir.
I’d written:
At 11 p.m. Mountain time there’s a one-hour program on CNN about Pius XII and Nazism. I’ve seen it and thought it was far too easy on him. I don’t believe it even mentions his anti-Semitic writings until the final minutes of the show.
Deb writes:
By definition, an assisted-suicide law isn’t about merely “allowing” someone to die.
Maybe not at first.
At the beginning of His public ministry Christ identified Himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1, announcing that God had sent Him to proclaim liberty to captives. Biblically conservative Protestant denominations generally favor personal and political liberty.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Isaiah+61:1
Kurt,
Yep, that’s right. I’m “pro killing”. If that is what you get out of it, then……um. Wow. Just read BCB’s early post (I’m sure you did) No, I don’t “presume” to make the decisions of others, but, I do get to know the family of “others” when I visit my uncle. We communicate with each other. They express the same things that our family is witnessing and expressing. That their family member is and has been suffering (for many years) and they wish that other things could be done to end that suffering.
Their family members expressed to them when they were alive that they “didn’t want to live that way”. Why do we just look the other way and not want to talk about it? Why is giving consent to watching our loved ones live out their remaining days (in my uncle’s case, it is going on 3 years now) in a horrific way? Why is that ok? Why do we just say that ending a life humanely is ……killing?
When my uncle walked in to the memory care facility three years ago under his own power, of COURSE a decision should not have been made at that time. But now? Infections abound. Pneumonia, escaping “death” twice (In Kurt’s world, I guess, him getting pneumonia and close to death is ok), frequent infections because of open sores due to him sitting in his waste and it not being caught in time, etc…….That’s ok? No it’s not. We, as a family and a society have betrayed my uncle. And are continuing to do so.
Kurt:
By my understanding, assisted suicide can include allowing the patient, when capable, to inject themselves, takes the pills, etc., that cause their death. That’s how it’s not always killing, but i understand that you want to use a more pejorative word.
“Biblically conservative Protestant denominations generally favor personal and political liberty.”
But, if the individual wants to be a member of that church she must walk a very rigid line or get booted. Liberty is gone once the member signs on the dotted line. Liberty may be allowed in theory, but not in practice. It’s not unusual for members to run off someone whose politics don’t match up. I wish it wasn’t so because the things that those churches do reflect on all Christians and all churches.
Dana P. writes:
We do want to talk about it. We’re talking about it.
It’s okay because murder is worse.
Ending a life is killing, by definition.
Again, murder is worse.
Deb writes:
The patient killing herself would still be killing.
I’d written:
Deb writes:
I’ve attended the churches of several biblically conservative Protestant denominations over the years, Deb, and I’ve never seen the environment you describe.
I’d written:
The author of this article, Gabriel Wilensky, tends to lump Roman Catholics, nominal Protestants and traditional biblical Protestants into one big group, which he then stereotypes as anti-Semitic. This isn’t a blanket endorsement of Wilensky (or of John Cornwell, the translator he’s defending), but what he says here seems essentially credible:
http://sixmillioncrucifixions.com/The_Essence_of_a_Translation_-_Was_John_Cornwells_Hitlers_Pope_malicious,_and_wrong.html
Joe Nelson asks above for my official position, and I have neglected to favor him with a reply. I apologize for the delay and now comply.
I revolt at suicide in general. I’m prepared to say that suicide is an unacceptable action 99.9% of the time. If I see you with a gun pointed at your head, I hope I will have the courage to try moving that gun or your head to a safer orientation.
Yet when we are talking about terminal illness and suffering, I incline toward Debbo’s statement that end-of-life decisions are a personal right, decisions in which the government and, thinking about Roger’s DNR directive, even family doctors have no right to interfere.
Note that I say “incline.” I’m not sure what I would do in the instance, because the actual emotions and moral stakes are far more intense than we can replicate in our comfortable hypothetical blog discussions. If a loved one were suffering a terminal illness and asked me to assist in suicide, I am not sure what my heart and mind would do. I’m not decided at this point on what they should do.
Perhaps my personal moral and emotional uncertainty is sufficient to establish a public policy: as with abortion, the state should not make that choice for individuals. We should certainly take precautions—clearly we don’t want young heirs whimsically bumping off their elders for convenience and enrichment. If suicide is acceptable in any extreme, terminal-illness situations, it must be sui-cide, not homo-cide, an act springing from absolute autonomy, not coercion.
