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.
Where is the catholic league now?
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.
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.
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.
Donate to the supporters of the ballot initiative, to put ads on the air:
http://www.yeson1000.org/
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)
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.
The rational objections are obvious to thinking people. Everything else boils down to choice – because nothing less is acceptable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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?
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.
#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?
“After all, as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want”
Would you care to expand on this utterly ridiculous statement ?
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Just read the whole article and it was beautifully written. Thanks for sharing it PZ.
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
“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?
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
…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sorry for the double posting, the internets do not like me today O_o
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?
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
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.
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.
@#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.
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!
@#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.
Fuck the Church, and fuck Martin Sheen for doing those shit stupid anti I-1000 ads.
I think Dan Savage’s article is right on. Catholics and other religious leaders have far too much power.
I think Dan Savage’s article is right on. Catholics and other religious leaders have far too much power.
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.
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?
#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:
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: 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…
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!
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.
Not at all, since those latter acts are only being done to bad people.
.
.
.
Yeah, right.
…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. :)
@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.
“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!
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.
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.
Thanks Fletcher! I will be going through that this evening.
I really love this blog. Thanks PZ. With your honesty, intelligence and wit you have brought together some of the best people in the world. This is truly a wonderful resource.
People like Blair @ #3 are exactly why I am a ‘militant’ atheist, at least from an activist perspective. Why bother arguing with him? He can’t learn. He won’t learn. He doesn’t want to learn. The best thing anyone can do with him is keep him as far as possible from power tools, scissors, and decisions that affect other people. Nisbet and the appeasers can blow his knob all they want, but I thank humanity that none of the palliative and end-of-life care people I work with substitute his kind of half-assed and completely wrong bible-psychology for actual clinical data and experience.
I’d offer to take the sad sack on a tour of the palliative and end-of-life wings of our local cancer hospital, but I’m afraid he’d only irritate the patients with his selfish stupidity.
I live in the state of Washington and I will be voting a resounding YES for this law.
The most empatic arguments I’ve heard against it go something like this:
“As I watched my (insert loved one here) die, I saw him/her go through the various states of grace/get ready to meet God.”
Now, THAT is cruel.
They are playing an ad in which Marin Sheen argues that the poor would be victim. :-
I can’t find the ad, but here’s a news article about it:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20081001/NEWS01/710019784&news01ad=1
Savage again proves himself to be a prince of compassionan and rationality. I’d love to see him in a cage match with senile slimeball James Dobson. The queer atheist with the randy sex advice column is so much more moral and decent than Dobson is, Dobson’s wrinkly old body would turn to dust just by being in Savage’s presence.
My mother was a nurse. I was an EMT. When she showed up one Thanksgiving day with obvious signs that her cancer had returned with a vengeance, I moved in with her to take care of her around-the-clock. She needed various injections every four hours. Every four hours around-the-clock.
My mother had spent most of her life seeking spirituality. I was raised without religion, but she had one – several, really. I had a basic gestalt of her beliefs and I took my role to be defending her right to die as she wished. I prevented a cousin from “converting” her, among other things.
She chose not to have another surgery. She chose to stay at home rather than go to the hospital. Every choice made sense to me as something she would have agreed with before the pain and inevitibility overwhelmed her.
A few days before Christmas, some nursing friends of hers came over to give me a break. They called a few hours later to say that she was gone.
I am convinced of two things with no evidence at all: she didn’t want me there to see her die and her friends helped her go. Make that three things. I am also convinced that it was the right thing to do for everyone involved.
Probably for this reason, you dumb fuck:
but nice No True Scotsman fallacy anyway, alyric. Pull your head out of your ass and read a book before you open your fucking piehole again about strawmen and what should exist on a science blog, you dumb fucking twit.
Fuck me, but the malicious and stupid Christians are out in full force today.
I’m a liberal Christian, and I have to take issue with the use of the phrase “religious person” in this article. Not everyone who has faith in gods/God is without the ability to graciously accept other points of view. There are no voices in my head telling me what to do or believe; I arrived at this point in my life after constant and careful questioning to make sure that my faith, though thousands of years old is still valid in my day-to-day life.
That said, I agree that the best path to take is to allow others to choose how to lead their lives, without judgement — and that includes how to end it. I’m in complete support of assisted medical suicide.
Somehow, putting on a silly clerical collar gives people the feeling that they can dictate how others will be allowed to live and die.
I understand your point, PZ. But I know a cleric who works at a hospital. You can deride his religion all you want, but he has helped many people (not just Christians) find peace and serenity before passing away. There’s something noble about such a profession.
Somehow, putting on a silly clerical collar gives people the feeling that they can dictate how others will be allowed to live and die.
I understand your point, PZ. But I know a cleric who works at a hospital. You can deride his religion all you want, but he has helped many people (not just Christians) find peace and serenity before passing away. There’s something noble about such a profession.
The poop is trying to influence the voting of people in Washington state? Honestly, wouldn’t that make the people angrier than hell? Some retired nazi is giving morality classes? How many has he killed by his hands and his policies? What about the CEO’s of the Italian god business that preceded him? I guess that is what you get when you have no women involved. Just a giant club of gay misogynists that set policy. I don’t feel sorry for them because they have no semblance of a soul. Their poor followers though, how very sad.
Oregon legalized it long ago. No problems. Just peace for those suffering.
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),
Depends on where you are, which goes to your question about palliative care as well, and once again back to suffering and the Christian “ethics” that permeate US society. The medical establishment has historically been very, very wary/stingy about pain relief and care. Some of this is due to worries about overmedicating people to the point of killing them accidentally, some worries about getting people addicted to painkillers, and several philosophers/ethicists have suggested that it also has an underlying component of that whole ‘suffering is good for you’ idea that so drove Mother Theresa to refuse her patients any type of pain relief. Add that in to the price of drugs and insurance fights over who pays for it, and you’ve got a whopping big mess that ends up with people not getting the pain relief they need a majority of the time. That’s the US healthcare system.
The Death With Dignity law is still in effect in Oregon. I voted for it, and continue to support it.
Of course it is a battle to keep it on the books. The christian freaks try to get it repealed.
There have been no abuses of the law that I have seen reported. We also have a ‘no resuscitation’ document that can be filed to let our family off the hook if we don’t wish to have doctors try to revive us if we are dieing. I don’t know if other states have that.
What Carlie said, with another factor–I’ve had a physician explain to me he simply doesn’t write scrips for drug X, regardless of medical justification, because he doesn’t want to get a reputation as a doc who will do that.
