|
Published: October 2, 2008
Opening the door to assisted suicide
Schwarzenegger signs euthanasia measure into law
California moved a step closer to legalized mercy killing on Sept. 30, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law the “California Right to Know End-of-Life Act of 2008.”
 The governor’s signature came in a flurry of bill signing on Tuesday evening, just hours before the statutory deadline for him to either sign or veto legislation. The governor’s press office announced he had signed the euthanasia bill at 7 p.m.
The bill, AB 2747, by longtime assisted suicide advocate Assemblywoman Patty Berg, D-Eureka, could force Catholic physicians and other doctors in California who oppose mercy killing to provide terminally ill patients with information on morally questionable “end-of-life care options.”
Schwarzenegger’s decision to sign the bill came despite heavy lobbying against it by the California Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state’s bishops. The Conference had asked Catholics to contact the governor and urge him to veto AB 2747 after it was passed by the legislature. Schwarzenegger describes himself as a Catholic.
An email alert sent via the Catholic Legislative Network called the bill “unnecessary, dangerous and widely opposed.” Saying the measure “opens the door for pro-assisted suicide groups in health-care,” the alert characterized AB 2747 as “dangerous and inappropriate.”
Before the bill made it to the governor’s desk, however, it had been repeatedly amended and watered down as a result of lobbying by the California Catholic Conference, the California Disability Alliance and the Foundation for Independent Living Centers, among others. Berg’s original bill would have allowed doctors to administer “palliative sedation” to deliberately induce a coma, and to starve patients to death under a provision called “voluntary stopping of eating and drinking.”
Under the bill signed by Schwarzenegger, physicians will be required to inform terminally ill patients, among other things, that they have the “right of refusal or withdrawal from life-sustaining treatment.”
The measure cleared the legislature on Aug. 28 after the Assembly voted 42-34 to agree to amendments made in the state Senate, which had approved the bill 21 to 17 on Aug. 20.
The bill’s official legislative title -- the “California Right to Know End-of-Life Act of 2008” – was described by the Aug. 21 Sacramento Bee as “right-to-die legislation.” Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, told the Bee that doctors who treat cancer patients have expressed opposition to Berg’s bill because they consider it government meddling at a time when patients need compassion. "What they don't need is another governmental intrusion into the relationship between themselves and their doctor," Aanestad told the newspaper. Worse, said Aanestad, requiring physicians to provide "a laundry list developed by Sacramento politicians" years before it might be necessary could lead depressed patients to make rash decisions and hasten their deaths before all possible treatments are tried.
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:59 AM By Mary Gallnor
It seems so strange to those of us who are fortunate to live in South Australia as we have had advanced directives in law since 1983. Second in the world after California. It has nothing whatever to do with Voluntary Euthanasia or Assisted Suicide. In our updated one in 1995 a clause was inserted which states that doctors have immunity from prosecution if they give enough sedation knowing it will hasten death. This is only needed if person is incompetent because no person can be forced to have treatment and, when able to do so, can refuse. It is all so "ho hum" to us. What a fuss about - what? Good doctor practice since doctors have the responsibility to act always in the BEST INTEREST of their patients. Which they do anyhow by breaking the law.
Please excuse an Aussie from butting in from down under.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:33 AM By luke
“right of refusal or withdrawal from life-sustaining treatment.” is it just me or is this actually consistent with Catholic teaching? Dont get me wrong, in no sense do I pretend to know all of the Church's teachings on such things.. I just remember reading somewhere (or it could have been in a Catechism class) that every Catholic had the right to refuse any kind of treatment, whether it prolonged their life or not. Its not actually euthanasia to refuse treatment
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:30 AM By Irene Hedgecock
I am so tired of church people trying to put their opinions on others as the will of God. As a baptized Catholic I have been driven from the church by this type of thinking. God gave us a brain and wants us to use it--not to follow what another human being claims is the truth. The church should be focusing on ending wars and suffering --not minding other people's sexual activities and personal tolerance for pain.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:09 AM By JLS
"relationship between "the patient and their doctor? What relationship? Sounds like myth to me. Oh wait, the relationship where the doctor pops in for three seconds every day to live that relationship and make sure the staff is fully on line with the patient.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:25 AM By Central Valley
Maybe the California bishops should reorginize their legislative arm, maybe cut it off. The bishops will side with illigal immigrants breakign the law but their defense of human life is nearly invisable.The bishops gave away their moral and apostolic authority years ago, so why would they think anyone would be listenign to them on this issue
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:27 AM By His Servant
So now the Culture of Death grows stronger as the result of Catholic-in-name-only Governor Arnold catering to the insurance industry and the Democrats who pushed this bill. Despite thousands of calls against this measure, the Governor has ignored the people and decided that death is a wonderful option for his electorate. Sad, sad, sad. Oremus.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:06 AM By steve
Obviously Arnold is Catholic by baptism and in name only like so many politicans! They will answer to God for their lack of moral fiber and disobedience of HIs Laws!!
