I'll look after you 😀
Hate to use the phrase but the nearest to describe me is "spiritual".
Not a believer in an organised religion but I do believe there is an intrinsic connection between everything that lives. Perhaps between everything, full stop.
Possibly I just need to think there is a mechanism behind all the suffering we see in the world. Also the happiness!
I'm content to wonder and just try not to screw other peoples lives up as I live mine.
That last point is just common sense and should be fundamental to living to me. Judging by much of the world though, others think different.
TJ - Thank you for your comments and experience, the moment of death is possibly the true litmus test for how deep a persons faith or not maybe?
A good death is something I believe to be a human right. I will do my very best to enure goofd deaths for those in my care. I will do my very best to die at a time and place of my choosing
Agreed, in fact I would go to say that the one true 'right' as to whether we as individuals live or die, is denied to us, but again, probably best served under a separate discussion.
Poopscoop - Member
Not a believer in an organised religion but I do believe there is an intrinsic connection between everything that lives. Perhaps between everything, full stop.
My belief is that there undoubtedly is, weatheredwannabe shares the same connection. I would suggest some reading on this, but for fear of the thread descending into chaos, I'll leave that here.
Tibetan book on living and dying gives an interesting perspective on death and preparing for it including the error in the west of not allowing it to happen and preparing and helping the dying person. I found it very helpful as I prepared for my late fathers passing
TJ - Thank you for your comments and experience, the moment of death is possibly the true litmus test for how deep a persons faith or not maybe?
Indeed.
Chris Hitchens a fine example. Atheist to his final breath.
slackalice - my experience is that if someone is religious or not makes little difference at the moment of death - other factors make a far greater difference.
Excellent post TJ.
interference in the political sphere from those professing religion prevent me from ensuring good deaths for some
This raises an interesting point possibly relevant to the original topic.
Many people do want to change the political situation according to their beliefs, yes. But can you really blame them, in some ways? After all, if you truly believe abortion is murder how can you simply let it happen, in a democracy? After all, we now accept that black people are equal to whites and people campaigning for equality and emancipation could be compared to the pro lifers (of whom I am not one, just to be clear).
So the question for SaxonRider is: what does a church do when religious teaching leads to a situation incompatible with the secular one? How do the mainstream churches deal with this issue?
Slackalice, i've been nodding in agreement with most of what you wrote on this thread but this..
my core belief is that the true nature of God lies within each of us, we are our own God's.
Is exactly the conclusion i arrived at. Can't, nor do i wish to, prove it to anyone though 😀
what does a church do when religious teaching leads to a situation incompatible with the secular one?
History shows that eventually they have no choice but to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, to accept the ethical and moral improvements arrived at by secular influence.
Highlighting, for instance, the ridiculous fallacy that Popes are infallible because their god instructs them... 🙄
slackalice - MemberTJ - Thank you for your comments and experience, the moment of death is possibly the true litmus test for how deep a persons faith or not maybe?
A good death is something I believe to be a human right. I will do my very best to enure goofd deaths for those in my care. I will do my very best to die at a time and place of my choosingAgreed, in fact I would go to say that the one true 'right' as to whether we as individuals live or die, is denied to us, but again, probably best served under a separate discussion.
Yes probably a different discussion.
I'll make a quick point if I may however
Its the organised religions that prevent this. I have no issue at all with the religious living life and facing death as they want. I have huge issues with them telling non religious how to face death and using their religious beliefs to prevent non religious people facing death how they want.
Having seen what I have seen it would be a huge comfort to me that should I be facing an unpleasant death I could opt to be sent on my way on a large pile of nice drugs. However organised religions prevent me from having that comfort due to their political power. That I object to very strongly. Why should someone else's beliefs mean I have to suffer?
After all, if you truly believe abortion is murder how can you simply let it happen, in a democracy? After all, we now accept that black people are equal to whites and people campaigning for equality and emancipation could be compared to the pro lifers
Interesting comparison.