Justified or not–and I’m not in a position to comment either way–he fears the possibility of drug-seekers looking for a candyman. Like I said, I don’t know whether that fear is realistic or not, but in any case, it affects the way he prescribes medication for his patients.
I see there are attempts to veer the focus of this thread.
This is not about people who happen to be religious and do good hospice work. There are obviously many.
This is not about the people who are in the palliative care business and how well they perform their duties. I had no problem with the medical staff involved in my mother’s care.
The point here is that medical staff and families are handcuffed by the law. These laws are archaic and cruel and they are particularly supported by christian organizations and churches. “Christian” includes the catholic church mo matter how alyric whines otherwise.
My mother had morphine to ease her pain. It was not enough to stop her suffering. They could not give her more because it might kill her. They had to tie her hands down to keep her from doing more damage.
The people who work in this field are heroes. But they are not being allowed to do all they can to reduce suffering. And right there at the head of the line leading the cheer for more suffering are the christians and their god.
So, if you are a christian and you support this proposition, donate your time or money and help out. And don’t forget to talk with the pastor and your church friends and make sure they know your position. You’ve dome that, right?
I don’t get all the rage on Blair.
here is his (her?) post:
“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.”
It sounds to me like reasonable position for someone with the religious starting point. I’m struck with how angry the replies have been to Blair’s post.
On the other hand, it is that religious viewpoint that skews everyones viewpoint in this country. When we sart from “suicide is wrong because God says so” we find ourselves fighting an uphill battle for rationality to be the guide of our decisions.
Each of the heart-rending stories posted so far have had a common thread; that the dying were afraid, at one level or another, to break the taboo against self-inflicted death dictated by xianity.
I find that so sad.
Bluecollar @ 78: “I understand your point, PZ. But I know a cleric who works at a hospital. You can deride his religion all you want, but he has helped many people (not just Christians) find peace and serenity before passing away. There’s something noble about such a profession. ”
Nice non sequitur. PZ was criticizing the belief that “they can dictate how others will be allowed to live and die,” not the mere offering of counsel. There’s a big difference between having a chat with a willing listener (I’ll assume that your friend is not one of those hospital chaplains who keeps poking his nose in where he’s not wanted) and attempting to impose suffering by force of law.
But hey, let’s not lose perspective here. Sure, the Catholic church is trying to make it mandatory for ill people to suffer enormous pain, but PZ WAS MEAN TO A CRACKER!!!!!!
The question is: Do We Own Our Own Lives?
If we do, then what we choose to do to ourselves is no one’s business but our own.
If we don’t, then what are we, slaves?
It’s called “adding insult to injury”, Dan. Good, decent people who are struggling with the burden of watching a loved one suffer and die are then told, by some random asshat who has no clue about their situation, that they cannot, by definition, be moral people.
Unless they’re totally besotted by religion as Blair clearly is, I can’t imagine how anyone with a shred of compassion would think that’s an appropriate way to treat their fellow humans–he earned every bit of opprobrium he’s getting.
It’s actually a reasonable position for someone who has no understanding about what he’s talking about, has never read any literature on the subject, has no idea of what kind of research has gone into the ethics and results of palliative care, end-of-life care, or euthanasia.
That Blair thinks his opinion on the subject is at all valid is typical of many with a religious starting point, but it is the fact that he considers himself qualified to pontificate on the subject is what is so offensive.
Posted by: alyric | October 10, 2008 12:34 PM
“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:”
Yes, I have problems with my father dying…it was horrible and painful. I also have problems with fucktards like Blair…and you.
So I lied about my father’s death? I lied about his suffering??
He had terminal cancer and nothing could exit his stomach because the intestines were blocked by tumors. So everything that went down came back up. The only way he could get fluids and nutrition was by IV.
Please explain how we were to control his vomiting, after all you’re a fucking expert…aren’t you?
—————
I remember what it was like when I tried to be a “good Christian.”
You’re taught that it’s not enough to live by God’s rules. If you allow or tolerate other people to sin, you’re officially a sinner as well and God is mad at you and will give you shit for it.
So you’re basically trained to meddle, meddle, meddle, lest God ask “Hey, why’d you let the bad stuff keep happening?”
I-1000 already has my vote. I’m glad this issue has finally made it to our ballot here in Washington state.
“After all, as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want. You can of course claim otherwise, but its all opinion.”
LOL, you are telling us about Opinion. Where are your Facts?
After all, as a Thiest you are bound by nothing but what you want. You can of course claim otherwise, but its all opinion.
Because you work in mysterious ways? :)
This is a larger organization you may wish to donate time and effort to. To increase awareness or get an initiative started in your lowly state.
windy FTW: “Because you work in mysterious ways?”
Palliative care… reminds me that I heard one of the opponents spokespeople say that because of advancements made in palliative care, they could keep someone on 24 hour sedation to relieve pain…. ugh. What’s the point?
“Because you work in mysterious ways? :)”
Yeah, exactly, but preachers and theologians still find a way to make it our fault. “Oh, God was doing that as a test to see what YOU would do, to see if you would stand up and save a life. And now, when those poor gays go to hell, they’ll stop by heaven first and grab you by the shoulders and say “WHY!? Why didn’t you save me! God put me there for you to save and you didn’t and now I go to hell because of yooooooooou!”
My great grandmother actually has a short story version of what I just said hanging on her refrigerator. It’s grim as hell.
“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.” (Posted by: alyric | October 10, 2008 12:34 PM)
f/by response…
“So I lied about my father’s death? I lied about his suffering” (Posted by: Jay Hovah | October 10, 2008 2:11 PM)
—————————–
Alyric, you are misinformed if you think antiemetic medications work in all situations for all patients. You are one of the “lucky” ones who benefit. Not all are as fortunate. The drug must be able to be metabolized by a functioning liver and/or kidneys, for starters. If a mechanical obstruction exists in the digestive tract (e.g. a tumor mass just distal to the stomach), emesis/vomiting can occur regardless of pumping a patient full of drugs. Next time, take the time to educate yourself before making unwarranted insinuations of lying.
PS How does one block or italicize quotes when posting?
“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.”
I well remember how the Catholic Church put this worthy sentiment into practice during the demise of the last Holy Cretinous Father. They were so enamoured of their own dictates, in fact, that they surrounded the useless old parasite with an army of medical experts, who’s sole remit was to thwart God’s choosing for as long as possible, whilst making sure the patient was oblivious to any pain.
Hypocritical fuckers!