Again, I’m not going to let a good friend needlessly throw his life away. But I’m also not going to walk into every hospital room and tie the hands of every terminally ill patient.
There—public position—am I there yet?
By the way, thinking about those who would use the power of the state to prevent suicide leads me to a tangent: if that impulse comes from a Christian perspective, should such devoted Christians also run out onto battlefields to seize the rifles that soldiers are pointing at each other? Should they fling themselves upon soldiers attempting to storm well-defended enemy positions?
Cory,
No need to apologize. I do my best to think the best of people, and was inclined to think that you were out promoting democracy and spending time living life outside of the combox. Thank you for the response. It has nuance, and it is apparent that you recognize the many facets of the issue. To summarize/paraphrase your position “Legalized assisted suicide in situations of terminal illness, with protections in place to prevent elder abuse and coercion.” Of course that doesn’t; capture it all, and I am certainly not trying to put words in your mouth.
As to your question, I can try to speak from the Catholic perspective. The answer, is of course, it depends. Life should be preserved, yet people and the State must also be allowed to defend themselves. And then the is just war doctrine, and relying on the prudential leadership of authorities. Am I wise enough to determine when a conflict is purely out of self defense and in line with just war doctrine? I don’t know. And too often, wars are fought for more than one reason and often times there are multiple parties/agents with their own motivations in the war. I work to promote peace, and in the event we go to war, it is done justly.
Here is succinctly what the Church teaches on suicide:
And now safe guarding of peace:
Joe: I agree completely with the first four sentences of Paragraph 2281. Obviously, I can’t get on board with the final sentence.
I can also work with Paragraph 2282. Just as I am prepared to resist the state making a general decision for every case, I am prepared to oppose any individual trying to make a general case from his personal experience. Bruiting or (heavens forfend!) celebrating one’s suicide in the midst of a painful terminal illness as an example of what others should do seems to violate the moral and emotional uncertainty that I put at the center of forming my legislative position. None of us knows what we would do in that situation until we are in it. The decision is too personal and too awful (awe-ful) to be made by anyone else, by any law or any example. We can’t really compare what Person X, Y, or Z felt while experiencing the final stages of Disease W to what I or a person I love will feel in that situation. I or my loved one may be able to bear what others could not, or vice versa. We must make our own decision on this matter, privately, without public interference or affirmation.
I’m not talking myself into a moral relativism on this issue, am I? It feels close. It feels like I’m working toward a position where I say that, sure, legally, you can do it, but that legal permission and anyone else’s invocation of that permission should never be used to tell people that they should do it.
Interesting that the Church says (parag 2282), “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.” Diminish the responsibility—that strikes me as a key phrase, and I note that it applies only to the person committing suicide, not people facilitating the act.
——————————-
(Parag 2308: “…as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”—Does that line suggest that the Church is hoping for global government?)
(Interesting also that in 2309 and 2310, the Church recognizes rights of governments and public authorities that supersede the rights of individuals.)
——————————
To my question about Christians’ intervening in armed conflict and your (Joe’s) response to it: Among the criteria for legitimate use of military force is the idea that “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.” So, if you’ll pardon me for putting on sheep’s clothing for a moment, I can imagine getting some Christians together, reading that passage in 2309, and saying, “All right, you guys. I think we can get enough of us Christians together to storm the battlefield, grab everybody’s rifles and grenades, and end the fighting. No one’s shown this plan to be impractical or ineffective yet, so we have a moral obligation to try it before giving in to violent conflict.”
My question is probably just another take on the age-old question of what constitutes a just war, and just how last-resort must war be for the individual to accept the government’s decision to wage it. But I would expect anyone appealing to the Church doctrines above to justify legal penalty for assisted suicide to apply Church doctrine to a staunch resistance to the far more widespread problem of war.
Deb had written:
I’d written:
Joe Nelson quotes:
I’m not aware of any Protestant denomination, biblically conservative or otherwise, that attempts to tell its adherents what they should believe in this degree of detail. Even if such a denomination and I agreed about everything, I’d never give up the freedom to fine-tune my positions as I mature.