But then how else will God destroy Babylon The Great.
Maybe Arnold, Obama and others should read the Bible.
We are close to what is going to happen. All God is waiting on are the votes to see how many vote for evil over good!!!
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:36 AM By Jason
I'm sorry, but we aren't surprised are we? The problem with making the "slippery slope"argument is it happens to slowly for the ridalin generation to care. We aren't forward thinking anymore, and have no proper sense of what true compassion is so this is the logical next step.
A few years from now we'll have the first trial of a doctor over a patient he killed that wasn't really sick, and rather then arguing back to this moment as the moment that allowed the murder to take place, we will argue the merits of the case as if we approve in principle with the right to die.
By we I mean as a nation of course...
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 9:43 AM By Life Lady
Oh Gov, one step forward, two steps back! Where are your thoughts today, and where will they be tomorrow when you may be one of the victims of this kind of thinking? Have you no fear of God, and the consequences of your endorsement of this evil? God help you, you need a lot of prayer, and to publicly repent of this horror.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:02 PM By TraditionalCatholic
Oh Gov, what are you thinking? All catholics know that it is a mortal sin to commit suicide. So, this bill allows a person to decide on his own to take his life instead of God. Suffering is part of life--if one offers his own suffering to atone for his sins, and if he is in the state of grace before he dies, his stay in purgatory will be shortened. And the Gov calls himself a catholic. Sad, sad day.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:59 PM By JDR
What will be next ? A couple of years after a child is born, the mother becomes board, government will provide the mother a gun, the mother shoots the child and I suppose they will call this choice. The devil is working overtime.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:07 PM By Bridget
luke: you can refuse medical treatment but not food and water. Those are the basics of life.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:12 PM By Dan Guenzel
OK. Now the ball is in the Catholic's court. They simply, and plainly, have to ignore the law. Let the whole state of California (and the world) watch as the government comes down hard on people who refuse to recommend mercy killing. Let the world see this. The ball is also in the Bishops' court, as well. They have to stand up and tell the government simply that they will NOT comply. Period. And if that idiot governor will be stubborn about it they will have to excommunicate him, publicly and spectacularly. Catholic bishops and laymen: the time is NOW.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:27 PM By Kephas
No wonder California is getting "cleansed" by natural disaster. Until that gorvernor gets out of Sacramento (Holy Sacrament) CA will be continually devastated by nature (which is the Hand of God). oooh well what would one expect, no conservative can sleep with a liberal not get infected by the evil of liberalism. And Catholics are getting demoralized not just by the so-called catholic politician, but from the hierarchy itself.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:50 PM By Patrick
Those who are sick may offer their suffering to God in atonement for their sins and the sins of the entire world.
This is what Jesus did for us when he willingly subjected himself to torture and death on the cross for us. He suffered and died for us, so that our sins would have a chance at being forgiven by God the father.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 1:54 PM By Charlene
I am amazed how much folks DO NOT KNOW. Hello do your homework folks.............This stuff has been legal in the state of Oregon for over 7years and Washington state is about to vote on it. If you really want the truth just look at Europe. In many countries they are attempting to lower the age of phy. assisted sucide to 14years of age.....This is not a Catholic Issue it is a human rights issues. If you can't protect the most inocent in the womb what makes you think anyone is safe.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 2:26 PM By Cyrus Johnson
Sin darkens the intellect. The governor, the "terminator," is a "ghouly-man."
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:23 PM By george
Irene Hedgecock - You were not "driven from the Church" by Catholic teaching. If you didn't believe Catholic teaching, you were never in the Church.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:01 PM By Elizabeth
I phoned the Governor and for what it is worth...
Told him about my disapproval of his siging this sad bill.
This is truly the 'slippery slope'.
Can anything else besides making a phone call, be done?
Is there any group starting a movement?
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 4:33 PM By Nancy
Doesn't Ole' Arnold care about his soul? I mean, he already is allowing homosexuality to be taught in the classroom. I mean, does he really want to go to Hell? Why would ANYONE in their right mind want to move to California? This reminds me of what Jesus said to St. Theresa The Little Flower. He said, "Those that are lost, know they're lost." Maybe we should all pray for Governor Schwarzenegger.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 7:11 PM By Victoria
I absolutely agree that there are those who, due to illness and injury, suffer needlessly. I am for assisted suffering relief, 100%. It is the first right thing Schwarzenegger since he's been Governor.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:34 PM By Phyllis
Slippery sloap is right. I am so disappointed in Arnold. He should just declare himself a democrat and stop stinking up the conservative party. He belongs to the Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, catholic mentality not the Catholic faith of the majority. I quess he has sold his soul to get the power and riches that is so much a part of Hollywood and the media. He needs a serious talk with the Lord and our prayers.
