Euthanasia And Sanctity Of Life

[Ransom]

Would it be morally reprehensible for me to leave instructions that in the case of cardiac arrest or other potentially life ending events I am not to be resuscitated but allowed to pass on?

That's an application of the moral/philosophical distinction between killing and letting die. Obviously administering a drug for the purpose of hastening someone's death (or, more blatantly, a "mercy killing") would be morally reprehensible, at the very least violating the medical principle of doing no harm.

On the other hand, a DNR is not instructing anyone to kill the patient; rather, it is saying that the patient does not wish, under certain circumstances, for extraordinary efforts to be taken to save his life. It's not the medics who are killing him (and I assume that nonetheless a doctor would have the duty to intervene if a patient was, in fact, savable); it's his own body coming to the end of its natural life.

 

[biscuit1953]

That's an application of the moral/philosophical distinction between killing and letting die. Obviously administering a drug for the purpose of hastening someone's death (or, more blatantly, a "mercy killing") would be morally reprehensible, at the very least violating the medical principle of doing no harm.

On the other hand, a DNR is not instructing anyone to kill the patient; rather, it is saying that the patient does not wish, under certain circumstances, for extraordinary efforts to be taken to save his life. It's not the medics who are killing him (and I assume that nonetheless a doctor would have the duty to intervene if a patient was, in fact, savable); it's his own body coming to the end of its natural life.

I agree.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I think you need to put some strong thought and prayer into this topic, and perhaps separate your emotions from it. God did not intend human life to be brought forth in a Petri dish. It eliminates the “marriage act.” Again, children are a gift from God, not an entitlement to anyone who wants what God has chosen not to reward.

Two things, I am relatively Spockian in my emotional baggage and well past child-bearing age, so I don't have any personal and practical emotional investment in the discussion. Secondly, I assure you that the clinical application(s) of IVF to the pursuit of the greatest blessing a human couple can ever realize NEVER at any time required elimination of the marriage act, lol.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

There’s a single (never married) woman at my church who had a baby via IVF. (From what I understand, it was a “random” sperm donor.) This took place around eight years ago when she was in her early 40s. She then adopted a foster daughter a few years later. I find the first situation to be immoral, while I find the second situation to be honorable.

There are probably a few people who would silently disagree with a single woman adopting a kid, but I know she has a good support network that involves men in her life for the kid (grandfather, an uncle, plus men in the church).

My only hesitation is the idea of patience and God’s timing. The lady was in her early 40s, not necessarily beyond childbearing years at the time, and for all we know, she could have met a man who was a widower with children. The woman was actually decently attractive. The reason I say all of this is because there was also a man in our church who lost his wife to cancer. He had a few young children and now no mom. I always wondered what if….

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Two things, I am relatively Spockian in my emotional baggage and well past child-bearing age, so I don't have any personal and practical emotional investment in the discussion. Secondly, I assure you that the clinical application(s) of IVF to the pursuit of the greatest blessing a human couple can ever realize NEVER at any time required elimination of the marriage act, lol.

I may have misunderstood your post, but anyway, my point was that we now scientifically know information about IVF that we didn’t know fifteen or twenty years ago, hence my comment about the recent ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court on the matter. I wouldn’t hold a Christian morally responsible for doing this twenty years ago because the scientific understanding was not what it is today. I will say that IVF has long been a bit of a flip-a-coin situation in the Protestant world, but among Catholics, they have held the line tightly against it since the beginning (and have been proven correct).

 

[voicecrying]

Let's add hospice to the mix. I strongly suspect that the hospice nurses administer drugs to hasten death. I have been at both my dad's and my father-in-law's bedsides when they died. Both very shortly before taking their last breaths were given injections by the hospice nurse. They say it is for the pain, but is there more to it than that?

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Let's add hospice to the mix. I strongly suspect that the hospice nurses administer drugs to hasten death. I have been at both my dad's and my father-in-law's bedsides when they died. Both very shortly before taking their last breaths were given injections by the hospice nurse. They say it is for the pain, but is there more to it than that?

I’ve heard this story from many people, but it’s considered an urban legend, and studies have shown that people under hospice care actually live a little longer. Of course the goal is for people to die with as little pain as possible and with some dignity on the part of the dying person and their loved ones.

