…and this is a 
Dignity denied
Category: Religion
Posted on: October 10, 2008 8:16 AM, by PZ Myers
Today's must-read article is by Dan Savage, whose mother recently died of pulmonary fibrosis. It's personal and painful, and it also touches on the political. Washington state has a ballot measure coming up that would make it legal for doctors to prescribe lethal doses of medication for the terminally ill, and Savage's mother, when her disease reached a crisis stage, had to choose what kind of painful death she wanted to face.
People must accept death at "the hour chosen by God," according to Pope Benedict XVI, leader of the Catholic Church, which is pouring money into the campaign against I-1000.
The hour chosen by God? What does that even mean? Without the intervention of man--and medical science--my mother would have died years earlier. And at the end, even without assisted suicide as an option, my mother had to make her choices. Two hours with the mask off? Six with the mask on? Another two days hooked up to machines? Once things were hopeless, she chose the quickest, if not the easiest, exit. Mask off, two hours. That was my mother's choice, not God's.
Did my mother commit suicide? I wonder what the pope might say.
I know what my mother would say: The same church leaders who can't manage to keep priests from raping children aren't entitled to micromanage the final moments of our lives.
If religious people believe assisted suicide is wrong, they have a right to say so. Same for gay marriage and abortion. They oppose them for religious reasons, but it's somehow not enough for them to deny those things to themselves. They have to rush into your intimate life and deny them to you, too--deny you control over your own reproductive organs, deny you the spouse of your choosing, condemn you to pain (or the terror of it) at the end of your life.
The proper response to religious opposition to choice or love or death can be reduced to a series of bumper stickers: Don't approve of abortion? Don't have one. Don't approve of gay marriage? Don't have one. Don't approve of physician-assisted suicide? For Christ's sake, don't have one. But don't tell me I can't have one--each one--because it offends your God.
Somehow, putting on a silly clerical collar gives people the feeling that they can dictate how others will be allowed to live and die. They want to meddle, and worse, they want to make decisions based on the worst kind of reasoning — that the voices in their heads told them how it was so, that it was written down so in ancient books, that their myths tell them of codes of conduct necessary for an imaginary reward after death. That is no way to live a life, or end one.
Comments
Posted by: steve8282 | October 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Where is the catholic league now?
Posted by: clinteas | October 10, 2008 8:30 AM
As a medical professional,let me tell you this is a very complicated topic.
Reason being not only the religious taboo it poses for many people,but also the possibility of misuse.
And there is a difference to death by lethal injection at home,by a private individual,or accepting the potential consequences of a Morphine drip in a Hospital.
The religious bit I am ready to dismiss for myself obviously,and actually in my experience even some religious people,when faced with a relative's suffering,will sometimes see the light and let the Morphine do its job,to at least give constant pain relief,the respiratory depression that can ensue is often an unintended consequence,actually,and precipitated by reduced liver clearance of the drug,hypotension etc.
The potential for abuse requires strict regulations IMO,not so much for Hospital treatment,but for euthanasia measures in a private setting,and Im all for that.
Should this possibility,strictly regulated,be available to anyone suffering with terminal illness with no hope of recovery? Absolutely.
Posted by: Blair | October 10, 2008 8:35 AM
Suicide is of course a choice, but not alwaya a rational one...depression is one of the leading causes.
In the example above, of course, we have a different case.
But when you ask other people to be involved it is no longer an individual choice, but a matter of asking others to be complicit.
Personally, I would not want to place that burden on my kids for any reason.
But if you want to do yourself in, have at it. And if you want to involve other people and cause them psychological trouble for life, go for it.
After all, as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want. You can of course claim otherwise, but its all opinion.
Posted by: Dahan | October 10, 2008 8:37 AM
If you had a pet that was in extreme pain, old and terminally sick, and you didn't have it put to sleep, most people would look on you with contempt and consider your actions cruel. However, these same people, with their special book in hand, will tell you that you can't help end a loves one's life even if that person was in the same condition and wished to end their own misery.
Sanctity of life, my ass.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 10, 2008 8:37 AM
Donate to the supporters of the ballot initiative, to put ads on the air:
http://www.yeson1000.org/
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 10, 2008 8:40 AM
This ballot initiative requires that:
* The patient must be an adult (18 or over) resident of the state of Washington
* The patient must be mentally competent, verified by two physicians (or referred to a mental health evaluation)
* The patient must be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, verified by two physicians
* The patient must make voluntary requests, without coercion, verified by two physicians
* The patient must be informed of all other options including palliative and hospice care
* There is a 15 day waiting period between the first oral request and a written request
* There is a 48 hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the prescription
* The written request must be signed by two independent witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient or employed by the health care facility
* The patient is encouraged to discuss with family (not required because of confidentiality laws)
* The patient may change their mind at any time and rescind the request
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Initiative_1000_(2008)
Posted by: Carlie | October 10, 2008 8:45 AM
And if you want to involve other people and cause them psychological trouble for life, go for it..
So, Blair, if your mother were dying and in excruciating, unending pain, begging you to help her end it now instead of making her live in agony for a few more weeks, you're saying that it would cause you more psychological trouble to say yes and grant her last wish and let her go peacefully than it would to say no and watch her suffer for days. That's pretty damned cold.