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:04 PM By khai nguyen
hello mr terminator are you sure to sign the bill 2747 why why why do you believe in god i think you do and this is a big trouble for all the people and i fell very very very sad of that bill and this ok of devil do you know that mr terminater
|
Posted Thursday, October 02, 2008 10:26 PM By Cody
I love it when a bunch of Catholics discuss a moral issue and have no clue of what Church teaching is on the matter or have no ability to look it up in the Catechism. So here is what the Church teaches on euthanasia …………
Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be respected.
2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 5:03 AM By Fr. M.P.
The culture of death wins another battle. The utility argument over the dignity of personhood is the excuse. Your "quality of life" is too low, so why not end it? It's so easy to run away from suffering rather than accept it. And pain management today is far better than in the past. Where would we be if Jesus said "no" to suffering in the garden of Gethsemane, or the Blessed Virgin said "no" the the Archangel Gabriel?
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 6:59 AM By jeremy
Palative Care is not euthanasia, Cody, if your are trying to make the church say something it is not, you are not helping the church or the people of God.
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 11:36 AM By W. J. Williams
I think this legislation can be challenged in the courts: An opt-out for conscience should be available to Catholic physicians.
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 3:56 PM By James
The Democratic Party whom pushed for this law is deserving of the Title the "Party of Death" by former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.
He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.” Source -- Reuters, 1 Oct 08.
Seems to me Schwarzenegger can be added to that list too!
-
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 4:41 PM By Cody
Hello, Jeremy. That comment you refer to is out of section #2279 of the CATHOLIC CATECHISM. If you have a copy, read it. That is directly from the Catechism.
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 8:37 PM By JLS
CCC: 2279 "... palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity". 2324: "Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder." On the surface of it, it sure looks as though palliative care and euthanasia are not the same thing. One is charity and the other is murder, so how can they be confused, but by a darkened intellect.
|
Posted Friday, October 03, 2008 8:53 PM By JPeterman
Irene, it's not opinion that euthanasia is wrong and immoral, it's a fact as outlined in the catechism. The Church is truth, in season and out, if you can't accept that you should perhaps pray for the grace to know, love, and serve truth.
|
Posted Sunday, October 05, 2008 9:23 AM By Cody
Wow, JLS, there are actually 2 Catholic households in the country that have a copy of the Catechism! I bought mine for $9 at Wal Mart, hard copy at that. I was once angrily told by a very liberal lady that the Catechism was only for children in grade school. I'm 58 years old, what does that say for me? Slow learner? It's always fun to quote the Catechism to a big liberal Catholic, and then duck under the table! What are they afraid of?
|
Posted Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:20 PM By JLS
Cody, my CCC cost me $30 something and I bought it at the parish rectory as soon as it came out. But it's covered with dust on the bookshelf ... I use the on line CCC ... very fast index searching. Same with the Code of Cannon Law, although I rarely use this. Lots of Bibles on line and some with great search engines. The woman who has no interest in such childish things as the Catholic religion might be interested to know that there is more to it than she imagines or dreams ... but it's like the Bible in that it can shake up the reader, destabilize the righteous and send them packing off to a confessional. In fact Pope Benedict XVI has just begun a 40 day public Bible reading, from start to finish, with high profile folks spelling each other one after the other at the Holy Text. The Holy Father is trying to kick off a movement for Catholics and others to learn the Bible.
|
Posted Sunday, October 05, 2008 10:53 PM By Rodolfo
Hosexual matrinony, abortion on demand, and now kill who ever wants to scape from the suffering and the agony of the Cross. The only way to avoid eternal pushment. suffering is a gift from our Savior. The last opportunity to get for those dying, the marcy for their sins on earth, and be with God for ever. enjoying His eternal bliss.
|
Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 11:42 AM By Cody
JLS, I use both the Vatican and USCCB online Catechisms. I will take my $9 copy, put it in my lap, and then find out what sections apply to the particular discussion. Then I grab it off an online source to paste it wherever needed. I'm not that energetic to type all those sections myself!
|
Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 2:50 PM By Paula H.
JLS and Cody, You'd find the three volumes of the old 1950's Baltimore Catholic Catechism to be much richer in spirit and religious/theological content centered on God, not on man. They can be hard to find, but are available. Pray to St. Anthony that he will help you find them, and pray the Holy Rosary daily that God's Will be done.
|
Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 10:00 PM By JLS
Paula H., my concern is communicating effectively in the language and thought patterns people of today are used to. Books, only point us in the direction. It is prayer and works which bring us the riches of Heaven. Not that study is not part of prayer and works. If you have some gem from the Baltimore Catechism, then why not post it? What I am trying to say is that language articulation changes to suit the occasion ... do you know young people who understand the language or culture of the Baltimore Catechism?
|
Posted Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:27 PM By Paula H.