Cory writes:
It suggests to me that most Catholic leaders are. Note that this doctrine would allow national governments to be denied the right of self-defense once the international authority is in place.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?version=NASB&search=Revelation+17
Cory,
——————————-
“Diminish the responsibility—that strikes me as a key phrase, and I note that it applies only to the person committing suicide, not people facilitating the act.”
Regarding this phrase, it is specifically speaking to the conditions of hat constitutes a mortal sin, i.e. those sins which kill the life of Christ in a person.For a sin to be mortal, it has to meet three criteria (grave matter, full knowledge, complete consent). In that sense, “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture” do not diminish the gravity of the sin, but certainly affect a person’s knowledge and consent.
——————————-
“Does that line suggest that the Church is hoping for global government?)
(Interesting also that in 2309 and 2310, the Church recognizes rights of governments and public authorities that supersede the rights of individuals.)”
The Church is cool with the UN, which is a global government. However, the Church also promotes a balance of power.
As for promoting the rights of governments over individuals, it would be more accurate to say they promote a balance. Rather than a complete info dump, I will give you the “In Brief”:
——————————-
“I can imagine getting some Christians together,”….
The Church calls for everyone to work for peace. Although your plan may have immediate tangible benefits of preventing a temporary cessation of warfare, the long term effects may be diminished. I cite other great protests, where large groups of people worked to prevent things from happening (i.e. Keystone pipeline protests), but ultimately they were defeated. Working for peace might be better done by interacting with the policy makers. Also, as a solider who went to war, it would be very difficult to take rifles away (especially the ones mounted on tops of vehicles, mortar fire, drones, et cetera….) Maybe the plan would have more efficacy if pre-cannon Napoleonic “line up and shoot at each other” warfare?
How come it had to take a whistleblower to break open of the biggest priest pedophilia scandals in Catholic History in St Paul, Joe?
I just don’t understand how Catholics can still be Catholics and not demand an overhaul in the way it treats its Priests when it comes to such nasty crimes as pedophilia. Yes, your Church still has a huge problem with pedophilia. It took MPR with months of intense investigating to dig into the Diocese to find its sick secrets and to fight for justice for its victims. And this wasn’t years ago, either.
It’s self-righteous Catholics like you that make me glad I got the hell out of that Church.
The meanest bullies growing up were always the Catholic kids – by far and away. It wasn’t even a contest, the Catholics kids were horrible. They sure know how to raise bullies.
And what that nasty Catholic Church did to the Native Americans just breaks my heart. I’m sure Roger Cornelius could tell some stories.
Pedophiles always, always, always chooses its most vulnerable to rape and abuse. Always.
So would the Priest pedophilia problem and the leaders who have moved them from Church to Church be validated as Mortal Sin or Venial Sin?
RCC abuse of children is an entire other topic which I could easily join Jenny in ranting about because it enrages me. However, I’ll just say this, the RCC continues to protect their perps. The current pope participates in that protection.
Jenny
My experience at Holy Rosary Catholic Indian Mission (now Red Cloud Indian School, Pine Ridge, SD) were for the most part positive. For those of us that paid attention, a Jesuit education equals a solid basic education.
Fortunately I didn’t experience any sexual abuse by priests or anyone else, that is not to say it didn’t happen to others, it just didn’t happen to me.
We often heard stories about some of the priests and priests that had served prior to my time there.
While at Holy Rosary, I did make some lifelong friends with some of the Jesuits, Jesuits or prefects were those training for the priesthood.
A few of them told me that the Catholic Indian Missions around the country were actually a dumping ground for wayward priests, a punishment so to speak.
“1927… The common good of the whole human family calls for an organization of society on the international level.” Again, interesting to hear the Catholic Church advocate global government. I would agree that such global government would require some balance of power, as surely as we require balance among the federal, state, and local governments here in the U.S.
1921 says governments act with legitimate moral authority only when they pursue the common good of society through morally acceptable means. I take it that violation of either part of that criterion, means or ends, annuls moral authority and authorizes individuals to rebel.
So for the state to legitimately ban assisted suicide and to punish (i.e., abridge the rights) of those who assist a suicide, the state must show that it is using morally acceptable means to achieve the common good of society.