Which reminds me of a question I used to have for anti-abortionists/pro-lifers. (Assuming all foetuses go to heaven)
https://www.gotquestions.org/aborted-babies-heaven.html
My question: Is it better that a foetus goes straight to heaven and experiences eternal peace and joy with God The Father, or is it better that it is subjected to all of the horrors on this (increasingly secular) Earth, along with a good chance of winding up in hell for an eternity of torture?
Many people do want to change the political situation according to their beliefs, yes. But can you really blame them, in some ways?
Pretty much everyone wants to change the political situation according to their beliefs.
How do you react when the government enacts legislation that you don't believe in?
Why would religious people not act in exactly the same way?
Some will accept it, some will take direct action, some will break the law, some people will die etc...
After all, if you truly believe abortion is murder how can you simply let it happen, in a democracy?
You have a choice.
You can choose to attempt to change the law by any means you see fit.
There are many utterly appalling things that people 'simply let happen'.
In 1907, an American physician, Dr MacDougall believed humans had a soul and attempted to observe the moment when a soul parts from the physical body. Apparently, he set up an elaborate sensitive beam weight bed scale, upon which a number of patients with terminal illnesses were placed and observed before, during and after their passing. He noted each time at the moment of death, there was an observable weight loss of less than an ounce (21 grams in today's money).Apparently, for comparison, he did the same approach with dogs, where he observed no measurable weight loss, he also tested for loss of air with exhalation of a full lungs breath, which yielded the same no weight loss result.
If only there was some way to find out more about this (apparently) astounding story.
Oh hang on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
Or alternatively: https://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp
I have a lot more I could post about my experiences with dying folk and religion and public policy.
In the spirit of cougars thread and not winding folk up is anyone interested? I'll ask before I open up what would be another huge can of worms with entrenched positions and very strong feelings all round.
Yes please TJ. It's a subject most people I know and come across find uncomfortable to discuss, which feels odd to me as it's the only known racing certainty that we all share.
I'm at work, so difficult for me to contribute during the day, so will endeavour to catch up and contribute to the discussion as best I can this evening. Someone's got to keep the wheels of industry turning! 😉
A few comments above I'd like to respond to but... they'll wait too
should I be facing an unpleasant death I could opt to be sent on my way on a large pile of nice drugs. However organised religions prevent me from having that comfort due to their political power.
I don't think this is a purely religious issue. There is a strong secular argument against euthanasia.
Many people are worried about being a burden. So it is entirely possible that if euthanasia were an option, people could be pressured into taking it. Either deliberately or accidentally.
I agree with you both.
🙂
Needs talking about, would be a good thread.
Thoroughly enjoying the discussion btw, hope SR is still enjoying it too.
MOlgrips - thats what the religious say but its simply not true IMO / IME
Remember Euthanasia comes in 3 forms ( at least) 1) allowing a person to take their own life after a competent ( has a legal definition) decision. 2) Assisting a person to end their life after a competent decision. 3) Taking a decision to end life for that person.
From memory so numbers may not be exact.
a survey of medical consultants showed a very strong correlation between those professing faith and those against any form of euthanasia. A huge majority of hospital consultants are in favour of euthanasia. Most of the m are secular. A big majority of hospice based consultants are against euthanasia - more than half of them profess faith ( most hospices started off as or still are faith based charities.)
No one would ever be pressured into taking euthanasia again IMO / IME. Safeguards are easy to bring in. Allowing physician assisted suicide would not mean more people dying, it would mean less people suffering. Countries that have this have seen no evidence of people being pressured into euthanasia. Indeed the Netherlands are looking at making their laws even easier as the evidence seems to show that people are not getting their wishes.
A straw poll amongst my colleagues shows 100% in favour presumably because of what we see.
As things stand in the UK the attitudes of the doctors treating you means a huge difference in how end of life care is performed so if you get a "pro life" doctor you may well be made to suffer in a way a "pro choice" doctor would not make you. Good pain control is not always possible.
tjagain - Member
MOlgrips - thats what the religious say but its simply not true IMO / IME
It is in mine, but that's probably for another thread.
I don't think is an either/or issue, religious belief is just one of many factors.
I have split the posts up as its easier to read / write them on each different part.
Firstly an anecdote from my own family.
