at least he's increasing the number of "Nones" (those who claim no religious preference). People will begin to see how harmful Catholicism can be.

How about deny treatment? I am disgusted by situational ethics especially by purveyors moral authority.

It seems entirely unchristian to not allow someone to die with dignity and free from pain.

But I do think it is probably a sin in the catholic church to allow someone to die of neglect.

The denial of treatment is a really good question. There was a woman in Ireland who died last year because the Catholic hospital would not provide the abortion that would have saved her.

From its Declaration on Euthanasia on May 5, 1980.

The idea of "suppressing life prematurely" is fraught with difficulty. Is it premature to end a life where the agony is unspeakable and the condition is terminal and irreversible?

Euthanasia has nothing to do with killing abnormal babies or the mentally ill just because they are a burden. This statement includes helping a terminal patient in agony to die with those things. That is just wrong.

This statement even includes "acts of omission", something that pretty much every medical professional supports.

From my reading of this, even having an advanced directive would be a violation, because those clearly outline the circumstances when someone would want to have care withheld. People don't just ask for this on their deathbeds, they prepare for it long before they are even sick.

This is nonsense and besides being inhumane, is an extreme burden on health care systems in terms of both human and financial resources.

It's also a much different topic than abortion.

The RCC teaching on the use of, or forebearance from, using "extraordinary measures" is not that far from the rationale that right-to-die activist groups use. The difference is the latter states affirmatively that it's an individual's right to actively end his or her life on his or her own terms.

There are quite a few issues floating around this.

Pain versus quality of life.

Passive termination versus active termination.

The patient's interest versus society's interest.

The list is not small.

The short answer is it's not a decision for a legislature to make but, the ultimate moral answer is not all or nothing.

This statement seems to go far beyond extraordinary measures.

It makes absolutely no reference to the quality of life and basically states that there is no degree of pain so great that it would merit euthanasia. We put animals out of their misery, but can't do it when it comes to humans?

It also appears to reject passive termination because it talks about withholding treatment.

What is society's interest when it comes to allowing or assisting a terminally ill person to die? Society certainly has an interest in drawing a very clear line at anything that smells even faintly of eugenics, but that is clearly rejected by advocates for euthanasia.

The list is not small, that is true. I just wish that the issues you bring up would even be considered and the position modified at least a little. It does seem very absolute with no wiggle room whatsoever.

The whole doctrine on withholding extraordinary means to preserve a life is about passive termination. The disagreement is on when it's appropriate.

I know of no doctrine that speaks against palliative care or against medical procedures and medicines designed to eliminate or alleviate pain.

Excepting excruciating agony, the notion of quality of life has a huge subjective component. The other aspect of it is that consideration of societal cost of care and the burden of the person's family or caretakers is always present, whether explicitly stated or not.

That's precisely where the societal interest enters. Not to mention insurance companies. How many times have you heard of an insurance company refusing or resisting treatment on the grounds that there was no ultimate medical benefit? Other than bad publicity, I would expect Humana to be running commercials for euthanasia.

The RCC has written a lot about life and death issues and in the last half century has done a lot of work on bioethics in light of medical advances. Contrary to headlines it has a very nuanced view of it. You'll reject many of its conclusion but I would be surprised if you didn't agree with as many.

reduction of pain.

This is a medical debate, not a theological one. The notion of quality of life is extremely complex. That is why hospitals have ethics committees where people with different perspectives and levels of expertise can weigh in.

BTW, I have been on ethics committees with catholic priests. When it comes to this debate, I don't recall one ever advocating the RCC position. They generally abstain.

To have a blanket policy or doctrine that disallows even withholding treatment in order to allow someone to die is bad. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it seems like that is exactly the position it takes.

Actually, insurance companies are loathe to deny end of life care. They are at high risk of getting sued if they do so when the patient and family want to prolong treatment. Much as they would absolutely love to be able to draw the line, they really can't do it. They are, however, general fully supportive if the patient and family opt for allowing the patient to die.

I am sure that the RCC has many good policies in regards to bioethics. This is not one of them, though. It is compassionate, human and very christian to allow someone to control the end of their life, imo. WWJD?

from abuse.

You're more likely to see the hospital's lawyers on that committee than doctors.