Posted by: Clare | October 10, 2008 8:52 AM
The rational objections are obvious to thinking people. Everything else boils down to choice - because nothing less is acceptable.
Posted by: Julian | October 10, 2008 9:10 AM
Blair: Coming from a family where dementia and senility are not questions of if but when, I can tell you without a hint of shame that it is well understood between me and my father that when he begins to lose the mind that makes him who he is, I will be there to help him exit this life with the dignity a sensitive, thinking human being deserves. It is every child's duty, and should be their honor, to provide this final assistance to an ailing parent; to ensure that the last memory the world shall have of them is of a strong, laughing, vital individual and not of some child-minded invalid incapable of even cleaning themselves.
It is easy for you, in your arrogance, to call this selfishness, to argue that asking for this help is a desperate, hateful act that puts onto one's children a damaging responsibility; I wouldn't expect you to understand given that your thinking on this issue isn't grounded in any personal ethical consideration but on blind obeisance to a tiny man standing on a tall stage. I suppose it is also easy for you to blithely dismiss the suffering and consideration of millions simply so you can claim this issue as evidence of atheist amorality. But for those of us who face this inevitability; who watched our grandfathers and granduncles and grandmothers descend from witty, capable, wise, and confident individuals into the horror and madness our society chooses to euphemize as a "second childhood", those of us who know what it means to die and still live, for us this issue is too serious a subject to take so lightly.
Posted by: Tim | October 10, 2008 9:11 AM
Euthanasia would have spared each of my parents a lot of suffering, not sure that either of them would have taken that path, if available.
Posted by: surfnet | October 10, 2008 9:16 AM
My mother died of lung cancer. (This took place in Georgia) The dying itself took several hours. Several hours of agony and terror for her. She clawed at the oxygen mask to remove it because she was not getting enough. She was never going yo get enough.
She was so terrified she did not really recognize her daughters, her son or her husband. It looked like a slow-motion drowning.
I suppose Blair doesn't think this caused my sisters or my father any psychological pain. Or myself.
My father was taken by that same cancer a few years later, but he died of heart failure fairly quickly. He was terrified for weeks, of course. I think his terror contributed to his death.
Blair, from the bottom of my heart, fuck off dear.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 10, 2008 9:19 AM
Yeah, it's a very personal decision. This is a helpful comment, Tim, because I think a lot of the reactionaries imagine that having euthanasia as a legal option will result in murder.
It's ridiculous, but that's the way the pro-life-anti-choice crowd thinks: stark black and white.
I too might choose to suffer instead, depending upon various circumstances that I can't foresee at this time in my life. It'd be nice to have the law actually respect and permit one's choices.
Posted by: Brian | October 10, 2008 9:22 AM
"People must accept death at "the hour chosen by God," according to Pope Benedict XVI, leader of the Catholic Church, which is pouring money into the campaign against I-1000.
The hour chosen by God? What does that even mean? Without the intervention of man--and medical science--my mother would have died years earlier. And at the end, even without assisted suicide as an option, my mother had to make her choices. Two hours with the mask off? Six with the mask on? Another two days hooked up to machines? Once things were hopeless, she chose the quickest, if not the easiest, exit. Mask off, two hours. That was my mother's choice, not God's. "
This to me was the most significant passage. Whether anyone likes it or not, technology and science give us some control over our lives and influence on our soroundings. I can't spell. The questions isn't whether, but what or which. As soon as you're doing things like providing pure drinking water for the populance, increasing crop yields, or providing even basic medical care, which incidently the church loves telling us how much they promote, you're altering that date chosen by god.
Brian
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 10, 2008 9:24 AM
Quite the asshole, aren't you, Blair?
Lay the guilt on people who are too sick to procure a method of secret suicide and/or too weak to personally use it.
Posted by: mvXfer | October 10, 2008 9:24 AM
It is important that the regulations curb the potential for abuse, but we should also consider the possibility of the regulations themselves being abused. I can just imagine what some self-righteous faith-head might do if he were to find himself along that chain of verification and paperwork. As demented as it would be, when some link in that chain feels morally obligated to get in the way, how many people will have the time or energy to spend their loved-one's last moments fighting such a battle?
Posted by: Sceptical Chymist | October 10, 2008 9:24 AM
I am 78 years old and suffer from C.O.P.D. My condition has become considerably worse in the last few months, and in a year or so I will be in the same situation as Dan Savage's mother. Because of the stone age beliefs of the morons and cretins who control this country, I too will be unable to make a rational decision about how and when my death should occur.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 10, 2008 9:24 AM
#3: "as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want. You can of course claim otherwise, but its all opinion."
Hogwash. I'm bound by the same social contract that binds theists and allows us to function as a society. I'm also guided by the desire to do well to others.
You're either trying to claim that theists only act 'moral' on the threat of punishment and reward after death (which isn't morality at all, only obedience like a young child) or you're trying to claim that it's impossible for an atheist to love others. Which is it, exactly?
Posted by: Umilik | October 10, 2008 9:25 AM
"After all, as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want"
Would you care to expand on this utterly ridiculous statement ?
