Dearh with dignity and your church

[onel0126]

With the news of the Oregon women's decision to to end her life "with dignity" I was thinking. For you Protestants who belong to a larger umbrella group, Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans.....Do you all have publicly professed documents stating your organizations beliefs regarding euthanasia/end of life issues.

As you probably know the CCC states that all life is sacred from conception to "natural death."

I don't want this thread to turn into a conversation on the morality of the issue. I'm simply curious to see what other denominations put out publicly

 

[GURPS]

I don't want this thread to turn into a conversation on the morality of the issue.

but it is a Moral issue where Religion is involved

 

[kwillia]

but it is a Moral issue where Religion is involved

onel isn't disputing that but rather asking what the specific guidance is from each organization regarding euthanasia/end of life issues. Is there a religious faction out there that recognizes and accepts this personal choice? I do believe that's the point of this thread not a discussion on morality.

 

[stgislander]

For the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, their statement from 1992 can be found at the link.

http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/End_Life_DecisionsSM.pdf

 

[nobody really]

I had to google it (below). Beings that I'm catholic, i really didn't know (I would've guessed they would be against it). I don't know what or how i would feel if i had to walk a mile in anyone's shoes who suffered from immense debilitating pain.


The Catholic tradition helps with the details, providing this guidance: ordinary means must be used; extraordinary means are optional. Ordinary means are medicines or treatments that offer reasonable hope of benefit and can be used without excessive expense, pain or other inconvenience. Extraordinary means do not offer reasonable hope of benefit or include excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience. What is important to remember is that “ordinary” and “extraordinary” refer not to the technology but to the treatment in relation to the condition of the patient, that is, to the proportion of benefit and burden the treatment provides the patient (see the Vatican’s Declaration on Euthanasia, #IV, 1980).

- We may not ever intentionally kill an innocent person.

- We may refuse extraordinarily and excessively burdensome medical interventions that cannot heal, but that can only prolong the process of dying.

- Excessively expensive medical interventions are one of many possible "excessively burdensome medical interventions."

- Ordinary and non-burdensome medical interventions we should accept when sick, that can with reasonable expectation heal us, so as to not effectively commit suicide.

- Food and hydration may not be denied a person so as to cause their death. This is euthanasia. Food and hydration may never be refused a person who is not dying.

- There comes a time, in a dying patient, when food and hydration are naturally refused by the body as part of the dying process. This is natural, and withdrawl of feeding tubes is permitted in this situation.
Link to Vatican's view on euthanasia #IV http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...rc_con_cfaith_doc_19800505_euthanasia_en.html

 

[b23hqb]

We believe, as Brethren, that the following link and quoted paragraphs accurately reflect the reality of end of life, but not medically assisted suicide:

www.euthanasia.com/evangel.html

"Human beings are made in the image of God and are, therefore, of inestimable worth. God has given people the highest dignity of all creation. Such human dignity prohibits euthanasia, that is actively causing a person's death. (emphasis added).

In the past 30 years, medical technology has developed systems that have enabled physicians to more effectively care for their patients and save lives that would otherwise be lost. However, this technology has also resulted in the possibility of prolonging the dying process beyond its normal course. This often causes great suffering, not only for the patient, but also for the family, friends and caregivers.

Such technology also raises moral questions. For example, is it moral to withdraw a life-support system which is believed to be an inappropriate extension of the dying process? The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) believes that in cases where patients are terminally ill, death appears imminent and treatment offers no medical hope for a cure, it is morally appropriate to request the withdrawal of life-support systems, allowing natural death to occur. In such cases, every effort should be made to keep the patient free of pain and suffering, with emotional and spiritual support being provided until the patient dies.

When a person's cerebral cortex dies, is it moral for the family or medical staff to withdraw life-support systems? The National Association of evangelicals believes that in cases where extensive brain injury has occurred and there is clear medical indication that the patient has suffered brain death (permanent unconscious state), no medical treatment can reverse the process."

Withholding medical treatment in a situation of no real earthly hope of survival is not an immoral decision. (my belief)

 

[b23hqb]

but it is a Moral issue where Religion is involved

Agreed. It is nothing but a moral issue. All religion does is define it one way or another.

 

[hotcoffee]

Let me ask you this. Suppose you have a stage 4 cancer with metastasis. The doctor says you probably have a couple of years.

Only God knows when your time is up.... that's a given for this question....

But let's say.... you're a middle class worker who can't afford to go to the cancer center or Europe to sign up for the latest miracle..... would you be afraid?

Everyone says to you.... I'm praying for you.... of course they mean "I'm praying that God will spare you".

Here's the question.... since you may have about 2 years until you get to see Jesus in Heaven.... wouldn't it be better to ask that any cancer your family and friends may have be transferred to you.... so they won't have to suffer and you will still get to see Jesus in Heaven?

It's hard to ask this question..... but I'm asking it anyway. I don't condone euthanasia.... I mean, "Who are we to tell God when we will leave this earthly life?" But if we're going anyway.... why not ask for a miracle that will help others live a better life?

 

[b23hqb]

Let me ask you this. Suppose you have a stage 4 cancer with metastasis. The doctor says you probably have a couple of years.

Only God knows when your time is up.... that's a given for this question....

But let's say.... you're a middle class worker who can't afford to go to the cancer center or Europe to sign up for the latest miracle..... would you be afraid?

Everyone says to you.... I'm praying for you.... of course they mean "I'm praying that God will spare you".

Here's the question.... since you may have about 2 years until you get to see Jesus in Heaven.... wouldn't it be better to ask that any cancer your family and friends may have be transferred to you.... so they won't have to suffer and you will still get to see Jesus in Heaven?

It's hard to ask this question..... but I'm asking it anyway. I don't condone euthanasia.... I mean, "Who are we to tell God when we will leave this earthly life?" But if we're going anyway.... why not ask for a miracle that will help others live a better life?

Whaaaa? Having another's pain and suffering transferred to you? Like the sin transferred to Jesus on the cross, but only for those that would ultimately accept Him to do such?

Don't think so. Nice wish, though.

Because of the sin of one man, all humanity has to deal with what is dealt us, individually.

 

[hotcoffee]

Whaaaa? Having another's pain and suffering transferred to you? Like the sin transferred to Jesus on the cross, but only for those that would ultimately accept Him to do such?

Don't think so. Nice wish, though.

Because of the sin of one man, all humanity has to deal with what is dealt us, individually.

I didn't say that anyone could take the sins of humanity. I said "wouldn't it be better to ask that any cancer your family and friends may have be transferred to you.... so they won't have to suffer and you will still get to see Jesus in Heaven?" It's not the same thing.

Haven't there been times in the lives of humans when they hit their knees and begged God to take them instead of a loved one? It's the same thing. I don't want to see my children suffer with cancer. Only Jesus could take the sins of humanity.... but He granted healing to His disciples. In Mark 9:40 He even allowed others outside the 12 to heal.

Like I said.... I don't condone euthanasia. I see no reason for a human to tell God when they should pass.

 

[Radiant1]

Here's the question.... since you may have about 2 years until you get to see Jesus in Heaven.... wouldn't it be better to ask that any cancer your family and friends may have be transferred to you.... so they won't have to suffer and you will still get to see Jesus in Heaven?

I think that would be the most Christ-like sacrifice a person could make and unites you with Christ in His Passion. For me personally, it's the only way to give meaning to suffering.