The vile filth worshiped by the delusional followers of the Abrahamic religions sickens and disgusts me. Truly Yahweh is one of the most, if not the most, evil character in all of fictional literature. That said, I feel comfortable to state my opinion that governments should legalize suicide for the terminally ill. All of us will some day face the unpleasant prospect of remaining alive in great pain while passing the time of day telling religious wack-jobs their god is a delusion within their troubled minds. It would be good in such a circumstance to be able to exit gracefully.
The hour chosen by God? What does that even mean?
nothing.
It means absolutely fucking nothing.
If there WERE a god, how on earth would some upright monkeys like us even be ABLE to “interfere” with the “hour chosen by god”.
it’s fucking complete nonsense, plain and simple, just like transmogrification into crackers.
that this is yet ANOTHER ridiculous superstition that causes much pain should be brought to the fore, over and over and over again.
@Woozy:
you italicize with [i]text[/i]
block with [blockquote]text[/blockquote]
replace square brackets with angle brackets.
The hour chosen by God? What does that even mean?
nothing.
It means absolutely fucking nothing.
If there WERE a god, how on earth would some upright monkeys like us even be ABLE to “interfere” with the “hour chosen by god”.
it’s fucking complete nonsense, plain and simple, just like transmogrification into crackers.
that this is yet ANOTHER ridiculous superstition that causes much pain should be brought to the fore, over and over and over again.
@Woozy:
you italicize with [i]text[/i]
block with [blockquote]text[/blockquote]
replace square brackets with angle brackets.
Late in my biology undergrad career, I took a bioethics course. My chosen topic for the final paper (in 1998, when the Oregon law was new) was Physician-Assisted suicide. When I started, I was firmly in the “hell yes, euthanasia should be allowed by law” camp. By the end of my research, after considering all of the subtleties (what about the incompetent? the unconscious? persistent vegetative state folks? systematic abuses? overzealous Kavorkian-types? depression?) I came to the conclusion that SO LONG AS the government does not prosecute the doctors/surviving family members, there should be no need for such a law, and that we ought rather to make substantial efforts to improve palliative care. Since then I have noticed that asinine (and mostly religiously-based) war on drugs has taken a nasty turn to become a war on pain-management providers. There are several pain specialists serving hard time because they got duped by a patient or two. I am now leaning more and more toward the passage of assisted suicide laws geared to protect doctors and families from the meddling of religious assholes.
And to echo many here: don’t bother looking for consistency in the majority of Xians. It’s easy to get all on fire about “killing babies”, but they turn a blind eye to capital punishment and countless thousands of civilian deaths thanks to our war on Islam. So, yeah, fuck you Blair and all your ilk. Your “humanity” is well established.
woo woozy:
Italics —> <i>[text to be italicized]</i>
Blockquotes —> <blockquote>[text to be quoted]</blockquote>
The issue is couched by the Blogger as one of religion interefering with the last moments of life.
I am looking at it from another angle and my fear/prediction is that as we transition to the nationalized health-care that Myers so desires-that suddenly the government/collective has an incentive for you to die sooner and care will be rationed on that basis.
Inevitably, a long-term consequence of nationalized health care will be the encouragement of euthanasia by the government.
@Woozy: Try here for the wonderful world of Html tags.
http://vps.arachnoid.com/lutusp/html_tutor.html
Late in my biology undergrad career, I took a bioethics course. My chosen topic for the final paper (in 1998, when the Oregon law was new) was Physician-Assisted suicide. When I started, I was firmly in the “hell yes, euthanasia should be allowed by law” camp. By the end of my research, after considering all of the subtleties (what about the incompetent? the unconscious? persistent vegetative state folks? systematic abuses? overzealous Kavorkian-types? depression?) I came to the conclusion that SO LONG AS the government does not prosecute the doctors/surviving family members, there should be no need for such a law, and that we ought rather to make substantial efforts to improve palliative care. Since then I have noticed that asinine (and mostly religiously-based) war on drugs has taken a nasty turn to become a war on pain-management providers. There are several pain specialists serving hard time because they got duped by a patient or two. I am now leaning more and more toward the passage of assisted suicide laws geared to protect doctors and families from the meddling of religious assholes.
And to echo many here: don’t bother looking for consistency in the majority of Xians. It’s easy to get all on fire about “killing babies”, but they turn a blind eye to capital punishment and countless thousands of civilian deaths thanks to our war on Islam. So, yeah, fuck you Blair and all your ilk. Your “humanity” is well established.
Late in my biology undergrad career, I took a bioethics course. My chosen topic for the final paper (in 1998, when the Oregon law was new) was Physician-Assisted suicide. When I started, I was firmly in the “hell yes, euthanasia should be allowed by law” camp. By the end of my research, after considering all of the subtleties (what about the incompetent? the unconscious? persistent vegetative state folks? systematic abuses? overzealous Kavorkian-types? depression?) I came to the conclusion that SO LONG AS the government does not prosecute the doctors/surviving family members, there should be no need for such a law, and that we ought rather to make substantial efforts to improve palliative care. Since then I have noticed that asinine (and mostly religiously-based) war on drugs has taken a nasty turn to become a war on pain-management providers. There are several pain specialists serving hard time because they got duped by a patient or two. I am now leaning more and more toward the passage of assisted suicide laws geared to protect doctors and families from the meddling of religious assholes.
And to echo many here: don’t bother looking for consistency in the majority of Xians. It’s easy to get all on fire about “killing babies”, but they turn a blind eye to capital punishment and countless thousands of civilian deaths thanks to our war on Islam. So, yeah, fuck you Blair and all your ilk. Your “humanity” is well established.
I really don’t know why everyone seems to derive so much enjoyment/satisfaction/emotional release from ranting and raving about how evil Christianity is.
As I’ve said, I (an open-minded theist) agree that assisted suicide should be allowed in extreme cases of terminal illness. Like I said, it isn’t the role of government to impose and enforce moral standards; government should restrict itself to protecting individual rights and liberties. And in a plural society, no one religious group (even where they constitute the majority) should have the exclusive privilege of defining public policy. Moral decisions should be individual choices.
But you are all conflating religious people and theocrats. As I keep trying (in vain) to get across, it is possible to be a religious believer and a secularist. I am not an atheist, but I believe in a secular state. I believe in moral free will, and it is very important that the government should not take away individual moral autonomy by legislating morality.
