Religion
Related: About this forumEnd of life care: What do religions say?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/27618826By Flavia Di Consiglio
BBC Religion and Ethics
With figures showing that many people around the world die painfully due to scarce access to morphine, the World Health Organization is calling for improvements to end of life care.
But even when pain medication is available, the end of someone's life is often an immensely difficult moment for all concerned. So for those who believe, what guidance can religions offer in a person's last moments?
At first glance the words 'good' and 'death' might not seem compatible, yet most of us will have reflected on how we would like to depart this world, if given the opportunity to choose.
While the proverbial scenario 'at home, asleep' might unfortunately not be attainable for everyone, it does give a sense of what the 'ideal' death might look like: peaceful, pain-free and dignified.
more at link
trotsky
(49,533 posts)It's what individuals who subscribe to the religions interpret their texts and teachings to say.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)ed suicide in my state, as my father labored on for another 6 months past the point he wanted it over, from the pain. His options were:
1. Suffer.
2. Dope up on morphine and lose his mental faculties.
Vile.
Good to see the UK having this conversation. Looks like they have the same problem we do, placing religious doctrine over human compassion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)As you can see, they are all over the place, with compassionate care playing a huge role in the debate.
There are both religious and non-religious groups that support and don't support assisted suicide.
It's not about placing religious doctrine over human compassion. It's about writing good laws and developing good protocols.
The Oregon case was very complex, and, frankly Dr Kervorkian probably did more harm to the cause than he did help.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)He puts his religious doctrine (which, to be fair, has become cultural doctrine as well, for him) above compassion. That's the bottom line.
"Anglican: Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, has stated that although "There is a very strong compassionate case" for physician-assisted dying, the Anglican church remains opposed to the practice."
39% of the population of the UK identify as Anglican. Another 12.5% as RCC.
"Catholicism: The official position of the Catholic Church in Rome remains that killing of a human being, even by an act of omission to eliminate suffering, violates divine law and offends the dignity of the human person."
That's a majority, right there without even considering the rest.
We got issues here too, but we have legalized it in three states. I predict we will have more success than the UK in the coming decade, on this issue.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Why should another person's religious beliefs affect the terms of my death? Or yours? Or anyone else's?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and can sway decisions.
You may not like that, but it's a fact.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Instead of telling them, for example, "We have no right to impose our beliefs on other people", or "The only book I read in college doesn't say shit about medicine, maybe we should listen to a fucking doctor"?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)issues are on the table.
I do not think that other's religious beliefs should have any effect on your personal end-of-life decisions and have personally participated in individual, institutional and large organizational decisions on this topic. The issue of religion comes into play when a person with particular religious beliefs is the subject of the discussion. But it also comes into play when legislation is being considered.
And things become very, very complicated when you have a patient who can not effectively participate and a family who may hold very different POV's from each other.
Disregarding that would be a mistake, but as with abortion, the case you are making is the best case to make. It should ideally be an individual choice between a doctor and a patient.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If you have a law on the books that allows for a dignified death, no one is under any compunction whatsoever to make use of it. If a religious person wants to prolong their suffering because that's what they think God wants, no one is going to make them commit suicide. This is effectively ensured by the First Amendment.
What we have, however, is a group of religious people trying to dictate end-of-life decisions for everyone else, based on their own personal religious beliefs. The only people not taking into account the beliefs of others is them. It isn't fair, it isn't ethical, and it isn't in keeping with the principals upon which our society was founded.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I generally support a individual's right to choose when it comes to end-of-life decisions.
Sometimes this is easy and uncomplicated. But often it is not.
The person's wishes may not be clear. There may be issues around whether someone is terminal or has an underlying condition that would change their wishes if it were treated. The family may have marked disagreements about the issues.
Where do you see a group of religious people trying to dictate end-of-life decisions for everyone else? There are religious and non-religious groups that lobby on both sides. The laws that have been enacted are complex and any law in this area needs to be crafted very carefully. As with other issues where religious beliefs may come into play, there is a lot of room for education that may change the views of individuals.
