Give Me Liberty — And Death!

Should a person who is terminally ill with no hope for recovery and no reasonable quality of life be given the choice to end his or her suffering? Not according to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

On June 16, the USCCB issued a statement against physician-assisted suicide. The USCCB said that such an act is a “threat to human dignity” and instead urged patients to accept the Christian view that “suffering accepted in love can bring [followers] closer to the mystery of Christ’s sacrifice for the salvation of others.”

“Death with dignity,” “compassionate choices,” and “physician-assisted suicide” all refer to ways in which a terminally ill person chooses when to end his or her own life when medical treatment no longer offers any hope of recovery or a quality of living that is bearable to the person. Only three states have officially given the green light to such practices: Oregon, Washington, and Montana. Oregon and Washington have strict regulations that protect the individual and the medical personnel involved in the decision. Montana’s officials are stilling working on its regulations.

I don’t doubt that the Catholic bishops care about human life—but I fail to see the care and compassion that urges acceptance of suffering or the bishops’ refusal to recognize the right of a person to choose when it is time to end his or her own suffering.

Life isn’t just about existence; it is about substance. The USCCB quote the Founders and say that because “life” comes before “liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence that “life” is the most sacred of rights. I don’t know why they are in that order, but I do know that denying a person the liberty to choose what to do with his or her life is not the way to ensure that a life is lived to the fullest. It is a denial of free will and a rejection of the fundamental right of self-determination.

The USCCB has no sway over my life or my choices, but as an organization it wields great power over the network of Catholic hospitals, charities, and other Catholic organizations that must abide by its directives and decisions—and therefore over the millions of non-Catholics who are served by these medical institutions and groups every day. And perhaps even more alarming, the USCCB has no compunction about making its religious views political issues for its members and elected Catholic political leaders.

So to the USCCB members, I say take your palliative care and loving acceptance of suffering and keep it. I’ll take the memory of Dr. Jack Kevorkian and end-of-life care in the Northwest, instead.

More information about choice and care at the end of life is available here

seo google sıra bulucu kanun script encode decode google sira bulucu google pagerank sorgulama seo google sıra bulucu ukash kanunlar


Well, that's a very nice essay Ms. Knief. Is there anything that has ever been put forth by the USCCB that you do agree with, that would demonstrate that you consider the USCCB to be respectable, as to why you are trying to fix the Catholic religion??? You do know that atheists consider themselves to be a bunch of different snowflakes, and that they cannot be consolidated into one nice neat little ideological grouping; so there is bound to be some atheists who agree with the Bishops' end resolve of the issue, although not agreeing with the reasoning. Has it ever occurred to you that atheists might be cultivating some irrationalizations that prevent them from accomplishing some social tasks that may help all people?
My father died of oral cancer last year. He was unable to talk, laugh, eat, and drink for the 9 months he was sick. He had a treac to breath and a g-tube to consume calories and fluids. He was 134 pounds. By the time he decided to enter Hospice, the cancer had spread to his lungs. He only lasted a week, but during that time he had to be suctioned regularly. Hospice, an amazing organization, kept him as comfortable as possible, but he still suffered. Not only with physical discomfort, but the terror that he was slowly suffocating to death. All I could think during this time was how needless it all seemed. If he was a dog, his treatment would have been regarded inhumane. He would have been relieved of his suffering far sooner. I hope that this needless torture can be avoided in the future.
Lovely article, Amanda, and so glad you are in DC making our case. I only question the pragmatism of asking a group founded on supernaturalism to exercise reason and compassion.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
seo google sıra bulucu kanun script encode decode google sira bulucu google pagerank sorgulama seo google sıra bulucu ukash kanunlar