So I wish you would all stop asserting “Christians are evil people who want to impose their moral standards on me against my will”. This is true of some Christians – just as many people from other faith backgrounds, and from none, seek to impose their own personal moral and social views on everyone. But most of the Christians I know do not wish to impose their beliefs on everyone through legislation. Religion and ethics are personal matters which are outside the province of the public authorities; and I just wish there wasn’t so much abuse and rancour on both sides.
Thanks for the info, Ichthyic.
I’ve only made it through the first 30 comments. I’m posting this anyway:
(sob) I just lost several paragraphs by submitting poorly. Hopefully it will be better for a rewrite.
#6 Grammar RWA points out that the law will try to ensure that death-with-dignity will be chosen by the right people for the right reasons. It is virtually certain that it will be abused (I’ve heard that some popes have been ‘helped’ on their way to god by impatient cardinals). The fact that it will be abused does not mean we should not make it legal. Every law suffers from that same flaw.
#3 Blair seems to think that everyone who helps in assisted suicide will be damaged by it. I was in that situation (see #75) and I do not recognize any damage. Note that I had nothing to do with, and no knowledge of, any assistance given to my mother. I would have supported it, had anyone asked, not because it was what I wanted, but because it was what I knew she wanted – the rational, sane, not-dying-from-cancer person she whad been a year before.
I will support Blair to a small extent. This ‘help’ should not be asked of those who will be damaged by it. Those who feel strongly against this, and cannot accept someone else’s choice as their right, should not be forced to comply. Those who are too morally immature to perform this duty without psychological damage should not be expected to do so. None of those reasons weaken the dying person’s right to die in their own way.
Death with dignity has many of the same pitfalls as free speech. We have agreed on some restrictions to free speech, such as shouting ‘fire’ in a theater. There should be restrictions on choosing death – no suicide bombers, for instance. As the current free speech debate is trying to make ‘offending a religion’ a restriction on free speech, the Catholics are trying to make it a restriction on death also.
Those of us who believe in truly free speech know that part of the price is being offended. Those who believe in death with dignity know that some will be offended that, too. Being offended even outraged, by someone’s words or choice of death is inevitable. No law can prevent it. No restriction to rights can prevent it.
To paraphrase Voltaire, I may not agree with your choice of death, but I support your right to die as you choose. I can back it up, too. I did not agree with all of my mother’s choices, but I supported her in every one of them. It wasn’t easy. It was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, but I don’t regret it one bit. She raised me without imposing her religious/spiritual beliefs on me. I helped her die without imposing any of my beliefs (or anyone else’s) on her.
I really don’t know why everyone seems to derive so much enjoyment/satisfaction/emotional release from ranting and raving about how evil Christianity is.
liar.
those who are honest often feel obligated to point out when nonsense causes needless pain and suffering, and boy is that the case with this particular xian myth.
go eat your god, Walton.
“I really don’t know why everyone seems to derive so much enjoyment/satisfaction/emotional release from ranting and raving about how evil Christianity is.”
Well, Christians have derived pleasure (and money and power and influence) from ranting and raving about how all morality and good comes from their world view for years, without providing any evidence except to the contrary through their actions, so maybe that can help you to understand why it’s cathartic to say “Um, no, that’s all bullshit. Look at what they’ve been doing and what they ARE doing now.”
And as has been stated again and again here, the moderates help prop up and support the extremists. It should be your jobs as moderates to call them out loudly and publicly for what they do, not our job. And yet we always seem to be the ones who have to do it.
For woo woozy:
<B>BOLD</B>
<I>ITALIC</I>
<U>UNDERLINE</U>
<S>
STRIKETHROUGH</S>Your fear is misplaced: health-care in the US is already rationed on the basis of whether or not you have insurance, and for-profit insurance companies have even more clear and immediate financial incentive to deny care in order not to pay for it than do not-for-profits or governmental agencies.
If your prediction were accurate, you’d see the outcome you predict in countries with national health insurance, such as Canada and EU countries. The data do not bear out your prediction; it simply isn’t there.
I wish you would all stop asserting “Christians are evil people who want to impose their moral standards on me against my will”
No TRUE xian would ever think such things, right, Walton?
go play Scotsman somewhere else.
If you want an example of how belief in Christianity warps your mind, here’s a good example:
The consequences of being a Christian
“I’m struck with how angry the replies have been to Blair’s post.”
I’ll just add that Blair concluded his comment with the old “atheists can’t have any basis for morality because they’re not acting in fear of God” canard. We tend to get a bit touchy about that, particularly when it’s related to the efforts of certain people on this thread to alleviate the suffering of their loved ones. I know that for me, it’s a good indicator that the person saying it has his/her head up his/her ass and most likely isn’t interested in any real dialogue, but rather, just wants to wield the convenient rhetorical cudgel of his/her religion on a bunch of heathens.
here’s a good example:
here’s a better one:
Mike, that would be a perfect illustration to use in a class I’m teaching about physiological and pathological bases of pain and how they’re intertwined with sociocultural and legal aspects in the clinic.
If you could point me to references for the cases you cited, I’d really appreciate it.
Rey Fox @ #118:
I generally assume that anyone using that argument is in fact a sociopath projecting their own lack of morality on others. And I tell them so to their faces.
It’s also a sign that they’re the kind of person who would gladly commit any atrocity if they thought their imaginary friend would be pleased with it. A dictator’s wet dream.
It seems incongruous to me that those who profess belief in an afterlife want us to hang around as long as possible. Witness the fury over Terri Schaivo. Perhaps they are not so certain about the afterlife.
Some years ago 60 Minutes did a story on how British law allowed the use of powerful painkillers to alleviate pain for the terminally ill. Our country has a fear that the elderly might become drug addicts and outlaws the same drugs. Too many Americans would rather see the elderly and the terminally ill suffer than permit something they think their religions or political convictions prohibit.
It is good to see that Washington is trying to follow Oregon’s lead on this issue of providing death with dignity.
A few years ago in my county, a middle-aged man was arrested for euthanizing his mother. He presented as evidence on his behalf a video tape made by his mother (and you can hear him sobbing in the background), begging him to put her out of her misery for her terminal disease (I don’t remember what it was, but she only had a few weeks remaining, at best). The man was finally released without being formally charged, because, as the police observed, “No way could you ever get a jury to convict in this county,” a tacit admission that reason is beginning to rear its head in cases like this. I applaud all efforts to assist in cases of rational suicide, and would certainly never want my own life to be prolonged to satisfy the wishes of delusional sky-fairy worshippers. They are EVIL.