Is it morally acceptable for the state to punish a man who complies with the conscious, fully responsible request of his terminally ill wife to help her end her physical suffering?
Does such punishment serve the common good?
Cory,
I gave you the In Brief portion, the longer bit goes into a bit more detail…. you can read below. But to answer your question, in light of what the Catholic Church teaches, the man in question must use morally acceptable means. Ending suffering by offering comfort and pain medication? Go for it. Suffocate her with a pillow? Nope. Likewise, the state should not punish the man in the first case, but most certainly in the later. Of course, there is a spectrum of behavior between the two, and the Church would advocate that in all instances the state protect life. Allowing death to naturally occur is morally permissible, to hasten its onset not so much.
As far as morally acceptable means of punishment, the state must remember that even the offender is still a person and the common good applies to them as well. This is why in most circumstances the Church is opposed to capital punishment. Many theologians, since before Jesus, have weighed in on this and will continue to do so. Big topic for a combox.
As for rebellion, nothing is made explicit. The Church would likely advocate for a peaceful reform, vice violent revolution. However, if the rebellion was in keeping with just war doctrine? Maybe.
I should note that in the quotation, I usually strip out the footnote number. Feel free to visit the link to see everything, footnotes references included. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm
I understand Kurt’s revulsion at the Church laying out beliefs for adherents in such detail. That detail could be interpreted as a quashing of mature individual moral reasoning and will.
Then again, I could find equal revulsion in some Protestant churches that seem not to write anything down and pick and choose Scripture to support the whims of their non-seminary-educated “pastors” and to make excuses for Donald Trump.
The law/policy-nerd in me rather likes all these lines of catechism (2,865?! really?!) giving the believer some pretty clear guidelines to follow and to use to hold accountable other members and the church fathers (assuming there’s not some line tucked in there saying, “Never question the church fathers or their interpretations of these rules”). I could blog Catholic law as hard as I blog South Dakota law.
Joe, how much room would you say there is for exercise of your own moral reasoning within the Catechism? How often does every argument boil down to, “Yup, that’s what the Catechism says we ought to do”? Would you say that Rep Mizuno can come to a conclusion within his Catholic faith that his vote for this law is acceptable, or would you agree with Kurt that Rep Mizuo is getting his religion wrong?
Cory,
The Catholic Church has been around for a while, giving them plenty of time to write and argue and write some more.
As for the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
If you really want to dig into Church Law, there is the Code of Canon Law at a whopping 1752 paragraphs, and that is just for the Latin Rite!
Additionally, the Catechism is a summary collection of the entire body of Catholic teaching:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm
Now, regarding moral judgement. This would fall into what the Church refers to as “moral conscious”, and the necessity of having a properly formed conscious. In the case of Rep. John Mizuno, he himself identifies with the Catholics who are breaking with the Church on this doctrine. Mercy killings, while on the surface appear to be compassionate, is still killing. I hesitate to say that “Rep Mizuo is getting his religion wrong”, because there is more to the Catholic faith then this one doctrine. He is being honest about it though, admitting that he disagrees with the Church on this topic. Personally, when I am confronted with a topic of ethical or moral concern, I ask myself “What does the Church teach on this?” and look to the Bible, the Catechism, writings of the Church Fathers, etcetera… Some issues are very nuanced, such as gun control, the penal system, the justice system, and so forth. They require careful analysis and healthy debate.
Cory attempts to apply Catholic doctrine:
Maybe this is partly semantics, but setting aside the question of whether punishing assisted suicide is legitimate, I’m not sure Catholics or Protestants generally regard legitimate state punishment as the abridgment of rights.
For the record, I’m no fan of the nominally Protestant churches you’re describing either.
Joe Nelson writes:
I believe you mean conscience rather than conscious.
Cory theRCC and proud supporters like Joe like to tout these rules and laws around and impress everyone with how knowledgeable and such good chatholic sheeples they are but in reality the Vatican runs the show on a completely different corrupted level . The Vatican is fiercely hidden in secrecy and in the last few years documents in regards to its hidden secrets that have come out in the last quarter century. I can link you those if you’re interested.
Joe is the typical Catholic sheeple that ignored my question about the pedophilia problem.