Posted by: Brian | October 10, 2008 9:26 AM
"People must accept death at "the hour chosen by God," according to Pope Benedict XVI, leader of the Catholic Church, which is pouring money into the campaign against I-1000.
The hour chosen by God? What does that even mean? Without the intervention of man--and medical science--my mother would have died years earlier. And at the end, even without assisted suicide as an option, my mother had to make her choices. Two hours with the mask off? Six with the mask on? Another two days hooked up to machines? Once things were hopeless, she chose the quickest, if not the easiest, exit. Mask off, two hours. That was my mother's choice, not God's. "
This to me was the most significant passage. Whether anyone likes it or not, technology and science give us some control over our lives and influence on our soroundings. I can't spell. The questions isn't whether, but what or which. As soon as you're doing things like providing pure drinking water for the populance, increasing crop yields, or providing even basic medical care, which incidently the church loves telling us how much they promote, you're altering that date chosen by god.
Brian
Posted by: Mr P | October 10, 2008 9:27 AM
This becomes a problem for religous folks. On the one hand god will take you when he is ready. On the other they fight tooth and nail to extend their life (and that of their loved ones) with medical treatment. If they truely belived that a utopian heavan existed where the lame will walk and the blind will see again, wouldn't it be a crime to extend the lives of anyone through medicine? I mean isnt every car accident, heart attack, tumor,etc an attempt of their god to call one of the flock home? Do doctors violate the will of god? I keep going back to the highly publicized Terri Schiavo case and can still see her parents on TV saying they were good catholics and god would take their daughter when he was ready.
It really does seem religion makes it up as it goes.
PS on a side note I am very happy to say that the lab in my doctors office has removed all it its religous (xtian) themed posters.
Posted by: surfnet | October 10, 2008 9:28 AM
I believe Oregon has had a euthanasia law for many years. I haven't lived there since 2002 and I was only there a few years.
Maybe somebody from Oregon can comment. Is this law still on the books. Have there been abuses?
I know there was no sudden increase in deaths when it was implemented.
It is a very personal decision. I also do not know if my mother would have chosen it. It would have been nice to have a choice. But I'm sure my father would have after watching his wife's death.
So, where is all this happiness religion brings to people? Oh, right, that's for after your dead. Life is suffering.
Posted by: Kel | October 10, 2008 9:33 AM
As an atheist, you are bound by exactly the same means as other people. You are bound by your genetic make-up. You are bound by environmental factors. You are bound by the moral code as taught by your parents, friends, community and society as a whole. You are bound by the neurological workings of the brain. The difference between an atheist and a Catholic on that is that we don't have an old white guy contributing to the community structure of morality in our heads by invoking an omnipotent deity as a source of authority.Posted by: Walton | October 10, 2008 9:36 AM
Just for the record, I agree that voluntary euthanasia, in extreme circumstances of terminal illness (such as those detailed above), should be allowed. I also fully agree that there is no reason why religious beliefs, even those shared by the majority, should, in a secular plural society, define what is and is not allowed.
The law should not impose or enforce moral standards; it should only protect the rights of individuals from unwarranted interference. This, in fact, is a fundamental tenet of libertarian conservatism. Just as I don't believe that a person should be compelled by government to share his money with those poorer than himself (though he has every right to do so if he wishes), I also don't believe that a person should be compelled by government to carry on living if he doesn't wish to do so.
Posted by: Woodwose | October 10, 2008 9:36 AM
Assisted suicide is not the only thing denied. Many terminal friends have not been given the full amount of pain killers required because it would be "detrimental" to their health.
Posted by: Rog | October 10, 2008 9:38 AM
PZ,
Thanks for showing us this. I think "Fuck your God" sums it up perfectly. This poor family were denied a choice, that should have been available to them, by the strictures of an ancient, out-dated creed. Christians everywehere should read this and cower in shame at the pain and suffering that their religion imposes on others.
Rog
Posted by: LotharLoo | October 10, 2008 9:44 AM
Just read the whole article and it was beautifully written. Thanks for sharing it PZ.
Posted by: Walton | October 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Christians everywehere should read this and cower in shame at the pain and suffering that their religion imposes on others.
I think it is important, here, to note that one can be a Christian and a secularist. In a plural society, I believe, as do many people of all religions, that the best form of government is a secular state. No religion, even if that religion is in the majority, should have the exclusive right to define public policy; and, as I said earlier, the state should not impose or enforce moral standards. Rather, the role of the state should be restricted to protecting individual freedom. For the state to decide what is "moral", and to force it on individuals, takes away their free moral choice as an autonomous individual.
Religious belief is not synonymous with advocating a theocracy, and secularists need not be atheists. I am not an atheist, but I am a secularist; I believe in the right of individuals to make their own moral choices, and I believe that religion and the state must be separate. The root of the problem is not Christianity or any other individual religion - rather, it is the desire for theocracy which is to blame, and the mindset of those which leads them to desire to impose their own beliefs on everyone, with no regard for individual autonomy and choice. Not all Christians advocate theocracy, and not all who oppose theocracy are atheists or agnostics.
