|
Published: March 8, 2007
Really Unpleasant Things Happen with Suicide
“Death with Dignity” means death, but not always dignity.
“It’s been said, and I think it’s very true, that verbal engineering precedes all social engineering,” said Rita Marker, the executive director of the Steubenville, Ohio-based International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, in a recent interview. The “social engineering” to which she referred is the move in the United States and abroad to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.
 The Marker interview, appearing in the February edition of the Messenger of St. Anthony, should be of interest to Californians --- Marker, the author of the bestseller, Deadly Compassion: The Death of Ann Humphry and the Truth About Euthanasia, is something of an expert on end-of-life matters. And suicide has become an important California issue. Last month, state assembly members Patty Berg (D-Eureka) and Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) reintroduced their “Compassionate Choices” bill, which would legalize assisted suicide, into the legislature.
The name, “Compassionate Choices,” is perhaps an example of the “verbal engineering” to which Marker referred, while the Oregon “Death with Dignity” law, which the California bill mirrors, is an example of the “social engineering.” Both bills would permit assisted suicide, not euthanasia. Euthanasia, said Marker, “means intentionally and directly killing someone by, for example, a lethal injection or holding a pillow over their face.” In assisted suicide, however, a third party “provides the means, knowing and intending that the person to whom they are given to commit suicide will use [as] the means.”
Oregon doctors have claimed to have assisted with hundreds of suicides without complications. But, said Marker, “it’s always important to remember that those carrying out the assisted suicides write those reports.” Basically, in Oregon, doctors assisting with suicides police themselves. And despite the “safeguards” a law might have, “people should recognize that if assisted suicide becomes a medical treatment, which it has in the state of Oregon, there is no way to maintain any of the so-called boundaries or so-called safeguards,” said Marker. “It is inevitable that if it becomes available it will be available for any reason or any purpose.”
Even though a law might allow suicide only for “competent adults,” “the first time there is a court challenge, that will change,” said Marker. “As for regulation, there is no way of verifying the numbers reported by the proponents. We do not know if those numbers are accurate or not. Certainly they are not going to say that they violated the law.”
Though called “death with dignity,” assisted suicide is not necessarily a pleasant experience for the patient. Said Marker: “In the Netherlands and Belgium, both euthanasia by lethal injection and assisted suicide are legal but rarely is assisted suicide carried out in the Netherlands or in Belgium, because the death practitioners recognize there are complications --- as they refer to them --- convulsions, all kinds of problems --- really unpleasant things happening after taking the overdose. Doctors are always there to give a lethal injection if necessary.”
Posted Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:19 PM By Mary Ann
Suicide is indeed unpleasant. With a culture that insists on an all-emcompassing individualism, the real suffering of people close to whoever commits suicide is often left out of the discussion.
When my father shot himself ten years ago, myself and the rest of my family were left with an incredible amount of devastation that persists to this day. Through God's grace, there has been healing for some.
|
Posted Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:44 PM By Winston Jen
So you'd rather have the patient die violently? Sometimes they fail, which further compounds their suffering?
And how can Catholics oppose assisted suicide when they worship someone (Jesus) who committed suicide?
|
Posted Friday, March 09, 2007 10:17 AM By Doornam
Winston,
Apparently you have never read the Gospel account of Jesus' death. Let me give you the definition of Suicide: "The act or an instance of intentionally killing oneself." Though Christ knew he would be put to death, he didn't run away from it. This is far different from direct suicide. He did try to defend himself with reason, but it was others who scourged him, whipped him, nailed him to the cross and killed him. If Christ's act of sacrafice for us is suicide, then so is it suicide when a doctor goes to help those who are diseased, knowing there is a good possibility he could contract the disease himself. It's suicide when a fireman goes into a burning building to help others escape, even though there is a chance he himself could be consumed. These are acts of Heroism and sacrifice for others. They require humility and love of others.
Killing yourself because you are tired of pain or embarrassed by disability is the exact opposite. It is an act done full of pride and self absorption. It is taking your life not so that others won't suffer, but so that you won't suffer, and that is cowardice! Of course, as in most cases of selfishness, the people try to justify it by using virtuous terms, or spinning it as a seaming act of love for others. Hitler said he was trying to help the downtrodden of Germany, Abortionists say they are saving the children and mother from suffering, Euthanizers say they are helping the sick, deformed and handicapped escape the sufferings of their bodies, Anti-religion governments have killed clergy and practitioners of the faith stating they were 'freeing' the people from the chains of religion. In all these examples, these people also tried to hijack Jesus into being a supporter of their sick agenda's.
Thank you Jesus for giving us the Church, so there will always be a bedrock for truth, and we can avoid the errors of self serving sentimentality.
|
Posted Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:26 AM By Winston Jen
How is it any different from suicide? He didn't defend himself, and he KNEW what was going to happen.
Firemen who die in the line of duty put the lives of others before their own. The death of JESUS was the exact opposite - it was done selfishly to get people to worship him.
If you think that suicide to escape pain is selfish, why don't you lead by example and become a quadraplegic? When was the last time you ate to eliminate the pain of hunger? Or got vaccinated to avoid getting a disease? You sicken me.
|
Posted Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:57 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Jen,
Jesus did not commit suicide because He did not kill himself. Others killed Him. Nor did He force them to kill Him.
If you desire to argue rationally, it is necessary to understand the position of your opponents. It seems you don't understand Christian teaching as to the reason why Jesus died on the cross. He voluntarily offered Himself up to death for the sins of men. He died so that we would not have to suffer eternal death. He is like, then, Maximilian Kolbe who, at Auschwitz, offered his life for another, asking the Nazis to take him instead of a Jewish man. Is this suicide?
Too, Christ, being God, doesn't need our worship. His happiness is complete in Himself. So why would He become man, suffer, and die, to get something He doesn't need?