Regardless, this entire conversation came about because we apparently have some people who are questioning (defending?) whether it was morally and ethically acceptable for a man to shoot ill wife dead like a dying farm animal, before then turning the gun on himself in an act of suicide. We live in the richest country in the world with multiple resources at hand. The path this man chose was illegal, selfish, and not dignified for anyone involved.

 

[abcaines]

Let's add hospice to the mix. I strongly suspect that the hospice nurses administer drugs to hasten death. I have been at both my dad's and my father-in-law's bedsides when they died. Both very shortly before taking their last breaths were given injections by the hospice nurse. They say it is for the pain, but is there more to it than that?

Excellent question! I too, know of relatives who were writhing in pain on their death bed and it was known by all present that administering enough morphine to dull the pain would hasten death. The morphine was administered and they died within a short time. By letter, that matches the definition of euthanasia.

 

[Ransom]

Excellent question! I too, know of relatives who were writhing in pain on their death bed and it was known by all present that administering enough morphine to dull the pain would hasten death. The morphine was administered and they died within a short time. By letter, that matches the definition of euthanasia.

One of the classic case studies for the principle of double effect. To repeat what I said in another discussion a year ago:

This is an application of the ethical principle of double effect, which posits that it is permissible to cause an unintended harm in order to prevent another, even if the unintended harm would not be permissible otherwise, and if the intent is not to cause the unintended harm but to prevent the other one.

In your example, the good effect is easing suffering; the unintended effect is hastening death.

Is it euthanasia? By the literal definition ("good death"), maybe. But that's not really the connotation of "euthanasia," and may be an instance of the genetic (etymological) fallacy. Here's a summary that compares and contrasts:

Active euthanasia	Deliberately causes the patient's death (e.g. Dr. Kevorkian's death machine)	Not applicable: The intent of administering morphine is not causing death, but easing pain.
Passive euthanasia	Life-sustaining treatment is withheld to allow the patient's natural death.	Somewhat applicable: The outcome is the patient's death, but treatment is not being withheld.
Principle of double effect	Medical care has an intended good effect (easing pain) and an unintended bad effect (hastening death).	Directly applicable: The doctor's intent is to treat the pain, but not to cause death, hence it is not euthanasia per se.

 

[subllibrm]

Hospice is a very gray area for me. While morphine is the main component of the treatment it is not generally the cause of death. Whether the individual is suffering from late stage cancer, dementia, stroke, heart damage from cardiac arrest or any number of debilitating diseases, the morphine can only relieve pain. If you have witnessed a patient who has gone through the process you are probably aware of the signs that death is getting closer. The big obvious one is mottled skin. Over a number of days as my father in law was fading family members would come to his room after a break and start looking at his feet and hands to see how far it had progressed. The morbidness of this ritual aside I found it interesting that the exact same symptoms occurred with other loved ones who suffered from distinctly different diseases. So why do they all have mottled skin? Because the last stage is to withhold food and water. This creates a cascade of reactions by the body and treatment of the reaction. Pain is the primary one because the body is now not only dying from the disease but also from starvation and thirst. The body now has to contend with an acute kidney injury that will lead to kidney failure every time. The mottled skin is a sign that the kidneys are shutting down. Ultimately the vast majority of the people who pass away while under hospice care die from renal failure.

Ransom did a great job explaining the "double effect" and that makes sense to me if the first treatment is morphine for the pain. The reality is that the first treatment is withholding hydration which causes the pain that requires the now second treatment of morphine which numbs the final effect, death by renal failure, inevitable.

I don't have a better solution but I wish that there was one.

 

[subllibrm]

I can write on this with experiential authority. Alayboy was the product of natural conception (but nonetheless our "miracle child"). We grappled with undiagnosed infertility for about 10 years before going the IVF route, with no viable pregnancies. When counseled by our doctors we were given the "option" of destroying any unused embryos. We made it absolutely clear that no embryo would be destroyed/aborted. If it had came to that decision of what to do, our choice was either to have more children implanted, or potentially allow them to be adopted.