Walton @ 109 (all emphasis mine): “I really don’t know why everyone seems to derive so much enjoyment/satisfaction/emotional release from ranting and raving about how evil Christianity is. . . . But you are all conflating religious people and theocrats. . . .
So I wish you would all stop asserting ‘Christians are evil people who want to impose their moral standards on me against my will’.”
Generalization for me, but not for thee?
Posted by: alyric | October 10, 2008 12:34 PM
The man also seems to have a few other problems, judging by this:
“I hope you die the same way Blair…”
—————-
So now you’re a psychologist/psychiatrist as well, impressive.
So what diagnosis have you come up with?
Did you use the DSM-IIIR or DSM-IV?
Did you finally figure out I was trying to get Blair to comprehend just how painful it was for my father and only the fear of one or more of us being put in jail kept him from asking for help to kill himself?
(birds chirping)
Since you only posted once, I suspect now you were trolling for a response, hope you’re happy.
———-
Dr Myers, if you’d like I could send you some before & after pictures of my father to post so people can see why I-1000 is needed.
Walton:
You’re missing the point that the existence of religious people in large numbers is a necessary precondition for theocracy. Religious people, however tolerant and noninvasive they might be, enable the theocrats. Perhaps this explains the passion you sometime hear around here.
I agree that end-of-life decisions are a complicated topic and that there is the potential for misuse of assisted suicide legislation. But it cuts both ways. I’ve seen too much misuse of powerful medical tools in prolonging death and suffering, with no offsetting benefit to the patient. IMHO, this kind of peri-mortal medicine is a more important problem than palliative medicine, especially in the context of ‘Wall Street medicine’ with its financial rewards for “billing for procedures”.
I respect the clerics who comfort patients in their agony and are quietly supportive of alleviating their suffering. My problem is not with the individual priest, rabbi, or pastor, especially the older ones who have seen a lot. My problem is with religious doctrine when it wedges itself into end-of-life decisions.
The self-assessment of religionists as morally superior is laughable, free-floating, not tied to any observable reality. Their primary interests appear to be group maintenance, power, and the preservation of their institutions. To ‘hell’ with them. I want them out of any decisions that affect my and my family members’ lives.
The problem with organized opposition to the right to die in the manner of one’s choosing is that folks are encouraged to think being busybodies (with tragically harmful effects) is a good thing.
There’s a perspective not being considered here: that of the person who *doesn’t* want to die, but is regarded by others as unworthy of life.
I support an absolute right to suicide for all people, whether terminally ill or not, and thus a right to assistance with carrying out whatever steps necessary for those physically unable to kill themselves without help.
I do NOT think that doctors or, especially, the state should be those with the right to carry out that assistance. In fact, if i was in charge, i would probably pass a law saying that any physically impaired person wishing to commit suicide would be legally allowed to seek the assistance, without fear of prosecution, of anyone BUT a doctor.
If you are disabled, if you have ever had to go into hospital as an inpatient, hell, even if you are a woman who has given birth in a hospital, then you know just how much power doctors have over patients.
A very good friend of mine, who has a physical impairment, was actually very nearly killed by a doctor when she was in hospital with a chest infection and on a respirator, and the doctor offered to “make her comfortable”. Due to the respirator she could not speak to answer him – it was only due to the intervention of her partner that she is alive now (with many years of life ahead of her).
There is so much shit thrown at disabled people for being “burdens” on society, on our friends and families, on the health service, and disability is treated so often in the media as a “fate worse than death”, that it is very, very easy for us to feel pressurised to die rather than live.
I believe the right to life is meaningless without the right not to choose life, but when the right to suicide is advocated *only* for the disabled or chronically ill (and many disabilities or chronic illnesses which are *not* terminal getting conflated with genuinely terminal conditions in the process, such as the recent case of the 7 year old girl given a DNR order because she had cerebral palsy, which is not even lifespan-shortening), then there is a distinct message sent out that, if you are disabled, your life is not worth living.
Also, there is a very disturbing tendency to conflate assisted suicide with “euthanasia”. They are NOT the same thing.
For the right to suicide, against the “right” of doctors to decide who is and who isn’t deserving of life.
I really don’t know why everyone seems to derive so much enjoyment/satisfaction/emotional release from ranting and raving about how evil Christianity is.
Then you are either new to this planet, or a liar.
Also, it’s only partly about “enjoyment/satisfaction/emotional release”; it’s mostly about simply standing up straight and telling the truth.
Umm, that’s the whole POINT of putting on a silly clerical collar.
The silliness is that just because some yahoo puts on an uncomfortable collar people actually think what he has to say has greater meaning than logic and common sense.
As far as the ‘holy scripture’ and ‘all-morality-comes-from-god’ crowds are concerned. We atheist’s know that everything ever written was written by men and women. Every word. Their claims that some were merely taking god’s dictation have no evidence.
This atheist frame of mind can lead to looking at all of the moral choices available and choose the best among them. Not every atheist spends time on that exercise, of course. Not many religious folks do either. Most of the religious just buy the full meal deal at their local fast morality franchise. Some atheists may use their atheism to justify a lack of morality. This is no better and no worse than using scriptural text to justify what you do and don’t do.
To Walton @ #27 and #32 and more – most of the folks here are aware that not all Christians believe the same things. Until we see the ‘moderates’ doing a better job of policing their own extremists, we sometimes lump you all together. We encourage you to clean your own house.
I spoke to some religious folks who stopped at my door a couple of weeks ago. Near the end they said they were against formalized religion and were trying to eradicate churches. I encouraged them to keep at it. When they accomplish that it will be easier for atheists to clean up the smaller mess that’s left over.
A response from the Catholic Christian side here, please don’t everyone pile on at once. The Church teaches that one can, in fact, have pain medicines such as morphine to allow the person to suffer less. It also teaches that God gave someone the knowledge (doctors) to create methods to help sustain life, so as we say, when it’s your time, it’s your time.
And not to be mean, but honestly, if someone wants to die, there are many ways that can be accomplished without a doctor’s help. Why is it that there should be a law that says I can be poisoned by a doctor when it’s just as easy to buy a gun and handle business? It seems to me that might just be someone’s way of passing the blame. I understand that it might be more “dignified” but one can poison themselves just as easily as doctor can.
Shannon @ #134:
It’s a funny kind of morality that thinks it’s preferable for a terminally-ill person’s loved ones to be subjected to the sight of having the patient’s brains splattered all over the room, just to avoid squicking the sensibilities of other people who aren’t even involved in the situation.
