Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
#1

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
The archbishop of Canterbury has warned that legalising
assisted dying is dangerous and risks turning the right to
die into a duty
.  His intervention came before the formal
introduction of a private members’ bill in the Commons on
Wednesday that aims to offer choice at the end of life.

Justin Welby said: "I think this approach is both dangerous
and sets us in a direction which is even more dangerous,
and in every other place where it’s been done, has led to a
slippery slope".

[Image: Justin-Welby-king-charles-coronation-447...254662.jpg]

"The right to end your life could all too easily—all too accidentally
—turn into a duty to do so... I worry that even the best intentions
can lead to unintended consequences, and that the desire to help
our neighbour could, unintentionally, open the door to yet more
pain and suffering for those we are trying to help".

—This is a classic case of some nasty old God-botherer interfering
with the rights of the populace, when in actuality he has no warrant
to do so...  or was I forgetting his divine "right" to do so?   This is a
man who draws his guidance [sic] from some imagined supernatural
entity?   Seriously?

Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is lawful in all Australian States.  
To access VAD, a person is required to undergo a request and
assessment process. It generally involves a person:

•  Making at least three formal requests for VAD; and
•  Being assessed as eligible by at least two independent practitioners.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Cavebear, pattylt
Reply
#2

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 10:18 AM)SYZ Wrote: The archbishop of Canterbury has warned that legalising
assisted dying is dangerous and risks turning the right to
die into a duty
.  His intervention came before the formal
introduction of a private members’ bill in the Commons on
Wednesday that aims to offer choice at the end of life.

Justin Welby said: "I think this approach is both dangerous
and sets us in a direction which is even more dangerous,
and in every other place where it’s been done, has led to a
slippery slope".

"The right to end your life could all too easily—all too accidentally
—turn into a duty to do so... I worry that even the best intentions
can lead to unintended consequences, and that the desire to help
our neighbour could, unintentionally, open the door to yet more
pain and suffering for those we are trying to help".

—This is a classic case of some nasty old God-botherer interfering
with the rights of the populace, when in actuality he has no warrant
to do so...  or was I forgetting his divine "right" to do so?   This is a
man who draws his guidance [sic] from some imagined supernatural
entity?   Seriously?

Voluntary assisted dying (VAD) is lawful in all Australian States.  
To access VAD, a person is required to undergo a request and
assessment process. It generally involves a person:

•  Making at least three formal requests for VAD; and
•  Being assessed as eligible by at least two independent practitioners.

I am fully in favor of some form of voluntary dying.  My mother basically lived in a bed in pain and humiliation for months while being aware of her situation.  My dad was so demented his last few years that the person I knew before wasn't there anymore.  I really don't want to go either of those ways.  

Modern medicine is amazing.  Without it (from the 50s), I would have died young at several events.  And I trust vaccines always.  They have never let me down.  I have every vaccine that I know of.

I had a nearly fatal abdominal hernia as a toddler, horribly infected tonsils/adenoids at 6(?), and a nearly burst appendix at 18.  Without modern medicine, I would not be here today.  

I make sure to get all my annual shots each year, and have had the odder ones (shingles, pneumococcal, RSV).   Other than some slight smoker's congestion, my Dr says I am "disgustingly healthy" for my age.

My point being that. when things start to go seriously wrong (as they will someday), I will be ready to "check out".  I don't mean the little things that are starting to go wrong.  I mean I hope there will be the assisted release that I have given to a few of my cats that I think I equally deserve.  Surely a human derves a death as painless as a cat's...

When Skeeter's kidney's failed and he was falling over, I brought him to the Vet (as that was the decision signal).  He was sedated and never felt a thing.  I am certain of that because I had my ear to his chest and there was no twitch before his last heartbeat,  Just one last purr.  Can't we humans have the same when we on our own decide it is time to go?

Yes, non-human animls don't understand death as we do.  The idea of deliberate self-death is not part of their world.  But the concept is part of ours.  And I want that right just before I can't decide anymore.