The right to die is always debatable, as you pointed out. There are many factors that have to be considered.

And absolute policy regarding the right to die would be bad whether it were too strict or too liberal.

eliminate coercion from being a factor in patient's decisions, at least as much as is practical.

it can not and should not be subject to a committee. Any more than a decision to terminate a pregnancy should.

(BTW, I probably overstated it. A medical ethics committee is useful on a whole range of other issues, such as protocols for new and experimental treatments, duty to provide treatment versus a patient's inability to pay, etc.)

If someone's wish to die is due to a treatable illness, like depression, I don't think their right to proceed is absolute.

Then there are situations that may involve someone with limited cognitive capacities, whether that be due to dementia, illness, medication or mental retardation.

I have seen many, many cases when (as described in the RCC doctrine), someone begs to die, but recovers and is glad they did not. I've even seen this during childbirth, lol.

There are cases of children whose parents have certain religious beliefs, or even adults that have certain religious beliefs but the entire family is against it.

Terminating a pregnancy is generally an entirely different thing.

Medical ethics committees play a very important role in end of life decisions. It's just not that clear cut.

FWIW, they usually function on a case by case, as needed basis and not really as an ongoing committee that makes policy decisions, though they can weigh in at times.

Are you familiar with Rivers hearings in New York?

They're named after this case http://www.lawandbioethics.com/demo/Main/Media/Resources/Rivers.htm and concern a patient's right to refuse treatment (although they did not address the question of whether the patient can refuse treatment to the point of death or the issue of whether a patient can affirmatively take steps to end his or her life.)

Starting with the premise that a patient has the right to consent to or to refuse treatment, this case turned on the issue of whether the illness removed that patient's ability to consent orto refuse, and if so, the state was permitted to treat, even with force, over objection.

Concomitant with a person's right to choose is the person'e right to make that choice without interference from a state, court, or other institution.

But that is not what I am talking about.

It is important to assess whether a patient has a treatable depression before allowing them to consent to withdrawal of life support or other life sustaining treatment. That doesn't mean that the patient would have meds forced, which is almost impossible with meds that are taken orally anyway.

Most of the time, the patient will consent to treatment, even to ECT. They don't always get better, but often do and no longer want to die.

I do think the ability to consent can be seriously diminished by many things, including delirium, dementia, depression or psychosis. I think medical professionals have to tread very lightly in those cases, particularly if there are family members who don't want the patient to die.

The right to choose has caveats, imo.

So, as part of your support for legal euthanasia, do you support a screening panel to certify the person has capacity to do so?

Do you support as well the practice of undergoing psychiatric review before approving treatments for gender dysphoria?

Do you support as well the practice of undergoing judicial review before a minor is approved to have an abortion?

The issue of consent and the law has the potential to land people in very strange corners. It is not a straight line.

I generally dislike absolutist statements.

I think that is the right thing to do.

I do think there has to be a process to evaluate the person who has requested assisted suicide. It could be a panel or a single qualified individual. The process they use in Switzerland is a great template, imo.

I do support psychiatric review before a number of things - gender reassignment, gastric bypass, even artificial insemination.

I do not support judicial review regarding abortion. I think the same rights of adults should apply to minors in those cases.

It's not a straight line, I agree. That is why these complex situations often need a team with different perspectives to come to a conclusion.

It is the RCC's statement that is absolutist, imo. It really grants no wiggle room at all.

The reality is somewhat different. While the RCC has clearly marked lines, the paths to those lines are much murkier. In its history it has become a master of finding wiggle room.

where a catholic priest is a member, I have never seen them advocate the RCC position. Letting others make the right decision is wiggle room, lol.

She had disseminated cancer, had gone through the whole course of treatments to no avail, her dx was clearly terminal. Also, as an RN she got it. When I went back East to see her we talked about options. She was clear that she would have no more treatment and also clear she wanted to leave. Yet how seemed a dilemma. 6 more months or more of it all? She had plenty of narcotics to take as a choice, yet she was clear that wasn't an option.

What she did was to "forget" to take her heart meds for a recurring atrial fibrillation. She had coded in the past so she knew. And told me it was very sudden, sort of jolting but not painful. Two days after I got home my aunt let me know they had a few moments together before she died.

she was able to control the end of her life.