Posted by: Pat | October 10, 2008 9:46 AM
Blair: I'm not going to dogpile. Until you've seen a loved one trapped like this, trapped in a hell of living on tubes when there is no hope of recovery, just a slow wait for death, you really can't say much about who goes through what. Think of how kind it would be to offer your kids the ability to help you with your dying wish. We laud dying wishes, elevate them to the status of commands and edicts. But this one, because it would make you feel uncomfortable, is now off the list.
Yes, you can wish for everything and anything you want. Except that. Sorry, you can't have that. Yeah, I know - but if we gave you enough medicine to kill the pain, it might suppress your central nervous system. Yeah, I know that we have laws to prevent criminals from dying cruelly, but it somehow seems right that free people should suffer more for having done nothing. You see, you can't be rational asking for death at the end of life, because nobody rational wishes for death. It's a Catch-22. Yeah, I know you never read the book, but hey - you've got time now, right? At least six weeks, and I'll even turn the pages.
Now, I would rather help with a dying wish than torment my loved ones in a state of hopelessness with shrugging shoulders and promises to "be there."
Posted by: craig | October 10, 2008 9:48 AM
"So, where is all this happiness religion brings to people? Oh, right, that's for after your dead. Life is suffering."
This reminds me of something recounted in a memoir I just read, where a person's unexpected death was announced to his friends with the phrase "***** has gone to a better place."
What struck me is how incredibly sick and pathetic that kind of thinking is, and how it can't help but make life for everyone worse if such a twisted belief is the prevalent one.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | October 10, 2008 9:53 AM
This thought has been bugging me for some time now:
One of the basic principles of most (all?) of the christian sects is that of free will. Their teaching is that god allows evil to exist so us mortals are forced to choose.
So why the heck do christians persist in trying to legislate free will away?
Even as an organization these people can't follow their own bizarre teachings.
Posted by: Dahan | October 10, 2008 9:54 AM
Oh, I'm sure Scott will be along any minute now to explain why this is the fault of our two party system and how Ron Paul will heal everyone so we don't have to worry about it.
Posted by: Walton | October 10, 2008 9:59 AM
NoAstronomer at #30: Exactly what I was trying to say!
The problem is not with Christianity (or any other religious belief). The problem is those who wish to turn their own personal moral views into legislation, thereby removing other people's free, autonomous moral choice. It is not the role of the state to impose or enforce morality; the state's role is only to protect individual rights.
It is possible to be a Christian and yet be a secularist. As I said, I am not an atheist, but I believe in a secular state, free will and individual freedom. I don't believe that private morality should be legislated. (Just as I don't believe that the wealthy should be forced to share their wealth with the poor through redistributive taxation; there might be a moral obligation on people to help the poor, but it is not for the state to force them to do so.)
Posted by: Nick | October 10, 2008 10:03 AM
This article illustrates precisely why I made the leap from mere disbelief to profoundly anti-religious. It's not enough for the faithful (the majority of them, anyhow) to have their faith and practice it in their own lives. No, they want to jam it down the throats of anyone with the temerity to believe something different. During the Crusades it was done at the point of a sword; during the Inquistion on a rack, or tied to a stake and surrounded by tinder. Nowadays they have to settle for passing laws, but the idea is no less despicable.
Posted by: RideThePig | October 10, 2008 10:04 AM
"What struck me is how incredibly sick and pathetic that kind of thinking is, and how it can't help but make life for everyone worse if such a twisted belief is the prevalent one."
Part of the problem is that our society does not deal with death well. People treat it (understandably) as an incredibly traumatic experience and seem to almost need to find some kind of supernatural 'positive' to the whole thing. Really, we should expect death to happen, it's a natural part of life, and doesn't need religious meaning added to it. Unfortunately some deaths are preventable ones like drinking and driving, and those are the ones that should rightly be painful to deal with. We shouldn't feel ashamed to want to die comfortably if we are terminally ill or in pain though, why force someone to go through needless suffering if they would be happier without the pain?
Posted by: Loren Petrich | October 10, 2008 10:08 AM
The "hour chosen by God"?
Does that mean that if God slacks off, we'd become invulnerable? And that we'd be able to survive even the nastiest physical conditions?
Vacuum
Extreme heat
Extreme cold
Poison
Being crushed
Impact at high speed
Being cut up
...
Posted by: Steve | October 10, 2008 10:09 AM
She was a practicing Catholic. But she was also pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-ordaining women. If she could've committed suicide, by her own hand, with a doctor "assisting" only by providing her with drugs and allowing her to administer them to herself, after saying her good-byes, I suspect she would have done so, so great was her fear of dying in pain.
Then his mother was not a Catholic, and I mean this in a good way. You either buy into the whole mythology or you are something else. There is no roll your own, cafeteria style, pick and choose in the Catholic church. You are just enabling the foam at the mouth, bat-shit crazy real Catholics when you take this line.
Posted by: surfnet | October 10, 2008 10:11 AM
I'm sorry, I should have said "Maybe somebody from Oregon can offer intelligent comment on this subject." There is already the stench of libertarian hijacking in this thread. I do not want to aid that in any way.