The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks self- death is wrong.  I suppose because acting on your own is like taking control from his god.  Like his opinion matters to me.  A shaman of a superstition does not guide my life or the ending of it.

And, BTW, don't worry; I plan to stay around a good decade or two...  I have a few youngish cats I intend to outlive.
Never try to catch a dropped knife!
The following 4 users Like Cavebear's post:
  • Inkubus, Minimalist, pattylt, SYZ
Reply
#3

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 10:18 AM)SYZ Wrote: ...I worry that even the best intentions
can lead to unintended consequences, and that the desire to help
our neighbour could, unintentionally, open the door to yet more
pain...

Spot on there bish. Unfortunately:

Quote:The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby yesterday vowed to put payday lenders out of business by using the Church to build up Britain’s network of credit unions.

Quote:The Archbishop of Canterbury is understood to be "furious" after the Church of England confirmed it invests indirectly in online lender Wonga.

Lambeth Palace said an independent inquiry would be launched in to how "this serious inconsistency" occurred. Link

I wonder, did Lambeth Palace investigate why this stupid fuck didn't know how his salary was paid, or was the inquiry more focused on why they were investing in payday lenders?

Which is it. Is the bish just another man in a frock with no knowledge of how the world actually works and thus can be safely ignored , or is the CoE a nest of bastards

Quote:The Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group "recommends against investment" in companies which make more than 3% of their income from pornography, 10% from military products and services, or 25% from other industries such as gambling, alcohol and high interest rate lenders.

Or both.
The following 1 user Likes Inkubus's post:
  • Fireball
Reply
#4

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 02:04 PM)Inkubus Wrote:
(10-16-2024, 10:18 AM)SYZ Wrote: ...I worry that even the best intentions
can lead to unintended consequences, and that the desire to help
our neighbour could, unintentionally, open the door to yet more
pain...

Spot on there bish. Unfortunately:

Quote:The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby yesterday vowed to put payday lenders out of business by using the Church to build up Britain’s network of credit unions.

Quote:The Archbishop of Canterbury is understood to be "furious" after the Church of England confirmed it invests indirectly in online lender Wonga.

Lambeth Palace said an independent inquiry would be launched in to how "this serious inconsistency" occurred. Link

I wonder, did Lambeth Palace investigate why this stupid fuck didn't know how his salary was paid, or was the inquiry more focused on why they were investing in payday lenders?

Which is it. Is the bish just another man in a frock with no knowledge of how the world actually works and thus can be safely ignored , or is the CoE a nest of bastards

Quote:The Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group "recommends against investment" in companies which make more than 3% of their income from pornography, 10% from military products and services, or 25% from other industries such as gambling, alcohol and high interest rate lenders.

Or both.

And that relates to willful dying how?
Never try to catch a dropped knife!
Reply
#5

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
Why the fuck would anyone listen to the religious fools?

Who cares what he thinks?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, SYZ
Reply
#6

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
Why would I want the burden of taking my life placed on another? Putting this action on the medical community is a mistake but unfortunately it's one they are often forced into.

When the time comes (and I still have my mental faculties and ability) I'll check out on my own terms, and still leave a nice corpse. If I don't have control (i.e. stroke/coma,.......) I've set up directions to let me die by fluid/food restriction.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 5 users Like brewerb's post:
  • pattylt, SYZ, Thumpalumpacus, Fireball, Paleophyte
Reply
#7

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 06:00 PM)brewerb Wrote: Why would I want the burden of taking my life placed on another? Putting this action on the medical community is a mistake but unfortunately it's one they are often forced into.

When the time comes (and I still have my mental faculties and ability) I'll check out on my own terms, and still leave a nice corpse. If I don't have control (i.e. stroke/coma,.......) I've set up directions to let me die by fluid/food restriction.

A personal medical decision should not be any more a professional burden than taking your car to a mechanic for some desired service. People are trained to do some things very competently and that is all I ask.

