Euthanasia but sedation first in Holland

[T00ts]

But you posted this.
But you obviously didn't mean that, did you?
I posture that you meant "only He should decide that moment when we are called home"
Because humans can decide that moment, either the person themselves, or a third person, either with or without their permission. It's an interesting argument, theologically.

You're very switched on, so I'm sure you will see there is a huge difference. One suggests God is in total control of humanity, which is clearly not true. The other suggests man controls his own destiny, which is arguable, of course.

Perhaps I didn't choose my words carefully enough. It is so clear to me that I assume others follow.  It is my understanding that God is in fact totally in charge. He is omnipotent, all powerful, our creator. Ultimately He does have total control when/if He chooses. However He has given the choice to us to either follow Him or not. This is something I have tried to explain before. He leaves us largely alone to decide to follow His laws or get led away by the adversary. My point is that as our Creator and Father in Heaven He alone has the right to decide the moment to call us home. Should we not be humble or obedient enough to deny Him that, He won't stop us because He ultimately wants us to choose Him over the Devil. He will then judge us on our actions.

[Barry]

Not at all. Where one person acts upon another - they choose when and how another dies.

But you posted this.

The link of the Spirit with our Creator is sacrosanct and only He can decide that moment when we are called home.

But you obviously didn't mean that, did you?
I posture that you meant "only He should decide that moment when we are called home"
Because humans can decide that moment, either the person themselves, or a third person, either with or without their permission. It's an interesting argument, theologically.

You're very switched on, so I'm sure you will see there is a huge difference. One suggests God is in total control of humanity, which is clearly not true. The other suggests man controls his own destiny, which is arguable, of course.

[patman post]

Well all I can say T00ts is having had a sibling suffer greatly in the last 18 months of their life imprisoned in a cot and living a miserable existence.
Unlike me were deeply religious but I suspect by things said a painless way out would've been welcomed.

Your post illustrates what I see is a growing problem — too little effort is spent on research into, and practice of, end of life care, while the NHS spends large amounts on fertility treatment.

I am against euthanasia. My belief is that prime objective of medicine towards a dying person should be to keep them comfortable and free from pain — and not to extend life.
If that happened, I believe no third party should feel the need to assist a sick person to kill themselves...

[T00ts]

Then your argument falters.
If assisted suicide takes place God has decided that moment. As he has if someone is killed in an accident, by a rifle, in war, in a fire, in a fight . . .etc

Not at all. Where one person acts upon another - they choose when and how another dies. God will not step in as a rule so that the 'guilty' person will have the blood on their hands at judgement. We are all allowed freedom to choose between what is God's word and man's decisions. It is very clear.

[T00ts]

Where did that come from? He took 6 hours on the cross to die from 9am to 3pm approx.

Whoops yes you are right - not sure where that mistake came from.

[Borg Refinery]

Toots' argument is faultless from what I'm seeing..

[Streetwalker]

Putting religious beliefs aside (yours not mine ) Im not sure we should be having to sedate people before killing them . For sure if life has become unbearable for the person  and they agree then get on with it but that its become unbearable for others is no reason to force it .

The poor old dementia sufferer may have changed their mind in more ways than one .

[Barry]

He suffered great torture and even after that lasted 3 days on the cross.

Where did that come from? He took 6 hours on the cross to die from 9am to 3pm approx.

[Barry]

The link of the Spirit with our Creator is sacrosanct and only He can decide that moment when we are called home.

Then your argument falters.
If assisted suicide takes place God has decided that moment. As he has if someone is killed in an accident, by a rifle, in war, in a fire, in a fight . . .etc

[T00ts]

Well all I can say T00ts is having had a sibling suffer greatly in the last 18 months of their life imprisoned in a cot and living a miserable existence.
Unlike me were deeply religious but I suspect by things said a painless way out would've been welcomed.