Personally, I would have taken the narcotics and gone peacefully to sleep. I wouldn't take the chance that someone might call EMS and they might code me.

Excepting the obvious ones, such as consent being required for clinical testing, etc.

As you can see from this website, you'd be hard pressed to find any position that "liberals" (whoever that means) would find unqualifiedly good.

The second reason is that that ethics are not politics. It's a mistake to mix ethical, including religious, positions with political ones. It does a disservice to both.

with euthanasia.

That still does not change the nature of ethics and morals, which can be discussed without invoking politics.

If a religious basis is offered for policy it should be rebutted. You know as well as I that it's not hard to do.

Shouldn't be a political question or an ethical one?
Or it's ethics shouldn't be considered in the law?
Much of my politics is based on my ethics. How do you separate them.

Homicide, whether by a state or an individual is also an ethical question. But, frankly, I don't think ethics should be the basis for public policy or legislation. The ethics of the so-called "white man's burden" was the moral rationale for European imperialism. The ethics of "democracy and freedom" is the moral rationale for the present clusterfuck in Syria/Iraq. The ethics of "human fulfillment" is the rationale for capitalism. And they're all bullshit.

Ethics is not necessarily good, or bad. Poiltically, it is the desiderata of a given state or polity. It's only as good and desirable as that state considers it. The states that are invaded and the peoples that are subjugated may disagree.

BTW, I was watching a video yesterday and the speaker mentioned that government policy tends to employ a "calculus of utility," to do the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. I never heard that term before, have you?

Meanwhile, I am highly skeptical of a government's motive. I acknowledge that what a government considers ethical on any given issue may not be what I consider ethical at all. (I'm thinking here of economic and war issues, not bioethical issues.) That's how I attempt to separate them. Not by the motives for a political view, because I doubt they're ever honestly stated, but by the effect they may likely have.

Minority Rights might not be good for the whole, but it is ethically correct.

My first thought was consensus. But what if the consensus is to invade North Korea?

There should be some objective measure to gauge laws. Maybe the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

At least it has the advantage of the broadest possible consensus.

Wait, the UN did send troops into Korea in 1950!

would do away with many civil rights. (many polls on this) The ethical basis for many civil rights is the tyranny of the majority.
I don't see how ethics isn't an integral part of politics. We see in the GOP a party that is ethically compromised and pushes for unfairness and inequality.
I am just trying to understand your view that ethics doesn't belong in the legislative process.

History shows there was an ethical rationale for segregation. Miscegnation is wrong; segregation is good. That ethos suffused southern governments for three centuries and its impact is sill there.

We agree it was wrong for all that time, yet it was an ethical position. Our ethics on this point is different from theirs.

It can be as insidious on governmental policy as overt religious beliefs.

Politics is bruising. My expectation is that better arguments will prevail. But to say ethics is on the side of the argument invites both MLK and Ayn Rand into the room.

We can't simply say, the greater good, because sometimes the greater good hurts too many people, even if it benefits more.
Surely you approve of laws based on the morality of it. Or are you separating morality from ethics?

Your last question raises the issue of whether morality is objective, existing independently of the moralist.

What else is new?

vilest crap to come out of the Catholic Church, most of all its political and..."moral" positions on many issues.

Emerging every so often to tell people my conclusion.

that bodily autonomy should be subject to restrictions that clearly don't endanger the safety, liberty or health of others. Freedom of choice for all.

There is a maxim, "He who defines the argument wins the argument."

Unfortunately, issues of life and death are more sloppy and more complex than argument.

or, when it does, it does so in an overly convoluted way. Example is the so called "double effect" process required for therapeutic abortions.

The RCC takes an absolutist position that human life must be preserved, from conception to natural death, at any cost, disregarding suffering, medical issues, viability issues, etc. This holds true when it comes to abortion and euthanasia. That is why they celebrate when a couple chooses to birth a baby with no brain, that lives for only a few hours outside the womb, that's why they fight for laws that restrict the rights of others to have autonomy over their own bodies, whether its pregnancy or mortality. That's why they fucking slander the dying because of the choices they make that the RCC's priests and bishops don't agree with.