The Hippocratic Oath is an outdated theory. There was a very good reason for it at the start. "Do no harm" meant something when quacks abounded. The good idea was really "think about what you are doing and try to cause no harm while you are trying to help someone". As in "if someone has an arrow in his leg, don't just cut off the leg". And don't laugh; that actually continued into the 1860s. It meant "think twice and act once". My car mechanic doesn't replace the engine to get rid of a bad spark plug.

Yes I'm exaggerating somewhat. But so do some people who think of the Hippocratic Oath as equal to a commandment from God. The purpose of a doctor is to heal, and beyond that, to ease pain. But doctors who force a person to live "just one more day" in pain are not helping the patient. They are fulfilling an oath that is misunderstood. That they misunderstand.

My vet (and some personal experience) tells me my aged very pained cat feels no pain. Why can't I have the same right with equal professional care?
Never try to catch a dropped knife!
The following 1 user Likes Cavebear's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#8

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
I think the more pertinent question here isn't what is right or wrong in this matter, but who gets decide what's right or wrong. Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion in this modern day when heresy laws are a thing of the past, but whose opinion should determine what happens? Who is best equipped to make this moral decision? Approaching the issue from this standpoint, the answer is someone like the good Archbishop.

Really, who else can we trust to find the right answer?

Obviously the issue of individual people, especially those suffering from agonizing chronic conditions, wishing to end their lives rather than continue to suffer needlessly is a matter to be decided by government legislation. This cannot be a matter for private agency exercised on an individual basis, because people clearly cannot be objective about their own deaths. Nor can we simply expand the circle of decision making power to next of kin and medical providers. They are too close to the subject in question, too likely to be emotionally swayed by the patients' suffering and knowledge of the patient's prognosis. No, clearly all of these delicate, individual decisions must be addressed by a one-size-fits-all policy imposed from above by people so distant from the problem, and so ignorant of the details, that they can exercise complete objectivity.

But even politicians cannot be trusted to be completely objective. Many of them have had similar fates befall their loved ones, after all, and others will listen to stories from their constituents. This can inform their views on the issue and corrupt their objectivity. It is even possible that, left to their own devices, a majority of Parliament will find their reasoning processes corrupted by compassion, empathy, and a belief in the individual agency and self-determination of human beings.

No, it is best to leave such one-size-fits-all policy decisions to the priesthood, who are ideally situated to arrive at the objectively correct decision. The Christian church has a track record measured in multiple-digit centuries in setting aside compassion and empathy and opposing individual agency. Who better to not be able to empathize with the dying than those who anticipate life eternal? Who better to remind us of the sanctity of life than those who worship as flawlessly righteous a god who drowned nearly the entire human population in a fit of rage? Who better to not have their convictions swayed by compassion for suffering than a clergy that instead places full faith in a religious tradition that burnt people at the stake? Who is less likely to consider individual agency than a church that committed genocide across the world in the course of forcing countless peoples to abandon the faith of their own choosing and instead pulling them into dogma's loving embrace like so many unwilling altar boys?

Best of all, these clergy are the least likely to listen to be pulled astray by empiricism. By focusing instead on doctrine, dogma, scripture, ecclesiastic law, and the voice of a god or angels or whatever it is relaying instructions to them, the objectively right decision can be arrived at without the nefarious pull of such moral perils as facts to lead them astray. This is brilliantly displayed by the Archbishop's warning of a slippery slope which is patently divorced from the wicked and worldly influence of reality. Where a less-holy individual than he might have their reason corrupted by looking at how events have actually played out in jurisdictions with an individual right to die, this man dogmatically remains true to his convictions. Such a man is surely the best sort to decide matters of life and death for everyone else!

... unless he remembers that God supposedly engineered his own son's voluntary death. That might be a problem. Hmm.

... nah. I have complete faith in the clergy's ability to ignore the example of Jesus whenever it gets in the way of political meddling, and we must heed his warning that this is a slippery path down a perilous slope which can only end in a bottomless pool of sarcasm.