I do understand that believe me. I am reminded of Jesus both on the cross and in the Garden of Gethsemane. He suffered great torture and even after that lasted 3 days on the cross. He begged for the cup that He knew He had to endure to pass from Him but He recognised the very great power that His Father had and His duty to both Him and us and the promises He had made. It's true that we are not comparable  with Him but in just the same way that His death came at a time designated by God I firmly believe it is for us. It is true that while some die comfortably in their sleep others are made to suffer, but we are promised that God will never try us more than we can stand - we just need to keep our faith in Him. Your sibling suffered but he must have been a truly great Spirit and it is not for us to judge the rights or wrongs of it except to know that your sibling and their family learned from that experience. Life here is but a fleeting moment when you take it within eternity and we will truly only understand that when we pass over.

[cromwell]

I can't reconcile 'thou shalt not kill' with the secular viewpoint that in some cases killing a human being is humane. For me this is another example of how the world has adjusted the Gospel teachings to suit the secular agenda. We are not animals and should therefore be treated with more reverence, not that animals are not important by any means, they were put on earth for us and every one is important. To kill a human being destroys so much. The link of the Spirit with our Creator is sacrosanct and only He can decide that moment when we are called home. Looking at dementia alone - who is really inconvenienced? Is it the person who is living through it, hardly physically aware, or is it those around them? That it should be considered advisable to sedate someone to more facilitate the moment of death at another's hands speaks volumes for me. Everything about it  has to be wrong.

Well all I can say T00ts is having had a sibling suffer greatly in the last 18 months of their life imprisoned in a cot and living a miserable existence.
Unlike me were deeply religious but I suspect by things said a painless way out would've been welcomed.

[T00ts]

We might be missing something. I'm not keen on the idea of assisted suicide, but in the case of badly suffering people it seems like a merciful thing to do.
As for the spiritual, that part lives on regardless, and for believers, why prolong a physical life with no quality and no hope of achieving any?

On the subject of sedation, I read that late abortionists give anaesthetic to the unborn baby and that made me think of the 500 we kill in this country every day.
And they never experienced much quality of life.

I can't reconcile 'thou shalt not kill' with the secular viewpoint that in some cases killing a human being is humane. For me this is another example of how the world has adjusted the Gospel teachings to suit the secular agenda. We are not animals and should therefore be treated with more reverence, not that animals are not important by any means, they were put on earth for us and every one is important. To kill a human being destroys so much. The link of the Spirit with our Creator is sacrosanct and only He can decide that moment when we are called home. Looking at dementia alone - who is really inconvenienced? Is it the person who is living through it, hardly physically aware, or is it those around them? That it should be considered advisable to sedate someone to more facilitate the moment of death at another's hands speaks volumes for me. Everything about it  has to be wrong.

[Barry]

Are we missing something? Aren't we basing medical observations on just the physical with little thought of the spiritual? Why the violence if it is so right?

We might be missing something. I'm not keen on the idea of assisted suicide, but in the case of badly suffering people it seems like a merciful thing to do.
As for the spiritual, that part lives on regardless, and for believers, why prolong a physical life with no quality and no hope of achieving any?

On the subject of sedation, I read that late abortionists give anaesthetic to the unborn baby and that made me think of the 500 we kill in this country every day.
And they never experienced much quality of life.

[johnofgwent]

Well, speaking as an agnostic, who feels it would be handy to have this escape chute for myself given what I watched my father go through in a country that would imprison a dog owner if they forced a dog to endure it ...


I'm guessing the issue arises where a patient who is mentally capable takes a decision and then their condition worsens before the decision is implemented ...

[T00ts]

I was quite shocked to read this.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8972679/Dutch-doctors-allowed-sedate-euthanasia-patients-death.html

Needless to say I can't agree with euthanasia, but it seems that Holland have now agreed that a dementia patient can be given sedation before the fatal injection to stop them getting violent.

The scenario goes something like this - while mentally able a dementia patient decides to euthanise 'when the time is right'. Doctors then of course are put in a position of making the 'right time' decision. However a doctor administered sedation because a previous attempt had stopped due to violent refusal and was accused of murder. So now the sedation is allowed in order to stop the patient getting violent.

Surely this must beg the question of why the patient who had formerly agreed to this final act then fought it? I am assuming that her dementia had reached the realms of being considered no longer worth living with as supposed by the doctors and relatives. Are we missing something? Aren't we basing medical observations on just the physical with little thought of the spiritual? Why the violence if it is so right?