I reread this and the rest of the thread before responding. If I am reading this record of your experience correctly, there never were any IVF embryos before Alayboy came along.

 

[Starlifter]

Do you mean the legal way to do it, as in following the orders of a living will versus taking matters into your own hands and shooting your spouse like the old family dog?

Or do you mean allowing specialized medical personnel attend to her and being able to hold your head up with dignity upon her death versus having to kill yourself because you know you’re now facing life imprisonment or lethal injection by the state for your deeds?

Can you be more specific?

By the way, I can’t help but wonder how many of you would have reacted if the shoe was on the other foot and it was Linda who blasted her husband dead instead of the husband doing the deed.

I'm not defending or condoning anyone's actions (I believe Sigstadt's actions are indefensible), but it did bother me when the aforementioned happened. This grandma was fully awake (but dementia ridden) when this decision was made. Was a tough thing to see. To be honest, I'm not sure how I should think about it, very conflicted.

 

[Ekklesian]

More of a non sequitur.

Or false equivalence, or as Huk said, apples and oranges.

The reasoning is simple. You made the argument of natural usage being ordained of God.

Which is a sound argument, and an argument employed by Paul in more than one letter.

By the same logic,

It's only the same logic if one is presupposing a solely materialistic view of nature.

electronic stimulation by an external device would be an unnatural method of biological remedy.

IVF is neither therapy nor a remedy. It's an alternative, as is surrogacy. And the procreation mandate was not a mandate to procreate by any and all means. One's desire to go to extremes to have a biological child doesn't seem to be one that would be driven by attention to God's commandment.

Or is the reproductive system the only thing that God deals with in regards to your reasoning?

Bait and switch.

 

[biscuit1953]

Are you likewise opposed to improving people lives through prosthetics? Is it natural to put a plastic leg on an amputee? Or should we not allow electrostimulation of the spinal cord or brain because it is "unnatural"?

This feels like a red herring because you didn’t agree with me…or are you being serious?

I will defend ALAYMAN. Where the Bible is silent we should not judge others. Zophar was a man in the book of Job with strong personal religious beliefs who thought that he knew all about God and His ways. He was unreasonable with anyone who did not agree with him. The only thing wrong about IVF is when ungodly men create life outside the womb for the purpose of destroying it for research or other pusposes instead of allowing the offspring to be adopted by a loving couple. I believe the condemnation ALAYMAN is receiving is based on speculation about something the Bible is silent on and if I was ALAYMAN I would just shrug off these miserable comforters and praise God for the family he has.

 

[abcaines]

I will defend ALAYMAN. Where the Bible is silent we should not judge others. Zophar was a man in the book of Job with strong personal religious beliefs who thought that he knew all about God and His ways. He was unreasonable with anyone who did not agree with him. The only thing wrong about IVF is when ungodly men create life outside the womb for the purpose of destroying it for research or other pusposes instead of allowing the offspring to be adopted by a loving couple. I believe the condemnation ALAYMAN is receiving is based on speculation about something the Bible is silent on and if I was ALAYMAN I would just shrug off these miserable comforters and praise God for the family he has.

Absolutely. @ALAYMAN has poured his heart and life into his beautiful family. Those who have a problem with him need to examine the plank in their own eye.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I appreciate the kind defenses of my forum friends, but I have thick skin, and I won't take any perceived personal attack as something to lose any sleep over, lol. I put myself out there as having experience in this area so I understand why the guns of those who are against IVF were directed at me, no biggie.

Simply put, there are abuses in the IVF world and dangers worthy of criticism and skepticism.

I'll come back later today and give a little more insight to my opinion on the matter.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

I believe the condemnation ALAYMAN is receiving is based on speculation about something the Bible is silent on and if I was ALAYMAN I would just shrug off these miserable comforters and praise God for the family he has.

I don’t appreciate false, libelous accusations. Please point to just one sentence where I condemned Alayman. (I actually did quite the opposite and said I wouldn’t hold any Christian responsible for this in the past due to a lack of scientific understanding and modern technological knowledge.) He asked my opinion of a matter (IVF) and I gave him MY opinion. My response to him with the “red herring” remark was because he shifted the argument to a question for me (from IVF to medical prosthetics) and he even admitted he didn’t agree with me. My suggestion is for you to either show proof or apologize. (Don’t shrug off the preceding sentence.)