Posted by: Sweet Emulsion | October 10, 2008 10:22 AM
Absolutely. The Pope should forego all medical care for fear of violating GOD's PLAN. Whatever the hell that is. I've asked Christians what that is, but I've never had one tell me. Maybe they're actually good people, and wouldn't PRESUME to speak for their god. Hmm.
Posted by: Sweet Emulsion | October 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Absolutely. The Pope should forego all medical care for fear of violating GOD's PLAN. Whatever the hell that is. I've asked Christians what that is, but I've never had one tell me. Maybe they're actually good people, and wouldn't PRESUME to speak for their god. Hmm.
Walton, what is wrong with anyone wanting to end their lives? Isn't that a choice that government should not be concerned with? Lots of people live a bleak existence in this world, and I am not the person who would tell them they have to stay.
Posted by: marilove | October 10, 2008 10:28 AM
This hits close to home for me. When I was 17 years old, my grandfather was on his death bed due to severe lung problems. He was no longer the same man -- he could no longer fish, he could no longer even ride his scooter. He certainly couldn't walk or even get out of bed.
Eventually, he tired of being a ghost of who he was, and took a gun to his head.
It was sad, but NONE of his family members blamed him or thought he was going to hell. He wanted to end his misery, and he had that right.
Had assisted suicide been legal, then it would have been a much, much less messy job, and would have made life much easier for my father and aunt, who found him with his head blown off.
Posted by: Carlie | October 10, 2008 10:35 AM
One of the basic principles of most (all?) of the christian sects is that of free will. Their teaching is that god allows evil to exist so us mortals are forced to choose.
So why the heck do christians persist in trying to legislate free will away?
Because they're all scared that without the force of law behind it, they'll be too tempted to make the 'wrong' choice.
Sceptical Chymist, I'm very sorry for what you're going through. My grandfather had COPD also (exacerbated by TB and possibly lung cancer). I hope you are able to make the choices you want to make when the time comes that you need to.
Posted by: marilove | October 10, 2008 10:39 AM
This hits close to home for me. When I was 17 years old, my grandfather was on his death bed due to severe lung problems. He was no longer the same man -- he could no longer fish, he could no longer even ride his scooter. He certainly couldn't walk or even get out of bed.
Eventually, he tired of being a ghost of who he was, and took a gun to his head.
It was sad, but NONE of his family members blamed him or thought he was going to hell. He wanted to end his misery, and he had that right.
Had assisted suicide been legal, then it would have been a much, much less messy job, and would have made life much easier for my father and aunt, who found him with his head blown off.
Posted by: marilove | October 10, 2008 10:46 AM
sorry for the double posting, the internets do not like me today O_o
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 10, 2008 10:47 AM
Walton @ #32:
The people doing this are christians. The beliefs they are trying to impose on others are entirely derived from christian dogma. Many of them openly admit this, and claim to be working directly for the christian god. Christian organizations assist them and make their assaults on human rights possible. These people are using christianity as a political tool, melding their politics and religion to destroy the rights of others. And because they are christians, they get a free pass from other christians, even those who are not psychotic theocrats. The mere fact that they are christians is enough to make a large portion of the population turn a blind eye to their actions. Why, then, should we ignore the fact that the people undermining freedom are, in virtually all cases, christians?
Posted by: Dianne | October 10, 2008 10:53 AM
I'm very conflicted on this issue. On the one hand, people with no recourse for whom nothing but suffering is left should be able to end their suffering when they want to. On the other, there are many bad reasons why people might want to end their lives before they must: fear of pain or other suffering that may never come, fear of being a burden on their families, fear of spending all their money on medical care and leaving minor children destitute, depression, etc. So while legalizing physician assisted suicide is probably an overall good, it needs to be done in the context of better physician knowledge about pain control (a huge number of patients have inadequate pain relief for no good reason--there are numerous pain control options if we could just get past our exaggerated fear of narcotics), a well established hospice care system, universal health insurance, and a social system that cares for the survivors. And I'd like a pony while I'm wishing for impossible things.
Posted by: michel | October 10, 2008 10:59 AM
belgium's most famous writer, hugo claus, recently ended his life through euthanasia, helped by an organization called "the right to die with dignity". his action was condemned by the church, saying that he was not "facing the problem of suffering and death"... maybe that makes sense when you're part of some death-cult.
contrary to what i read in a lot of comments though, there is no such thing as "the right to die" here in holland. besides the obvious strict regulations, euthanasia is only possible if you find a doctor willing to do it, you can't force anyone. but there are organizations, like the one mentioned above, to help you.
personally, i know nobody who has chosen to end his or her life by euthanasia, and i think it's not as common here as some might think. but i'm glad i have the choice. i can even make a declaration that my life should be ended in certain cases where i can't express my will anymore, for instance in a coma.
in holland, there is also a law that allows doctors to end the life of newborns that have very little chance at a bearable life. again under strict regulation, as newborns can't express their will. anti-euthanasia people will try to make their point by establishing some link between euthanasia, ending the life of newborns and eugenics. they say that if you allow one, the other will follow naturally. to me (and to dutch law), it's completely different from euthanasia though. allowing euthanasia is a no-brainer for me, but i'd have to think twice about allowing the ending the life of newborns.