^How easy is it to buy a gun when you’re terminally ill?
“After all, as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want”
This, I agree with. It’s not the same as being selfish though, as part of what I want is a functional society.
I understand that people are in pain, and wish for it to stop, but personally, I don’t believe someone in that position can make a rational decision. They are thinking about how they can stop the pain, and that seems like it would consume them to the point of irrationality. I watched my grandmother die of pancreatic cancer, so I’ve seen how bad it can get. Not once did she wish for death. Here’s another Catholic thought, but there is beauty in suffering.
I leave you with a question. What if you’re wrong?
Shannon the death-cultist troll:
No, there isn’t. An ideology that contends that it is a GOOD thing to keep people in pain for as long as possible is simply an evil ideology.
And this just proves that you were lying when you said “I understand that people are in pain, and wish for it to stop”. You don’t. You think their suffering is “beautiful”. You think it’s some sort of glory for your imaginary god. Well it isn’t. Any being who would celebrate such pain is a monster.
Shannon’s long-debunked basis for faith:
Spare us the Pascal’s Wager bullshit. It’s just an admission that your faith is based on nothing more than the fear that your imaginary friend will do mean things to you if you dare look at reality. If you really can’t come up with anything better than that, you’re a worthless waste of skin.
“I leave you with a question. What if you’re wrong? ”
You offer Pascal’s Fucking Wager to someone dying in extreme pain?
Fuck YOU and your bankrupt ‘morality’.
“Here’s another Catholic thought, but there is beauty in suffering.”
You sick, demented fuck…
“I leave you with a question. What if you’re wrong?”
About what, dying? Or is this just another pathetic attempt at Pascal’s Wager, implying if they kill themselves they’ll end up in hell?
So here we have Shannon saying it would be better for terminally ill patients to pick up a handgun and shoot themselves. Or maybe drop by the home depot and get some driveway cleaner to drink.
And if that wasn’t stupid enough, she comes back with “I don’t think they should do it anyway.” Which at least is the truth, even if the first impulse was to lie.
And, there is beauty in suffering. Great. Knock yourself out. No, really, knock yourself out. With a sledgehammer. Make a beautiful work of christian art.
Oh, and what if we’re wrong? Then your god is a prick. Get out of our personal business you fucking meddling fuckwit.
What if you are? What if Islam is the “correct” religion or Hinduism or the LDS Church or any other religion out there?
So, I should have to suffer so you can appreciate the beauty in it. You’re very sick to think that suffering is beautiful. As someone said upthread, this is why Mother Theresa refused pain medications for her “patients.” It’s sick, grotesque and selfish to demand someone else suffer for your enjoyment.
Shannon, if the church would just worry about their own members, we wouldn’t have much problem with it. However, it tries to impose its ridiculous ideas on the rest of society. That we find utter intolerable. For me, the church would have to show a recent signed letter from god to the effect that it speaks for god, and all other sects are wrong.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for the proper credentials. Until then, keep your religion to yourself.
Here’s another Catholic thought, but there is beauty in suffering.
Pervert.
Shannon –
If you think there’s beauty in suffering, you credulous bitch, try shooting yourself. See how fucking beautiful that feels. Or get someone to abuse you shamelessly so you can experience PTSD – see how beautiful that is. Or get one of your limbs hacked off, or cut a big gash in your stomach. See how beautiful that is, you fucking cracker-worshipping maniac.
I seriously almost vomited reading your comment.
Not good enough. Any edicts from on high would still need to be rational and merciful (just to be considered). Otherwise he can bugger off.
If suffering is good, and not suffering is good, then it follows logically that you have no standard of good and bad whatsoever.
If suffering is good, and not suffering is bad, then if you aren’t torturing yourself right now, you are a hypocrite. And you have no basis on which to judge violent criminals, either.
What if you can’t think clearly?
CJO@145
There is a certain beauty in brevity.
Shannon, I never thought I’d say this to someone, let alone actually mean it, but I sincerely hope you develop cancer in places that cause extreme agony and kills you very very slowly.
So that you can suffer. Beautifully.
Hey Shannon, do you apply your “there is beauty in suffering” bullshit to animals, or just humans?
If you ever watch a one-month-old foal suffering from tetanus, or a 28-year-old mare with West Nile Virus stagger around her stall, drooling and unable to walk, and you tell me it’s beautiful, I would knock you out with a baseball bat and commit you to a mental institution. You would have demonstrated you are a deranged psychopath and not fit to live in a sane society.
Luckily for both the mare and the foal, they were humanely put down when it was apparent that they were never going to make it. Unfortunately, we can’t apply the same level of kindness to our fellow humans.
there is beauty in suffering
No there isn’t, you sick, twisted psychopath.
Why is it that there should be a law that says I can be poisoned by a doctor when it’s just as easy to buy a gun and handle business?
One of my best friends had to go clean up her dad’s apartment after he died. It wasn’t a suicide, but he was very sick and alone and had fallen and hemmorhaged out. She didn’t have the money to hire a cleaning service to take care of it, so she had to do it. In the first couple of days of shock that her dad was dead, she also had to clean up all of his blood from the carpets and furniture and everywhere else he had stumbled on his way to managing to call for an ambulance that got there too late. She was mentally numb for months after that.
So you know what? Go fuck off.
…my point being that I was expanding on thalarctos in #136, which I neglected to mention and might not be quite clear. Having someone shoot themselves or otherwise commit suicide at home is a hell of a lot more probably traumatic for the family than for them to go peacefully either with a doctor or at least in a somewhat controlled situation after making their wishes known.
there is beauty in suffering
Only if the one suffering is you, yourself, and you suffer from a martyr complex.
*138
Feckin’ eejit…
There is no beauty in pain,there is no dignity,there is no mercy,and there is no god…and what if you are wrong?
“there is beauty in suffering”
You are one very sick twisted moron,and the corrupted inadequate fucks that tell you this wearing dresses and dreaming of choir boys are a damn sight sicker.
‘feckin madness and stinks of fear of reality,dumb ignorant clowns…
Ahh, the catch-22 position. Anyone who wants to kill themselves must be in a position where they can’t make a rational decision because wanting to kill yourself is irrational. What lame rhetoric.
How very Mother Theresa of you… Remember this is a pluralistic society, the law needs to be there for people of all religions. Catholics can operate within the law and if they choose not to terminate their life for religious grounds, that is their choice. Basically by lobbying to deny the rights of those to terminate their life in a pain-free way, you are imposing your religious values on others. It’s the Catholic Church still trying to have a monopoly on morality and law, just like in the dark ages.