(Disclaimer: In full and reluctant fairness, I will acknowledge that maybe I should distinguish between the historical track records of Catholicism and Anglicanism. Or maybe I shouldn't. I'm not sure. When Anglicans, Catholics, and the rest of Christendom can all agree on whether or not Anglicans count as Catholic I will almost-immediately defer to that consensus, delayed only by the task of eating my hat.)
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
The following 2 users Like Reltzik's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, skyking
Reply
#9

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
I have a right to my body autonomy, in abortion and in death. When I decide to go, I will. If I am unable, my family knows my wishes and as my son recently witnessed with his wife’s terrible end days of cancer, I’m sure he will help me rather than witness that horror show again. My husbands wishes are the same. If he tells me it’s time to go or is merely horribly dying by the moment, I will help him. We both agreed on this long ago and we haven’t changed our minds yet. If one of us does, we just have to let the other know our choice. We respect each other too much to do otherwise.

If Christian’s wish to die slowly in agonizing pain because that’s what Jesus wants, I’m ok with that, too.

Also, plenty of doctors have helped ease people into death. They tend to be a compassionate sort and also very knowledgeable about the signs of the end being close. Just a little extra morphine will do it. Since the patient tends to be on morphine already and tolerance is built up at varying rates in various people, it’s never looked at like doctor assisted suicide. The problem is asking your doctor if he would help or not. I certainly don’t want my doctor to think I’m suicidal when I’m not….so, I won’t wait for his help.
The following 5 users Like pattylt's post:
  • brewerb, SYZ, Inkubus, Thumpalumpacus, Paleophyte
Reply
#10

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 03:42 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Why the fuck would anyone listen to the religious fools?

Who cares what he thinks?

Unfortunately, around 26 million British citizens baptised
in the Anglican Church.

Incidentally, the same number as Australia's population.

    Ouch.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 1 user Likes SYZ's post:
  • adey67
Reply
#11

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 10:22 PM)pattylt Wrote: The problem is asking your doctor if he would help or not.  I certainly don’t want my doctor to think I’m suicidal when I’m not….so, I won’t wait for his help.

I wouldn't ask my doc to aid my hypothetical suicide simply because I wouldn't want to put him or her on legal horns here in America.

Assuming I like the doc, of course. Sometimes VA docs can be assholes.
On hiatus.
The following 4 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • pattylt, brewerb, skyking, TheGentlemanBastard
Reply
#12

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
Quote:My vet (and some personal experience) tells me my aged very pained cat feels no pain. Why can't I have the same right with equal professional care?


I think the answer to that question is "jesus," Cavebear.  That fucker is usually the cause of lots of trouble.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, mordant
Reply
#13

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
Christian’s decided that Jesus wants them to suffer. Included in that is that only Jesus/god can decide when you die. Their religion controls every facet of their life and death…all for a false promise of a heavenly hereafter. I wonder what would happen if we could conclusively prove there’s no hereafter?
Reply
#14

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
I must admit that I don't care if those assholes suffer.  Hell...they deserve it!

I just want them to stay the fuck out of my life - or death.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt, adey67
Reply
#15

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-17-2024, 01:18 AM)pattylt Wrote: Christian’s decided that Jesus wants them to suffer.  Included in that is that only Jesus/god can decide when you die.  Their religion controls every facet of their life and death…all for a false promise of a heavenly hereafter.  I wonder what would happen if we could conclusively prove there’s no hereafter?


Great. Just stop trying to pass laws based on personal beliefs.
On hiatus.
The following 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Minimalist, pattylt, adey67
Reply
#16

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
I think the case against assisted suicide is purely actuarial...and a good one. We say that people have or ought to have moral warrant to commit suicide....and I think that's true. OFC, in reality, the people who this sort of decision would impact most often are often not in legal control of their care. It's their spouses. Their children. Their inlaws. The state. People who may, in fact..hate them. People who may, in fact, benefit from their death. When assisted suicide becomes the budget option for customers who can't afford pain management it will be the primary form of pain management and elder care for some segments of society. The idea, stated or silent, that doctors doing it would make it better or more accountable than the drug dealers who will already sell you enough drugs to kill yourself is a fantasy, as if we learned nothing from purdue pharma.