Posted by: strangest brew | October 10, 2008 11:04 AM
My mum screamed a lot in her last few days...I will never forget it...
Local ju ju man had the bare faced audacity to mumble that it was god's mercy that took her when he did.
He did not sound convinced, I certainty wasn't.
Mercy indeed...she died of starvation...exhaustion and relentless pain...the liquid morphine had stopped being affective a weeks or so before..her stomach was torn to shreds by cancer...her skin burned her...she could not bare anyone to touch her...I saw no mercy during that time..not god's not the doctor's and not the cancer's...
She wanted to die very quickly very badly when she was lucid...which was a rare occurrence in the last few months...
It was illegal said the doctor...it was against god's grace said the local ju ju man...it was against logic and reason said I...when all it really meant was that it was against humanity...simple like so...
Assisted suicide should be enshrined in law...it would be one of the proudest most humane laws we could ever pass.
Posted by: woody, tokin librul | October 10, 2008 11:10 AM
By the time I reach that stage, I fully intend to have either a heroin hot-shot, or a vial of barbiturates and a bottle of good scotch (I usually have the latter around anyway) with which to relieve myself and my friends of the pain of such suffering. I shall not shrink from it....
Posted by: Richard Wolford | October 10, 2008 11:12 AM
Why are these bad reasons? If I knew I was going to become a burden to my family, sucking up all of our savings for a few more years of live, I would choose euthanasia. The point is that it is my choice, not your choice or the choice of anyone else, most notably not the choice of these death cults. I will not become a burden to my children and I will not let them spend their money or the family savings on me when in the end it won't really matter. IMO, and again it is only my opinion, this is the ethical decision.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 10, 2008 11:30 AM
Given god's track record for wholesale slaughter and sacrificing of children, I find it very strange that the priests think he should want to drag out life as long as possible.
The law can jump up n down all it wants about assisted suicide. It's still going to happen and no law would stop me nor many others given the circumstances.
The law can help, or it can be ignored.
Posted by: Dianne | October 10, 2008 11:38 AM
If I knew I was going to become a burden to my family, sucking up all of our savings for a few more years of live, I would choose euthanasia.
I meant that it is bad that people have to make that choice. Why should anyone even have to consider how much their medical care is costing? And at least talk to your family before deciding that you're a burden to them: maybe they don't feel that taking care of you is a burden. Maybe they're happy to trade the money for more time with you, as long as your life isn't simply continuous misery. But in the end, I agree with your basic assessment: It should be your choice, not the law's choice or the religion's choice or the doctor's choice when to say enough is enough.
Posted by: misskitty | October 10, 2008 11:39 AM
@#3
The author of PZ's link at least the option of asking his mother what she wanted, if not the option to give her a real choice in the matter. But not all families are as lucky, as it were.
When my father finally died at the end of degenerative brain disease, years faster than the normal course of alzheimer's but months longer than what American doctors will allow for CJD, by the time he finally died he was a vegetable. He was curled up in a hospice bed, his muscles permanently frozen in some horrific contraction, blind, unable to speak, immobile.
I should've had the option to end it for him. We don't let dogs die like that, but we do it to our fellow humans every god damned day due to some misplaced sense of morality.
And you want to come in here and try to say that we atheists want euthanasia because it's convenient for us?
FUCK. YOU.
That is burden I would've gladly taken for my father, even after 10 years of estrangement. It is a burden I would gladly accept for my mother, or my boyfriend, or any other person I love more than myself.
There is no excuse for leaving our loved ones to suffer at the end of terminal illness. No fucking excuse at all.
Posted by: Dennis N | October 10, 2008 11:40 AM
A very emotional and truthful article. When your moral framework fails so many times due to unsupported dogma, it's time to stop using it.
I have a more lighthearted concern right now and I figured I'd ask the wise sages of Pharyngula on an active thread:
There are Christian preachers on the street corner at my college. They have a big sign saying: "Give Jesus A Chance To Love YOU". I went to talk to them to argue why I should or shouldn't believe them, civilly of course. I was repeatedly told it was a choice of faith and I responded that I don't respect faith and require evidence, but IF I accepted their first step of having faith, how do I choose Jesus over Allah or Zeus? I was only giving Bible quotes. When I revealed I do not believe the Bible, due to lack of evidence, and asked for evidence, I was told I have a closed heart and simply don't want the love. They then shut down the conversation and refused to speak to me, very afraid of a rational discussion. More arguments (such as doctrine of Hell and so on) than this went on, but they were short and tangential. They were not educated on arguments against religious belief.
Soooo, I went and got a poster board to preach alongside them, but with my own message. I don't want to be offensive, so any good ideas for my sign or reasons I shouldn't make one? I was thinking: "Open Your Heart To Zeus". Any ideas are helpful, but I don't wanna derail the thread!
Posted by: misskitty | October 10, 2008 11:41 AM
@#3
The author of PZ's link at least the option of asking his mother what she wanted, if not the option to give her a real choice in the matter. But not all families are as lucky, as it were.
When my father finally died at the end of degenerative brain disease, years faster than the normal course of alzheimer's but months longer than what American doctors will allow for CJD, by the time he finally died he was a vegetable. He was curled up in a hospice bed, his muscles permanently frozen in some horrific contraction, blind, unable to speak, immobile.