Your other comments ignore the difference between doing acts to preserve life and health and an act to destroy life and health. You can't rationally equate normal medical treatment and suicide; their purposes are exactly opposite.
|
Posted Sunday, March 11, 2007 1:29 AM By Winston Jen
You don't seem to know about suicide by cop, Christopher. What Jesus did was essentially the same as someone who wants to die provoking the police by shooting into the air. It's still suicide.
I was a Christian for many years before I broke away. Reading the bible and actually understanding the drivel, atrocities and intolerance contained therein was the catalyst for it.
|
Posted Sunday, March 11, 2007 2:08 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Jen,
I suppose I don't see how Jesus was like the man shooting into the air. Perhaps you could explain what you mean further.
Too, I am still curious; do you think that what Maximilian Kolbe did was suicide or not?
|
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 12:12 AM By Winston Jen
Jesus knew that the authorities would execute him if he acted in a certain way. That is how it was suicide.
Maximillian Kolbe performed an act of self-sacrifice. Jesus did not. An omnipotent god would not need to sacrifice himself to himself to satisfy his own wrath.
|
Posted Monday, March 12, 2007 9:30 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Jen,
Your argument turns on a fallacy; namely, because two acts appear similar, they are the same. Because, for instance, Jesus denounced the Pharisees, they desired His death. Did He know this? Of course. But did He denounce the Pharisees to spur them on to kill Him? To say He did is an intepretation. One can just as easily say that Jesus denounced the Pharisees because they needed to be denounced; one can just as easily say that Jesus was doing what He thought He had to do, even if it would lead to His death (rather like one throwing himself on a grenade to save his fellows.) Why should we accept the first explanation and not the second?
Further, Jesus had to die to satisfy justice. God is merciful, but He is also just. Christ also died on the cross to show us the degree of God's mercy.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:06 AM By Winston Jen
There is no mercy or justice in punishing the innocent in order to let the guilty go free.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:12 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Mr. Jen,
There is no justice in killing the innocent for the guilty when the innocent person is a third party. And this for two reasons, the first being that one may never justly kill the innocent and, secondly, that in killing the innocent one does not expiate the guilty.
Since you were a Christian, you will recall that Jesus is not considered a third party, but, in His very person, the one against whom the offense was done. Further, He voluntarily took on the sentence of death. Thirdly, in becoming man, He recapitulated the unity of mankind found in Adam and thus could pay the price demanded by justice for all mankind.
I await your answer to my question in the post, March 12, above: namely, "why should we accept the first explanation and not the second?"
|
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 4:35 PM By Winston Jen
If Jesus and god really were omnipotent, they could forgive everyone by simply speaking it, and therefore, he would not need to sacrifice himself to himself to satisfy his own "perfect" justice.
Therefore, the death of Jesus was a way to glorify himself and gain more worship. There is nothing "necessary" about it to redeem "sinners".
Also, it is not a sacrifice if you get what you supposedly "sacrificed" back. Don't forget that Jesus knew he would come back to life. It is infinitely easier to give up something temporarily than to give it up forever.
|
Posted Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:44 PM By Christopher Zehnder
So, Mr. Jen, justice does not have to be satisfied? Does not a criminal, for instance, have to pay satisfaction? And if it does, then how is satisfaction not necessary?
And don't you think that death by crucifixion, even if followed by resurrection, is truly a sacrifice? Or do you think such a death is merely a lark?
|
Posted Wednesday, March 14, 2007 12:01 AM By Winston Jen
If your god really was about forgiveness, he wouldn't worry about satisfying justice. Just as parents forgive their children unconditionally, without asking anything in return, so too should your god be able to forgive people without requiring that they worship him.
As for the death of Jesus, yes, it pretty much was a lark because he came back to life. A temporary sacrifice is not a sacrifice at all. It is made even more meaningless when an infinite being supposedly "sacrifices" something, because in actuality, he gives up nothing at all.
|
Posted Wednesday, March 14, 2007 9:28 AM By Christopher Zehnder
God would "worry" about satisfying justice if justice needs to be satisfied. Obviously, you don't think justice needs to be satisfied.
Parents do demand justice when their children misbehave; they punish them. Parents know that the fulfillment of justice is necessary if their children are to grow up to be healthy adults. And that is really the point of justice, in terms of punishment --- it restores the offender to a right relation with the one whom he has offended. It is really more for the sake of the offender than the offended
You seem to think of God as something partial like ourselves. But God is being itself, truth itself, goodness itself, beauty itself. Man's response to such a being could only be one of worship. If we do not worship such a being, we betray our own nature, since, to be fully human, we have to love beauty, goodness, and truth. God does not need our worship; he "demands" it because He knows we can only be happy if we embrace truth, beauty, and goodness.
And, by the way, God did forgive us, but not simply by some fiat of forgiveness. That would have been cheap. Instead, He became one of us and suffered our mockery and crucifixion.
You cannot be serious when you say a death by scourging and crucifixion could be a lark. If Christ really wanted the glory you say He did, and He is God, then he could simply have come to earth and taken the rule of it forever.
I have tried to discuss reasonably with you. I have even sought to be respectful; hopefully I have succeeded. But your responses betray both an ignorance of Christian doctrine and a deep ill will that expresses itself in disdain. I detect no serious engagement in this conversation.
|
Posted Saturday, April 07, 2007 3:39 PM By Edmund
Dear Chris,
you have defended Christ well and with insightful reasoning; and having done your best it is time to shake off the dust that Winston has thrown on you and move on.
Leave Winston to God's grace as we pray that he (and others like him) will be able to spot the fundamental flaw in his 'reasoned' viewpoints and return to God's Fold.
Happy Easter!
|
© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.
|