As usual, no gods required.
Reply
#17

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
The archbishop makes a good point. Some elect to be feisty, to grasp for low odds, and or to persist in a pain state others may find intolerable. Heirs may have medical power of attorney. There needs to be a mechanism to allow desired persistence that involves what others may see as waste. A recent reddit thread involved how do I get my parents to stop spending my inheritance.
______________

I think I found me a batch of frumious bandersnatch. Dance  
Reply
#18

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
Perhaps "Death Panels" weren't such a bad idea after all?
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Rhythmcs
Reply
#19

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
I don’t want anyone that wishes to hang on and spend their kids inheritance or life savings…I don’t have a problem with Medicare having to carry the burden. We should be able to control our death as much as we desire.

However, if grandma is in a coma and only alive due to life support, she’s already gone for all practical purposes. If the kids ant to spend their inheritance to keep her breathing, also fine by me. There is a point where someone that’s no longer mentally here and barely physically here where a decision to unplug her is merciful and right…assuming there’s no one to speak for her. Everything in the end stages are variable and next to impossible to legislate in any general sense. A simple three doctor board is usually enough if no family exists or doesn’t care.

Btw, when my dad was dying, my stepmother couldn’t bring herself to decide to end the suffering. She let me decide and I did. The last thing my father wanted was to be comatose burden. He was already a DNR and my stepmother violated it twice already. I honored his wishes.
The following 4 users Like pattylt's post:
  • SYZ, Inkubus, Fireball, Minimalist
Reply
#20

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-16-2024, 10:05 PM)Reltzik Wrote: I think the more pertinent question here isn't what is right or wrong in this matter, but who gets decide what's right or wrong.  Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion in this modern day when heresy laws are a thing of the past, but whose opinion should determine what happens?  Who is best equipped to make this moral decision?  Approaching the issue from this standpoint, the answer is someone like the good Archbishop.

Really, who else can we trust to find the right answer?

Obviously the issue of individual people, especially those suffering from agonizing chronic conditions, wishing to end their lives rather than continue to suffer needlessly is a matter to be decided by government legislation.  This cannot be a matter for private agency exercised on an individual basis, because people clearly cannot be objective about their own deaths.  Nor can we simply expand the circle of decision making power to next of kin and medical providers.  They are too close to the subject in question, too likely to be emotionally swayed by the patients' suffering and knowledge of the patient's prognosis.  No, clearly all of these delicate, individual decisions must be addressed by a one-size-fits-all policy imposed from above by people so distant from the problem, and so ignorant of the details, that they can exercise complete objectivity.

But even politicians cannot be trusted to be completely objective.  Many of them have had similar fates befall their loved ones, after all, and others will listen to stories from their constituents.  This can inform their views on the issue and corrupt their objectivity.  It is even possible that, left to their own devices, a majority of Parliament will find their reasoning processes corrupted by compassion, empathy, and a belief in the individual agency and self-determination of human beings.

No, it is best to leave such one-size-fits-all policy decisions to the priesthood, who are ideally situated to arrive at the objectively correct decision.  The Christian church has a track record measured in multiple-digit centuries in setting aside compassion and empathy and opposing individual agency.  Who better to not be able to empathize with the dying than those who anticipate life eternal?  Who better to remind us of the sanctity of life than those who worship as flawlessly righteous a god who drowned nearly the entire human population in a fit of rage?  Who better to not have their convictions swayed by compassion for suffering than a clergy that instead places full faith in a religious tradition that burnt people at the stake?  Who is less likely to consider individual agency than a church that committed genocide across the world in the course of forcing countless peoples to abandon the faith of their own choosing and instead pulling them into dogma's loving embrace like so many unwilling altar boys?