I should've had the option to end it for him. We don't let dogs die like that, but we do it to our fellow humans every god damned day due to some misplaced sense of morality.
And you want to come in here and try to say that we atheists want euthanasia because it's convenient for us?
FUCK. YOU.
That is burden I would've gladly taken for my father, even after 10 years of estrangement. It is a burden I would gladly accept for my mother, or my boyfriend, or any other person I love more than myself.
There is no excuse for leaving our loved ones to suffer at the end of terminal illness. No fucking excuse at all.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | October 10, 2008 11:44 AM
Fuck the Church, and fuck Martin Sheen for doing those shit stupid anti I-1000 ads.
Posted by: Richard | October 10, 2008 11:46 AM
I think Dan Savage's article is right on. Catholics and other religious leaders have far too much power.
Posted by: Richard | October 10, 2008 11:49 AM
I think Dan Savage's article is right on. Catholics and other religious leaders have far too much power.
Posted by: Dennis N | October 10, 2008 11:50 AM
The irony is that they have devoted their lives to what they believe is a moral framework. These are people with the free time and resources to contemplate sticky moral issues. They could spend years studying philosophy, it's not like they're busy with anything beyond collecting money and holding pot-lucks. All their lecture material was written down 1,700 years ago. Flocks look to them for guidance. And what do they do? Slave themselves to a book and ignore real human suffering.
Posted by: Jason | October 10, 2008 11:56 AM
Has anyone else noticed that all of the people who seem to be pro-life, anti-assisted suicide, really anti-choice period are also pro-war, pro-death penalty, and pro-torture for terrorism suspects? Doesn't those positions seem to be at odds with their claims of morality?
Posted by: Fletcher | October 10, 2008 12:01 PM
"I believe Oregon has had a euthanasia law for many years. I haven't lived there since 2002 and I was only there a few years.
Maybe somebody from Oregon can comment. Is this law still on the books. Have there been abuses?
I know there was no sudden increase in deaths when it was implemented."
#21 -- I'm from Oregon. Yes, the law is still on the books, despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration and then-Attorney General Ashcroft to strike it off. The battle went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in January 2006 that the citizens of the State of Oregon could indeed legalize physician-assisted suicide, even if it offended the religious sensibilities of the Administration. At that time, only 200 patients had used the law, though it was initially passed in 1997. After 2000, having Ashcroft threaten to imprison doctors who worked within the law no doubt made it very difficult for terminal patients to find anyone who would help.
So far as I know, there have been no abuses. There are too many safety checks built into the law. So many, in fact, that a patient really needs to plan ahead for this, because it's not something that can easily be done at the last minute.
Oregon's largest newspaper, the Oregonian, did an in-depth documentary series on a terminally ill woman who used this law. Her name is Lovelle Svart, and she made two amazing decisions: one, to control her own inevitable death, and two, to document it in order to open up a dialogue on a topic that people simply don't discuss. Her courage is immeasurable, and the best way to honor it is to watch the online series. It's tough in places, but also surprisingly uplifting. By the time she died, she was ready, and she greeted death as a welcome release. In the end she went peacefully, at her own chosen time, right after a big party with her friends and family, and with her closest loved ones at her bedside. Would that we could all have such a choice available to us.
The series can be viewed here:
http://next.oregonianextra.com/lovelle/
Posted by: Iron Soul | October 10, 2008 12:01 PM
That was a powerful article. I'm glad to be a Washington voter. I get to make a decision to defend freedome of choice.
Posted by: Jay Hovah | October 10, 2008 12:02 PM
Posted by: Blair | October 10, 2008 8:35 AM
..and FUCK YOU too asshole.
My father spent the last month of his life dying by inches. The pain and suffering was so bad he desperatly wanted to kill himself, but was too afraid of getting us in trouble by asking for help.
So he lay there for the last two weeks, vomiting every 15 to 30 minutes, 24 hours a day. He was only able to sleep for a few minutes at a time and would simply pass out until his body woke him up for the next ejection.
I hope you die the same way Blair...
Posted by: Hoots mon | October 10, 2008 12:10 PM
I have to agree with Nick (#33) - After reading this blog and becoming more aware of the activities and political influence of religion, these kinds of intrusions into our personal choices are what has turned me also from a non-believer with no ill feelings whatsoever towards religion to a vehement anti-religionist. It is not their people, their faith and what they believe in, it is the fact that they think it is not only ok, but their duty to enforce their views upon everyone. Too many laws restrict our choices as individuals with the only reasoning behind them being its someones moral opinion that its wrong. The law should only be there to protect others from your actions, it is absolutely no business of anyone's what you do to yourself, thats why I also believe drug taking should be completely legal, but other aspects of drug culture that harm others should of course be illegal (under the influence while driving, selling to minors, under the influence while taking care of a minor etc). Oooh I could rant for hours were it not hometime on a friday!
Posted by: Michael X | October 10, 2008 12:11 PM
This is the one part of the excerpt that misses it. No fundamentalist christian is convinced by such arguments. Abortion isn't simply something to "not have" in their eyes. It's murder. Gay marriage is the "destruction of traditional marriage" and suicide is still suicide. All evil, all bad, all (in their eyes at least) should be made illegal.