The biggest joke is that they try to hold claim to a "culture of life" but what I see instead is a culture that grasps at any excuse to prolong suffering, to rob individuals of control over their own lives and have them surrender it to their God and their Church. Fuck them.

I think we should respect that when someone is dying and does not want to go through the last sufferings that we should leave them in peace. Let them go with dignity and surrounded with love.

She had terminal cancer and went into cardiac arrest at 74 years old. That Catholic Hospital honored her wishes. It is called letting God (or nature) decide whether someone will live or die. I suppose they think that doing nothing to prevent death is justifiable?

has any prohibition against that at all.

Aren't we also playing God when we use extraordinary means to save lives? For all we know it may be God's will that dying people are meant to die. How do we know?? Because the Pope says so?

The whole letting nature take it's own course when applied to other cases would be a very sticky wicket.

Sorry if that offends anyone but this hit's too close to home.

So, fuck you.

terminal illnesses, or if they would be forced to live in conditions of what to THEM is unbearable pain or incapacity (it should be the individual's decision, not anyone else's, and therefore people should ideally prepare advance decisions before becoming ill or injured.)

The problem is becoming increasingly noticeable, not because there is a 'culture of death', but because modern medicine makes it far more possible for people to survive relatively long-term in very bad physical condition. Even 50 years ago terminal illness usually meant truly imminent death; most people with illnesses or injuries serious enough to require long-term ventilator dependence would die in days or weeks, not years; the same was true of people with locked-in syndrome or persistent vegetative state; and, with the life expectancy in developed countries at around 71, it was not so common to live long enough to face the problem of advanced dementia. Of course, it is great that people now live longer than in the past; that the treatment for both acute and chronic diseases is far more effective than in the past; that for example 50% of adults with cancer, and a majority of children with cancer, will now survive the disease. But the power to prolong life has brought its own dilemmas.

Many religious groups - the Church of England, other Protestant groups, Orthodox Jews, Muslims - are opposed to assisted suicide under any circumstances. It is not just the Catholic Church. However, some religious leaders have changed their views in the light of the suffering that some people now undergo. George Carey, retired Archbishop of Canterbury, a strong social and economic conservative, and former opponent of any form of assisted suicide, publicly changed his mind in view of the suffering of locked-in syndrome patient Tony Nicklinson:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28274531

Desmond Tutu also supports assisted suicide when the alternative is prolonged suffering:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/12/desmond-tutu-in-favour-of-assisted-dying

to take a compassionate position, but does not.

It's a very complex and tricky issue, but some places are doing it right.

There is a great documentary about the program in Switzerland, Dignitas.

It's hard to watch but worth it. I think it's called Right to Die.

Surely you weren't referring to that, so what does that mean?

I am not Roman Catholic, and don't pretend to understand them.

But I have studied euthanasia a bit, being a rather old man and my wife died of cancer.

And I am religious, albeit a different variety, and I have no desire to push my religious beliefs on others.

I look at this from a historical perspective, and we do need to take care that good intentions do not get abused by Republicans or other want-to-be fascists.

It was not that long ago that Germany instituted euthanasia, using seriously ill children, children in severe mental and physical pain with no hope of a productive life, as their impetus to get laws passed.

They started there, then doctors took over family decisions. Then government oversight boards (with the goal of cost cutting expensive care) took over. Then the Nazis came to power. Then entire mental hospitals and wards were emptied of the mentally ill and physically handicapped in the name of patriotic duty.

Once they were done there, they moved on to other "undesirables," which included most of my relatives.

In short, it's a very concerning thing, and, in the wrong hands, can be among the worst.

Given the last election, I don't particularly trust the USA to make the right calls and don't want this power to go into the wrong hands.

Honestly, Kevorkian did not do the movement any favors, because his protocols were not very good, imo.

But it can be done right and allow people to die with dignity.

Is far greater than mine.

What I can opine for my life of almost a century is that, like all things, this will get screwed up and abused, and not help those who need help.

your experience may certainly be different than mine.

I've seen this done right when protocols have been developed by thoughtful individuals who are able to consider many points of view.

Who is dying and in pain.

It must be a religious construct in that it is okay for a dog, who may be considered to not have a soul, but not for a human, who do have a soul.

from misery and pain, but not have the same compassion for humans.

Nice to see you around these parts Chemisse.