Best of all, these clergy are the least likely to listen to be pulled astray by empiricism.  By focusing instead on doctrine, dogma, scripture, ecclesiastic law, and the voice of a god or angels or whatever it is relaying instructions to them, the objectively right decision can be arrived at without the nefarious pull of such moral perils as facts to lead them astray.  This is brilliantly displayed by the Archbishop's warning of a slippery slope which is patently divorced from the wicked and worldly influence of reality.  Where a less-holy individual than he might have their reason corrupted by looking at how events have actually played out in jurisdictions with an individual right to die, this man dogmatically remains true to his convictions.  Such a man is surely the best sort to decide matters of life and death for everyone else!

... unless he remembers that God supposedly engineered his own son's voluntary death.  That might be a problem.  Hmm.

... nah.  I have complete faith in the clergy's ability to ignore the example of Jesus whenever it gets in the way of political meddling, and we must heed his warning that this is a slippery path down a perilous slope which can only end in a bottomless pool of sarcasm.

(Disclaimer:  In full and reluctant fairness, I will acknowledge that maybe I should distinguish between the historical track records of Catholicism and Anglicanism.  Or maybe I shouldn't.  I'm not sure.  When Anglicans, Catholics, and the rest of Christendom can all agree on whether or not Anglicans count as Catholic I will almost-immediately defer to that consensus, delayed only by the task of eating my hat.)

I don't know if you under did, or overdid the sarcasm but I can't make head nor tail of this essay.
The following 1 user Likes Inkubus's post:
  • SYZ
Reply
#21

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-17-2024, 07:27 PM)Vorpal Wrote: The archbishop makes a good point.  Some elect to be feisty, to grasp for low odds, and or to persist in a pain state others may  find intolerable.  Heirs may have medical power of attorney.  There needs to be a mechanism to allow desired persistence that involves what others may see as waste. A recent reddit thread involved how do I get my parents to stop spending my inheritance.


Bear in mind though that archbishop Welby is, firstly,
not a medical practitioner and can in no way can assess
the medical status of the patient, and secondly that his
thinking is inevitably coloured by his relationship [sic]
with a supernatural entity—which is of course absurd.

Welby also asserts that (again with no evidence) that "in
every other place where it’s been done, has led to a
slippery slope
".  This is a blatant lie—one of the myriad
that the Christian clergy make every day!

And in Australia, VAD does not involve heirs or any other
parties
—due to a patient's having an enduring request for
VAD (this means the request is continuous, ongoing, and
lasting), acting voluntarily, and not because of pressure or
duress from another person.

There are actually 10 or 11 steps necessary before VAD
can legally be carried out, and the process is legislated by
State governments.  In my home state VAD is permitted
under the Victorian Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017.

In Australia, we can make a legally-binding Advance Care Directive
which precludes the involvement of any third party in one's VAD
request—other than, of course, one's treating medical practitioners.

A medical power of attorney actually supports the patient's desire
for VAD, and at any rate cannot legally nullify it.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
The following 2 users Like SYZ's post:
  • Rhythmcs, pattylt
Reply
#22

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-17-2024, 10:59 PM)Inkubus Wrote:
(10-16-2024, 10:05 PM)Reltzik Wrote: I think the more pertinent question here isn't what is right or wrong in this matter, but who gets decide what's right or wrong.  Of course everyone has a right to their own opinion in this modern day when heresy laws are a thing of the past, but whose opinion should determine what happens?  Who is best equipped to make this moral decision?  Approaching the issue from this standpoint, the answer is someone like the good Archbishop.

Really, who else can we trust to find the right answer?

Obviously the issue of individual people, especially those suffering from agonizing chronic conditions, wishing to end their lives rather than continue to suffer needlessly is a matter to be decided by government legislation.  This cannot be a matter for private agency exercised on an individual basis, because people clearly cannot be objective about their own deaths.  Nor can we simply expand the circle of decision making power to next of kin and medical providers.  They are too close to the subject in question, too likely to be emotionally swayed by the patients' suffering and knowledge of the patient's prognosis.  No, clearly all of these delicate, individual decisions must be addressed by a one-size-fits-all policy imposed from above by people so distant from the problem, and so ignorant of the details, that they can exercise complete objectivity.