They follow the logic that abortion is murder, based on faith and no bumper sticker that says, "Don't like murder, don't commit one, but don't tell me I can't" is going to convince them of anything. It assumes the very point being argued. That these actions are and should be, a matter of choice. The real argument should be about what evidence causes people to take one stance or the other.
Thankfully Dan follows up with
This is truely the measure of what is reasonable and what is not. The plain fact of the matter is that if someone tries to prohibit my actions due to nothing but their belief in god, they can piss off.
You either have concrete evidence to support a prohibition or you do not. Faith is not viable evidence that can be used to found laws for such circumstances and only viable evidence should be used in the making of our laws. (Not to mention that passing laws on religious grounds alone is unconstitutional.)
The bumper sticker should read "God doesn't like assisted suicide? Does he have any good reasons?" because "his" opinion doesn't go far in a court of law. There may be a lot of sputtering christians driving behind you, but until I hear an argument strong enough to revoke an individuals choice to die when and how they choose, I wouldn't be moved.
Posted by: SteveM | October 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Not at all, since those latter acts are only being done to bad people.
.
.
.
Yeah, right.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 10, 2008 12:18 PM
...But make sure he wears a condom. :P
Dennis N @#53:
Can you get several people together? Advertise for Zeus, Loki, Enki, Coyote, Bastet, and so on? How about a "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" sign, or other odd references? Maybe add in the D&D pantheon? Olidamarra would approve (yeah, I'm a bit partial to trickster gods, might as well be honest about fooling people). :)
"I believe in Harvey Dent" (maybe with a "why so serious" nearby)
"Let the love of (Zeus/Thor) hit you like a lightning bolt!"
"May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage"
"May you be eaten first"
"May the holy light of (Ra/Helios/Pelor) shine upon you"
"Love need never die. Embrace the eternal beauty of undeath." (this references a D&D deity in Libris Mortis whose name I forget)
"Darkness beyond twilight, crimson beyond blood that flows, buried in the stream of time is where your power grows, I pledge myself to conquer, all the foes who stand, before the mighty gift bestowed in my unworthy hand". (bonus points if you get someone from the college anime club in a Lina Inverse cosplay to do this one or the next)
"Thou queen of dreams that chill the soul, thou goddess of four lands, I beg thee place the wrath of angels here within my hands."
The possiblities are endless. :)
Posted by: surfnet | October 10, 2008 12:19 PM
@59
If there is a common thread in their beliefs, it seems that they support anything that causes more human suffering. How that becomes morality is twisted up in the death cult's "sacred" books.
misskitty:
100% on target. I'm sorry for the pain you and yours went through. And in this age it is needless. It is 10 years since my mother's death and the memory is fresh.
Where are the death cultists? Can you defend your morality of suffering? Is your god of love less capable than a handful of tablets and a shot of opiates? Yes, he is. Quite.
Posted by: marilove | October 10, 2008 12:22 PM
"Gay marriage is the "destruction of traditional marriage" "
I hope that these people have never been divorced and are staunchly anti-divorce, then.
I live in Arizona, and even though we voted down a constitutional amendment 4 years ago, it's on the ballot AGAIN. I've always wondered, what if I were to create a proposition that would make divorce illegal? To "preserve traditional marriage"? I wonder ... how many of these "Christians" would balk at that? I bet they all would. Yay, hypocrites! It's what's for dinner!
Posted by: alyric | October 10, 2008 12:34 PM
Somebody wrote:
"My mother died of lung cancer. (This took place in Georgia) The dying itself took several hours. Several hours of agony and terror for her. She clawed at the oxygen mask to remove it because she was not getting enough. She was never going yo get enough."
Not being a US citizen, just wondering what is wrong with you palliative care? Don't you have any? Sorry, but this standard of hospice does not belong in a developed country. I'm fairly amazed actually and not just by this example of how not to do palliative care.
Why is it assumed that the catholic Pope of all people speaks for christians of any persuasion? As far as I know the bloke is no christian and that's all that matters.
Also for the unaware, be warned that not every account here, no matter how harrowing is truthful. Let this one be the note of caution:
"So he lay there for the last two weeks, vomiting every 15 to 30 minutes, 24 hours a day. He was only able to sleep for a few minutes at a time and would simply pass out until his body woke him up for the next ejection."
I happen to know that no one has to put up with nausea let alone vomiting for any reason these days (on account of my own terminal illness and its treatment), so this account can probably be dismissed as worth anything to take note of. The man also seems to have a few other problems, judging by this:
"I hope you die the same way Blair..."
Spiteful is about the nicest descriptor, so I wouldn't worry if I were you Blair. This topic is bound to attract a lot of extremists and their arguments will be similarly extreme. They also seem to do a roaring trade in strawman positions, which is odd for a science based website, but there you go.
Posted by: JStein | October 10, 2008 12:34 PM
This is disgusting. Really physically sickening.
It just reminds me that thousands of people die every day because condoms in Africa are worse than AIDS in Africa.
Posted by: surfnet |