My grandfather had a a lot of chronic health issues. He was in his early 70s. His wife had died a couple of years before and he lived with my parents. His life had no joy left in it just a daily round of pain and misery.
One day he took a massive overdose of painkillers but it didn't kill him. after being kept at home for 24 hours he didn't die so was admitted to hospital. Like all deliberate overdoses he was seen by a psychiatrist before discharge. the psychiatrist said " this man is not depressed or suffering from mental illness. He has a rational desire to die" My granddad was sent home without his painkillers thus his life became even more miserable.
3 months later his GP gave him a 3 month prescription for strong painkillers. ( I can only speculate as to his motives) The next day my grandad took another overdose. Again after 24 hours at home he hadn't died so was admitted to hospital. I took him 2 weeks to die. During those two weeks when my mother was visiting one day he woke up a bit and said " all I wanted to do was go to sleep and not wake up. Why won't they let me"
Now that was a lot of suffering and anguish for the whole family especially him and if we had a humane society IMO that first occasion he would have been able to go to this GP. request a fatal overdose, be checked by a psychiatrist and maybe another GP and thus would have been able to end his life and have that dignified pain free death surrounded by his loved ones that most of us want. Because of the lack of euthanasia he had a bad last few months of life and a bad death.
From my professional life:
I have spent my career mainly looking after the elderly and chronic sick. I have seen this scenario many many times.
The old lady approaching the end of their life ( IME this is only old women - I don't know why men don't do this) These women know they are reaching the end of their life but there is no actual trigger to end it. They make an active decision to stop eating and stave themselves to death. Its extremely distressing for the staff to watch someone starve themselves to death over a period of weeks. That person has decided their life is over and the only way they can end it is to stop eating.
Is that fair and right? I have seen doctors on occasion order an nasogastric ( tube down your nose into your stomach) tube put down to feed these people. The patient rips them out. So then the patient has padded gloves put on so they cannot rip the tube out. Is that fair and right? Why should the consultants view have such an effect on whether you get a good death or a bad one?
Then there was the main with terminal cancer and intractable pain. He had been seen by the pain clinic consultants and everything had been done to control his pain but it wan't working. He was banging his head on the wall shouting " if I were a dog you would have put me down by now"
When he finally died the registrar ( mid rank doctor) said why did you not put out a crash call - he could have had six more month so live. The charge nurse replied. "You mean six more months to spend dying in pain"
MY issue is that there is a huge lottery depending on what the views of the doctor treating you has and that people like my grandad are denied the right to die at a time and place of their own choosing and forced to suffer instead.
My views are obviously very coloured by what I have seen but like with the religious I understand that the wishes of the patient are paramount and its not what I think is right that counts but the patients wishes. I have fought for patients to be given life sustaining treatment when terminally ill because that is what they wanted even tho it is futile and I believe wrong.
No one would ever be pressured into taking euthanasia
I'm not sure I could make such a claim with such certainty.
But I do of course accept your points about the positives - I don't think many people would argue those. All I'm saying is that there IS a secular argument and this is not [i]purely[/i] a religious issue, IMO although there clearly is an element.
FWIW I think LSD should be available on prescription for the terminally ill. If I end up like that I hope someone can find me some.
MOlgrips the research I have read seems to show that it is overwhelmingly a religious issue with consultants and nurses professing religious view overwhelmingly against euthanasia and secular ones overwhelmingly in favour. The religious pump out anti euthanasia propaganda that distorts the debate usually around the issue of consent.
I suppose my mainissue with the situation we have now is that its a real lottery as to how you will be treated at the end of your life dependent upon the views of your doctor. We have objective assessment tools for many things and I think an objective assessment tool for end of life care would mean a much more consistent approach.
I have no issue at all with providing futile life prolonging treatment for those who want it no matter the cost. I have a huge issue with the religious insisting that their values apply to everyone and thus I must suffer rather than have the death I want
this is an subject very close to me and one I get very angry about.
this is an subject very close to me and one I get very angry about.
In which case, you must be completely right and no amount of arguing will dissuade you. 😉
NOt LSD molgrips - I think that could be very unpleasant. MDMA perhaps
Bromptons cocktail for me. take your favourite spirit base usually whisky or brandy. dissolve in it high strength opiates, barbiturates and if its making you drowsy cocaine. Not something I have seen for decades tho.