But even politicians cannot be trusted to be completely objective.  Many of them have had similar fates befall their loved ones, after all, and others will listen to stories from their constituents.  This can inform their views on the issue and corrupt their objectivity.  It is even possible that, left to their own devices, a majority of Parliament will find their reasoning processes corrupted by compassion, empathy, and a belief in the individual agency and self-determination of human beings.

No, it is best to leave such one-size-fits-all policy decisions to the priesthood, who are ideally situated to arrive at the objectively correct decision.  The Christian church has a track record measured in multiple-digit centuries in setting aside compassion and empathy and opposing individual agency.  Who better to not be able to empathize with the dying than those who anticipate life eternal?  Who better to remind us of the sanctity of life than those who worship as flawlessly righteous a god who drowned nearly the entire human population in a fit of rage?  Who better to not have their convictions swayed by compassion for suffering than a clergy that instead places full faith in a religious tradition that burnt people at the stake?  Who is less likely to consider individual agency than a church that committed genocide across the world in the course of forcing countless peoples to abandon the faith of their own choosing and instead pulling them into dogma's loving embrace like so many unwilling altar boys?

Best of all, these clergy are the least likely to listen to be pulled astray by empiricism.  By focusing instead on doctrine, dogma, scripture, ecclesiastic law, and the voice of a god or angels or whatever it is relaying instructions to them, the objectively right decision can be arrived at without the nefarious pull of such moral perils as facts to lead them astray.  This is brilliantly displayed by the Archbishop's warning of a slippery slope which is patently divorced from the wicked and worldly influence of reality.  Where a less-holy individual than he might have their reason corrupted by looking at how events have actually played out in jurisdictions with an individual right to die, this man dogmatically remains true to his convictions.  Such a man is surely the best sort to decide matters of life and death for everyone else!

... unless he remembers that God supposedly engineered his own son's voluntary death.  That might be a problem.  Hmm.

... nah.  I have complete faith in the clergy's ability to ignore the example of Jesus whenever it gets in the way of political meddling, and we must heed his warning that this is a slippery path down a perilous slope which can only end in a bottomless pool of sarcasm.

(Disclaimer:  In full and reluctant fairness, I will acknowledge that maybe I should distinguish between the historical track records of Catholicism and Anglicanism.  Or maybe I shouldn't.  I'm not sure.  When Anglicans, Catholics, and the rest of Christendom can all agree on whether or not Anglicans count as Catholic I will almost-immediately defer to that consensus, delayed only by the task of eating my hat.)

I don't know if you under did, or overdid the sarcasm but I can't make head nor tail of this essay.

I'm guessing (hoping?) it's an overdose of sarcasm.     Huh
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#23

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-17-2024, 10:59 PM)Inkubus Wrote: I don't know if you under did, or overdid the sarcasm but I can't make head nor tail of this essay.

Short version:  I'm very sarcastically listing reasons why the decision of voluntary dying should be made by someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury (and why Parliament should defer to him when he advises against it) rather than the individuals affected.
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov
The following 1 user Likes Reltzik's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#24

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-17-2024, 07:27 PM)Vorpal Wrote: The archbishop makes a good point.  Some elect to be feisty, to grasp for low odds, and or to persist in a pain state others may  find intolerable.  Heirs may have medical power of attorney.  There needs to be a mechanism to allow desired persistence that involves what others may see as waste. A recent reddit thread involved how do I get my parents to stop spending my inheritance.

This is more cryptic bullshit. Even without sarcasm.

No. The archbishop is wrong. Wrong by virtue of the fact that he's an archbishop.
Reply
#25

Voluntary Assisted Dying - Clergy Intervention
(10-17-2024, 11:36 PM)Reltzik Wrote:
(10-17-2024, 10:59 PM)Inkubus Wrote: I don't know if you under did, or overdid the sarcasm but I can't make head nor tail of this essay.

Short version:  I'm very sarcastically listing reasons why the decision of voluntary dying should be made by someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury (and why Parliament should defer to him when he advises against it) rather than the individuals affected.

Never mind.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)