What if I’m wrong? What if you are wrong? That you’ve let people suffer unnecessarily because you believe in a God who finds value in torturing not only his followers but the followers of other religions! If your only justification is a magic sky daddy, then you don’t have anything to stand on.
What if Shintoism is right?
__________________________________________
PZ and Phil Plait on innerside radio
That’s because most of the people here live in the USA, and all of them are on the Internet. They have seen the worst of Christianity, and, boy, can it get bad.
Since there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the gods mankind has invented evolved to acquire supernatural powers, the statement by Rome’s santa claus that:
People must accept death at “the hour chosen by God”
implies that (a) humans will never die, or (b) they will die just like all life eventually dies.
We have no evidence for (a) and 100% evidence of (b).
We therefore do not need a god to explain why we die, no sky daddy is controlling when we die, and we do not upset anyone when we determine it is our time to die because of terminal illness.
When will religions ever learn to Live and let life and stay out of our lives.
Okay, here’s a test for you. Chop off your arms and legs with a rusty saw
graphic AND to the point. I’m a fan.
‘Never’ would be my guess, because when that happens religion will become totally irrelevant and those who benefit from it – financially and politically – will have to find honest work; similarly, those who are ignorant, fearful and intellectually dishonest will have to learn to think for themselves.
I leave you with a question.
don’t bother.
just *leave*
door/ass etc.
This issue really resonates with me. My mother had COPD and was bedridden for the last four years of her life. She may have also had bone cancer but she couldn’t be tested for it because she could not be put under anesthesia because of the COPD. She was in a lot of pain. She just wanted to die. The whole issue was made worse because the rest of my family was in complete denial until the day she died.
She was using a narcotic pain patch for the last two years. She also had a prescription for tylenol with codeine. My father and brothers and sisters kept the tylenol w codeine hidden from her and gave her regular tylenol whenever she said she needed it. They wouldn’t give her the codeine because my father was afraid she would become a drug addict! He wouldn’t accept the fact that she was already addicted to the pain patch. I recently found out that this particular patch was faulty and did not deliver the drug consistently. Sometimes she was getting more than she needed; sometimes she was getting less. She had a written DNR request. At the end, when she finally got pneumonia, she was put on a respirator in a Catholic hospital. She had a fever of 44C for the last twelve hours of her life. Her doctor asked us if we wanted to take her off the machine and let her die. They had to struggle with the decision. I knew what my mother wanted. They all still feel guilty about killing our mother. My conscious is clear. After we fought about what we would do we told her doctor. He said that she had told him that she didn’t want her life prolonged. He then suggested that we should wait until the next morning to do anything! I spoke up and asked why there was any need to wait. He reluctantly agreed, took her off the respirator, and gave her morphine. She died peacefully. I wanted to have an autopsy performed, the others didn’t because “she had been through enough.”
I am still angry that the doctor put her on the respirator against her expressed wishes and then made us make her final decision.
I hope this never happens to another suffering human being.
me:
Ichthyic:
Glad you like. And I’m sure Shannon would consider that kind of graphic dismemberment “beautiful”. Sick fuck.
Thought the whole idea was to get to heaven. Why hold anyone back from getting to paradise as soon as they can? Those who won’t let someone die aren’t True Christians. Slackers!
Make me think of the bit in The God Delusion where he wonders why priests don’t congratulate the dying for how lucky they are that they’re almost in heaven. A True Christians should worship death.
Those who won’t let someone die aren’t True Christians. Slackers!
did someone say slackers?
maybe they follow Bob?
http://www.subgenius.com/
@Patricia:
Boy, you sure missed some good troll fishing last night.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/berkeley_notices_a_creationist.php#comment-1149732
start there.
maybe Leanne will come back, and you can have some fun yourself.
#109 – Walton – I have rarely become so enraged and indignant by a commentor here that I’ve literally had to go outside and walk it off. Congratulations you completely ignorant, privileged, asshole. I’ve been outside howling with rage due to your smug, idiotic, and cruel remarks.
You know nothing of the abuse some commentors here have suffered at the hands of the religious.
Get out and grow up, Bub. I hope PZ sends you to the dungeon until the second coming of your nasty fucking christ!
Ahhh yes, the beauty of suffering.
I have PTSD, and so of course my life has been beautiful. My sister is a recovering alcoholic, recovering from beauty I guess.
Her husband is also a recovering alcoholic. He’s a disabled Vietnam vet with PTSD. And he’s currently dying of cancer. I’m staying at his and my sister’s house to help out while he dies. He’s had an almost unbearable amount of beauty in his life. It’s all so beautiful, the pain he’s in, the trauma it’s causing my nieces.
Famine? Beautiful. Auschwitz? Beautiful. That Dr. Mengele – boy was he an artist, created such beauty.
Jesus fucking Christ, religious people are some sick motherfuckers.
Ichthyic – Hey thanks for the dumbass troll alert! That sort of helped shrug off the shakes I developed from being so outraged by the stupidity of Walton.
I left the limp brained Leanne an educational remark at #137 – Berkeley Notices a Creationist – as well as an invitation to come on back to Pharyngula for the Beltane celebration!
Probably at that time of night, I was sleeping off the Steerno I drank while talking on Scooters radio show.
Of all the blogs I have read on here, this is one of the best ones. Bravo.
Probably at that time of night, I was sleeping off the Steerno I drank while talking on Scooters radio show.
somehow, I could almost imagine that being a requirement for Scooter’s show.
:p
love that boy.
Every single medical professional or doctor-to-be I’ve met has been in favor of assisted suicide. I’ve met lots of medical professionals, too. My father is a physician, my old roommates were nurses, my friend and his father were EMTs, some family friends are nurses, and I spent last year living in the dormitory of Yale’s medical school. All of them wanted the plug pulled on them if they were in a coma.
These are people who have devoted themselves to fighting death. But they have a realistic view of life and death. Life is messy. Sometimes there’s not a damn thing you can do to make a person better. It’s over. It’s terribly sad, but that’s just how it is. And at that point, all you can offer a person is dignity. It is not an easy decision. It is not a tidy, comfortable decision. But it’s all you can do.
All the right-to-misery camp succeeds in doing is making the dying and grieving feel worse than they already do.
Oh, and Shannon? Just buy some nipple clamps and be done with it. Sheesh!