JLS, I am glad that you agree: "It is prayer and works which bring us the riches of Heaven." You've wisely grown beyond the protestant beliefs of "by faith alone you are saved". I'm not sure what you are getting at when you say: "If you have some gem from the Baltimore Catechism, then why not post it?" Do you mean where to find these beautiful catechism's on a website? If so, I haven't checked lately, they are hard to find, but again with St Anthony's help opportunities come. Your comments: "do you know young people who understand the language or culture of the Baltimore Catechism?" I know many young people raised in the Roman Catholic Church who understand the language and culture of the Baltimore Catechism, though I can't say any of them belong to the Vatican 2 church. The Baltimore Catechism is very easy to read and understand by the grace of God. It requires complete love, faith, hope and charity in God to understand the language and culture. Young children with innocence i.e. with clean souls grasp and accept the true faith explained in the Baltimore Catechism very easily, it is those not so innocent people lacking in the true faith with tarnished souls whom question God's Ways or even if God exists, or don't really care about God for that matter that don't understand the Baltimore Catechism language and especially culture. May God bless us all to see His Truth like little innocent children and to follow God's Way.
|
Posted Tuesday, October 07, 2008 9:54 PM By JLS
Paula H., I wish I had grown up with the Baltimore Catechism. But, alas, my lot is far from such a grace. My daily interactions are among people who do not even know what it is, and hardly even know what Catholicism is, and many who intentionally strive against God, and many who unintentionally strive against the Church. Even though the Baltimore Catechism has been available in great numbers for ... what ... a century or so, still the throngs and hordes and vast populations are rife with no knowledge and no interest in the culture it was written within. Both the novus ordo and the Tridentine Mass try to reach a diversity of souls, souls from all sorts of ways of life. One has been successful for well over a millenia, and the other is struggling after only a few decades. The criticism I have of the Church of the fifties and sixties is that it never bothered to reach outside of its circled wagons ... I had no idea what it was ... best I knew was from watching Robin Hood movies with Friar Tuck, or Zorro with the Spanish mission priests. That is what I suspect was the great problem with the Baltimore Catechism, that it did not provide for the great unwashed. It did provide however, but very indirectly ... perhaps some other convention would have done more, been more potent in society. After all, look what we have now in this nation. The essential point is that a book or collection of them is not the answer; even if God Himself inscribes His rules and love on stone, it does not provide the answer ... we do not need a book, but we need God, and we have Him in Jesus Christ. For all I know that catechism prevented Catholics from actually reaching out ... maybe someone has studied this and can say what the deal was, why it fell into disuse. Was it a reliance upon the printed page? Was it meant only as a tool for a brief period in history in a particular part of the world? What did the Church have prior to its publication? Was it popular outside of the U.S.?
|
Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 4:54 PM By Paula H.
JLS, The Roman Catholic Church never had closed its doors even in the fifties and for the better part the sixties. The Vatican II Council began in the early sixties, but it's real liberal changes to the Sacraments didn't begin until 1968. Before all the turmoil Vatican II brought about, the church was very stable, and perhaps had more missionaries spreading the catholic faith throughout the world than all the other christian churches combined. Think about it, 1/4 of christiandom in the world is/was catholic! So how can you say "it never bothered to reach outside of its circled wagons"? Yours is a shore-sighted and erred comment. In the US, there was a catholic church in every small town, and many major cities had many catholic churches. Unlike today, in those days the church doors were open throughout the day for worship, prayer, learning, and visits to the holy clergy and nuns. Anyone catholic, protestant, agnostic, or atheist could have walked in the doors, and struck up a conversation to learn about the one true holy and apostolic catholic faith. Parish priests may have stuck closer to church in those days in prayer and less socializing than today. Times have changed for the worse unfortunately, but our Lord is still with the faithful. The Baltimore Catechism didn't prevent Catholics from reaching out. If fell into disuse because of liberal changes imposed by Vatican II. The Baltimore Catechism wasn't the only officially approved (by the church) worldwide, other countries/languages had offical versions in their languages also. I have seen my brother's old edition Roman Catholic Catechism that greatly outweighs the size and pages of the Baltimore Catechism. I'll check with him to see if it has a Catalog of Congress number to it. God Bless You.
|
Posted Wednesday, October 08, 2008 11:21 PM By Cody
Well since I quoted the Catechism on euthanasia, it has started some Catechism discussion. The section I most frequently refer to is on the Ten Commandments. Jesus said to love the Lord thy God and your neighbor as yourself. The first 3 Commandments cover our relationship with God and the last 7 on how we relate to our neighbor. They are excellently written and easy to understand. If people would study this section and take it to heart, I think the world would be a whole lot better place to live. Great rules to live by and wonderfully expanded in the Catechism to fit everyday life.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|