If anything, we are moving as a country towards accepting and adopting more end-of-life alternatives, including assisted suicide.
So let's support the religious and non-religious organizations that are with us on this and oppose that that aren't.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)This is effectively no different than ambiguity over DNR, or inheritance, or any other decision made in the twilight years of one's life. And I'm not seeing a religious angle on this. Did Christ have anything to say about living wills or resuscitation orders?
I don't think anyone is pushing for a slipshod right-to-die law. Obviously, it will need be comprehensive. Obviously, it will need to include provisions for ambiguity. It will have to include a laundry list of stipulations, prohibitions and protections. But this isn't why religious groups are opposed to right-die-laws; they're opposed because they believe suicide is a mortal sin and they couldn't give a fuck and half how the rest of us feel about it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think there is a place and a very positive history of religious groups being involved in lobbying efforts, but recognize that much negative has come of it as well.
I draw the line when they are lobbying for things that impinge on the rights of others who hold a different, personal POV.
We are totally on the same page when it comes to this particular issue, I think. Change on this is going to come, but it's going to come slowly, imo.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That would be a valid justification for what the anti-choice movement does - drawing the line when people who support reproductive choice are impinging on the rights of others, such as the unborn.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If a religious group has a good reason to support or oppose policy, then I have no problem listening to them. But on the Scale of Sensible Arguments, "Because God says so" doesn't even rate an honorable mention. Religious people can debate each other to their hearts' content about the implications of certain laws as they pertain to their respective faiths, but religious arguments do not deserve to be at the forefront of any political discussion, nor do they warrant consideration on the legislative floor.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And i agree that "because god says so" is not much of an argument, but it's rarely just that, imo.
Legislators represent people and if those people base their decisions or positions on religious grounds, then I think the arguments do have a place when considering legislation. It's good to know what is driving their decisions so that you can make a better case against it (or for it).
When one just dismisses a position simply because it has religious underpinnings, it does little except drive those people further into those positions.
And sometimes it is used for good. Almost every day articles are posted here about groups of religious people and leaders who are actively lobbying for things that progressives and liberals embrace. It matters little to me if religion is driving them, they are on my side and I support them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I've supplied you with that info before, here in the US political landscape, so that question comes off hyper-disingenuous.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I am very aware that there are groups that are lobbying against EOL legislation. The difference, I think, is that I don't consider lobbying for or against specific legislation as "dictating EOL decisions". When I read that phrase I was thinking about legislators that are trying to enact specific legislation, but I recognize that that is a murky distinction and concede the point.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Especially since people are then caught in the cruel choice of either forgoing the option entirely, or doing it unlawfully, which has consequences for the survivors. (Loss of insurance, death benefits, etc)
pinto
(106,886 posts)By their own account. I would never bring it up unless a person initiated the subject. For others it didn't play a role. Like life, each death is individual and unique.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)freely choose.
pinto
(106,886 posts)The legal standing is between the individual and designated representatives. I've seen many family disputes on the issue, yet I've never seen a clergyman walk into a hospital room or home and yell, "Stop!".
I get the conflicts around an unfortunately labeled concept - "assisted suicide" - and the legal arguments pro and con. In my experiences, most compassionate MDs get it and meet the patient and family where they are at. Usually it's an informed decision to cease specific treatment and move to a palliative, end of life approach
That said, I support a person's right to have an informed choice.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It is now legal in 3 states in the us. Elsewhere, their lobbying efforts continue to prevent this option from being available.
Here's Martin Sheen, lying his ass off.
I get that suicide is offensive to his religious beliefs. Fine. Don't commit suicide then. Don't lie, lobby, spend millions to deny this option to the terminally ill.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Didn't follow it.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)State by state. It remains an uphill battle nationwide.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a significant percentage of "unaffiliateds" who are against "right to die" legislation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)to this issue.
Religion and religious beliefs are very often a part of the discussion and those knowledgeable in them are critical components.
As you say, every death is individual and, more often than not, very complex.