Hey, what’s a little suffering compared to salvation and eternal bliss? Especially if suffering is “beautiful”. What unspeakable “beauty” must have been felt by those whose joints were slowly crushed, or who were burned at the stake, or who were torn apart on the rack by religious thugs.
Or, behold the “beautiful” experience of a child dying of whole-body cramps from tetanus. Or, encounters with a Dahmer as aesthetic experience. Or, or, or….
It’s not just that Shannon @ #138 is voluntarily insane, but her chosen ideologic racket, the RCC is, and they still are far, far too powerful.
I know how you feel, Patricia. I had to get away from it so I took my kayak to the beach and out a half mile and just paddled back and forth for an hour.
Cleansing.
But this was a good thread despite the trolls and monsters who showed up. As usual, they couldn’t touch the honesty and courage of the commenters here.
There was some vile shit posted here but that just highlighted the contrast.
And I’m tipping one back for craig there for his outstanding post on beauty.
“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.”
Offended by the art of minstrelsy? Don’t wear blackface.
“They want to meddle, and worse, they want to make decisions based on the worst kind of reasoning”
That whole “sanctity of human life” blah blah blah is silly.
A friend of a friend took a tour to the middle east (Marrakesh etc.). One of the other people on the tour decided to have some heroin after drinking alcohol. It promptly killed him, which was a bit of a shock to the FOAF. Both those things depress breathing but in different ways.
Carter-
What part of “go ahead and live your own life but stay the fuck out of everyone else’s” DON’T you understand?
Sick fuck.
I had no intention of offending anyone. And I have made absolutely clear that I am in favour of physician-assisted voluntary suicide in cases of terminal illness. I do not believe that the state should impose moral standards through legislation. How many times do I have to say it? I agree with you. So I don’t understand why I’m getting so much hostility. I’m not the person who’s coming here and arguing that “suffering is beautiful” or whatever the hell that was about. I’m on your side. I’m just trying to make clear that one does not have to be an atheist to believe in individual freedom rather than state control.
You’re being affronted by the nature of the language. No-one here is criticising all Christians, there’s no reason for you to be trying to say “there are some good ones too”. To be captain obvious comes out as being a douche.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
“That whole “sanctity of human life” blah blah blah is silly.”
You have no idea what those buzzwords mean. The sanctity of a painful, hopeless, and needlessly prolonged existance? Real compassionate, you are.
Shannon #138, I was a catholic (though not excomm’ed — yet, here’s hoping!), so I can say that you are right on one thing.
Yeah, you’re rightly a catholic. Yep, heard this tripe before. Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That they think suffering is beautiful says more about them than it says about the sufferer. I’m sure it’s not beautiful for most of them party-pooper sufferers. To assume that it is for all of them is kinda being an asshole under that light, don’t you think.
Well, that’s kind of cute to bring Pascal’s Wager (look it up, it’s OLD and DONE WITH) here at the adults table. I am sure you had a big winning smile when you typed that. Oh you’re so clever.
But in any case, I’ll call the bluff. What if I’m wrong (and ALL the religions and beliefs other than yours), and you’re right? Well, let me go to hell, your god seems like a dick to me, I’m sure you won’t mind. You go to your precious heaven and stuff. Hey, you can even watch me suffer and appreciate my beauty from there. In this scenario suffering is still bad in this world, but sufferers will be “rewarded” in heaven.
Now then for fairness’s sake, what if you are wrong? What if suffering is awful always? What if there’s no heaven (say, imagine it, it’s easy if you try!)? Then you’re pretty much being an odious torturing asshole in this the one and only life. And suffering is always HORRIBLE.
So you see how the odds in this wager are laid out now? Strong uncertainty that I will go to hell in the next life, and you to heaven, but certainty that you’re a torturing asshole in this life, whether there’s another one or not.
Blair at 3 said, “After all, as an atheist you are bound by nothing but what you want.”
And I reply, as an atheist I can do/not do anything I want, as long as I am ready and able to accept and take responsibility for the consequences.
It is the absolute lack of responsibility that the Christian religion so enjoys, cos everything and anything is donated courtesy of their god, they do not have to make judgements except is it biblical?…is it not…?all else can go hang in the breeze.
It is typical and par for the course that the ‘beauty in suffering’ catechism is oft traded by the deluded at every and any opportunity.
Because bottom line is they have nothing else to impart.
That mantra is a safety net, admittedly with a few gaping holes, but a safety net none the less, and better by far to mutter inanity then say nothing, because anything else attempted will implicate a fairly ridiculous and vapid god.
And that is not good because if allowed that their myth is ridiculous and vapid it kindda indicates that they are as well…damages the ego don’t ya see…
It is a desperate and freaky position they are in…so they go contrary to logic, and usually humanity, by declaring suffering as beauty…then link the point to some terrorist that got his comeuppance a couple of thousand years back…
They are in some disarray it seems and getting in such a tangle will eventually cut off the blood supply to the carcinogenic delusion they foist as ‘belief’…let us see then if ‘suffering is beautiful’…especially is it goes necrotic…
Walton – You are a bald faced liar. You fully intended to offend everyone that you can. You grew one brain cell, and left once before, try it again, you slimy little prick.
Blah, blah, blah…
concern noted.
Fuck off.
Somebody wrote:
“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.
Probably for this reason, you dumb fuck:
The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church, is the world’s largest Christian Church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population.
but nice No True Scotsman fallacy anyway, alyric. Pull your head out of your ass and read a book before you open your fucking piehole again about strawmen and what should exist on a science blog, you dumb fucking twit.
Fuck me, but the malicious and stupid Christians are out in full force today.”
The post is pretty self explanatory, and the last line had me roaring with laughter. Get this, after this gem of a piece, it’s the Christians who are malicious. Wow, I couln’t have invented tyhis post if I’d thought it out on both hands and feet for a fortnight.
posted by Dianne (#45)
this may have already been addressed, but I had to stop reading to comment. Also, I apologize for the forthcoming indignant rant.
[Indignant rant]
Who the fuck are you to decide who has a “bad reason” to want to end their life?
Explain how any of these are “bad reasons”. If someone finds their misery too much to bear or wants to avoid burdening loved ones, it’s their choice. Yes, there are alternatives. Some people may find those to be impossible (or nearly so) for any number of reasons. You wish for a better health care system. On a purely utilitarian note, think of the resources that would be freed up if people weren’t forcibly kept alive when medical science can’t actually help them. More resources for people who can be helped, and less suffering. Why are we arguing?
[/Indignant rant]
PS: thank you for not misusing ‘there’ and ‘their’. That really annoys me.
It passed!