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

Absolutely. @ALAYMAN has poured his heart and life into his beautiful family. Those who have a problem with him need to examine the plank in their own eye.

Meaning what? Alayman isn’t Jesus. Are you saying because some people have a different interpretation on a subject (such as IVF) than Alayman, that we are the problem for daring to disagree with him? His being a great father has nothing to do with the question at hand.

To me, your attitude comes across as snarky, petty and very unchristian like. Perhaps you should inspect the plank in your eye before calling out others like a self-righteous Pharisee.

 

[biscuit1953]

I don’t appreciate false, libelous accusations. Please point to just one sentence where I condemned Alayman. (I actually did quite the opposite and said I wouldn’t hold any Christian responsible for this in the past due to a lack of scientific understanding and modern technological knowledge.) He asked my opinion of a matter (IVF) and I gave him MY opinion. My response to him with the “red herring” remark was because he shifted the argument to a question for me (from IVF to medical prosthetics) and he even admitted he didn’t agree with me. My suggestion is for you to either show proof or apologize. (Don’t shrug off the preceding sentence.)

You said, “This feels like a red herring because you didn’t agree with me…or are you being serious?” Children are a gift from God, not an entitlement to anyone who wants what God has chosen not to reward. I wouldn’t hold a Christian morally responsible for doing this twenty years ago because the scientific understanding was not what it is today. I will say that IVF has long been a bit of a flip-a-coin situation in the Protestant world, but among Catholics, they have held the line tightly against it since the beginning (and have been proven correct).”

ALAYMAN brings up other things that the Bible is silent about where modern science has allowed us to be blessed and rather than acknowledging that fact, you ridicule him for even raising the question, and accusing him or bringing up a red herring with, “are you serious?” You say, Children are a gift from God, “not an entitlement to anyone who wants what God has chosen not to reward.” In spite of your argument God has chosen to reward him with children and doesn’t need any busybodies judging him for that. You say you wouldn’t hold a Christians morally responsible but bring up the Catholics instead of scripture and declare they are morally right and have been proven correct implying ALAYMAN is morally wrong. Quit judging him on something the Bible is silent on.

 

[DrHuk&Duck]

You said, “This feels like a red herring because you didn’t agree with me…or are you being serious?” Children are a gift from God, not an entitlement to anyone who wants what God has chosen not to reward. I wouldn’t hold a Christian morally responsible for doing this twenty years ago because the scientific understanding was not what it is today. I will say that IVF has long been a bit of a flip-a-coin situation in the Protestant world, but among Catholics, they have held the line tightly against it since the beginning (and have been proven correct).”

ALAYMAN brings up other things that the Bible is silent about where modern science has allowed us to be blessed and rather than acknowledging that fact, you ridicule him for even raising the question, and accusing him or bringing up a red herring with, “are you serious?” You say, Children are a gift from God, “not an entitlement to anyone who wants what God has chosen not to reward.” In spite of your argument God has chosen to reward him with children and doesn’t need any busybodies judging him for that. You say you wouldn’t hold a Christians morally responsible but bring up the Catholics instead of scripture and declare they are morally right and have been proven correct implying ALAYMAN is morally wrong. Quit judging him on something the Bible is silent on.

This conversation started was started by me because a few people were questioning whether a husband did the morally acceptable act by blasting his wife’s head off with a shotgun, apparently because she either had Parkinson’s or dementia (or both). He then turned the gun on himself and committed suicide. I’m still awaiting a Scriptural reference for how either act is biblical. Rather than discussing the topic of murder, I decided to be a little more politically correct and call it euthanasia (though I still call it murder). If you’d like to stop acting like an emotional, jilted teenage girl for a moment and look back on the thread, it was actually @subllibrm who began the questioning of IVF, not me. He asked a question, I answered, followed by you, @ALAYMAN and others. None of my quotes were directed at him, I was stating my case and rationale behind my answers. That’s where my conscience sits on the matter. Quit being such a drama queen and bootlicker for the guy. He put himself out there, and I don’t have to sit in silence because he chose a side I don’t agree with.