Of course I am right PP - I am not wanting to play at being god - I am god! 😉
On another thread, TJ opined thusly.......
" oi TJ - you have made that point 17 times already, you are getting carried away again. chill man"
Just sayin' 😉
And, to counter your deeply held belief, I am religious and fully support the concept of euthanasia.
I hope this doesn't make you angry - I am simply seeking an intellectual discussion, not a personal one. I think I err on the pro- side but I still have reservations.
I have a huge issue with the religious insisting that their values apply to everyone
But that's how democracy works unfortunately. We don't let people keep slaves just because they personally think black people are sub-human. Of course it's not the same thing in some ways, but in others it is. We don't ban meat because most of us don't think it's murder - even though the animals suffer. Vegetarians have to live knowing animals are slaughtered all over the place every day. But maybe one day we will ban it, and then meat eaters will be up in arms themselves.
Nice one PP. Its not 100% of religionists against euthanasia IME/ IMO / according to the research, but a very large % of the objectors are religious.
NOt LSD molgrips - I think that could be very unpleasant.
I'd want to at least try to pretend I am immortal or am one with the universe.. even though I'm not!
MOlgrips - its a debate I have had a few times. I promise not to get angry at the replies.
To me its the reverse of what you say. its like some of us would like to eat meat but the vegetarians insist and have got it into law that none of us can eat meat.
I have no issue at all with people for whatever reason refusing euthanasia or insisting on life prolonging futile treatment. I have huge issues with them insisting I do the same. I have seen someone cost the NHS many tens of thousand insisting on treatment everyone professional knew was futile. their right, their choice and one I would defend and fight for.
PP - illustrating my point and how I have reached my conclusions with my own experiences accounts for the number of posts. I'll try not to belabour the point.
its like some of us would like to eat meat but the vegetarians insist and have got it into law that none of us can eat meat.
We're not allowed to eat endangered species, or crated veal. Point is that the moral compass of the majority tends to prevail and in most cases we (you and I) see that as good, because we're usually in the majority. And we have considered opinions based on our principles. My point is that it is hard to see how that's different to a religious person's considered opinion based on their principles.
I'm saying that religious people are in a difficult position when there's a conflict with the secular government, that's all.
On euthanasia the pro choice are the majority by a long way and there is no need for those who are anti choice to be forced to follow pro choice policy.
I'll just point out that I have a fair amount of influence where I work and teach junior nurses. One point I always emphasise very strongly is that although I have very strong views I must put them aside when developing end of life plans. Its not what I think is right that counts, its what the patient thinks is right and my role is to act as the patients advocate and ensure that what they want is the basis for their treatment even if I think it wrong.
This is where the secular divide from the religious ( to make a broad generalisation mr Panther) the religious think their views are right and want to impose them upon me.
why should someone else be able to prevent me having the death I want?
This is where the secular divide from the religious ( to make a broad generalisation mr Panther) the religious think their views are right and want to impose them upon me.
Indeed a very good point. And in the case of euthanasia, hard to argue with, because it's down to your own views about God.
But in the case of abortion, in their view state sponsored murder is happening daily. So you'd think they'd want to do something about it wouldn't you? NB I am not pro-life.
I'll endeavour to write more later, however in summary I'm in agreement with you TJ. My perfect scenario would be for me to have my Deathday, where farewells can be exchanged with family and close friends if they want. Closure all round in my book. Not to mention respect and a humane and dignified passing.
I very much appreciated being with my mother during her last month or so when she had cancer. I wasn't so keen on the last two weeks, where she was in the hospice and for the last few days, so dosed up on morphine to presumably ease her pain. That was bollocks quite frankly, however prior to that we talked and my bereavement was much easier to deal with compared to my father who had died very suddenly in a car crash, although I was much younger then.
LSD? MDMA? Hmmm, I'm very familiar with both and not sure I would choose either for my departure. I've heard an injection of insulin between the toes can be very effective? And untraceable? Any knowledge anyone?
Alternatively I plan to make very good friends with a vet over the next 15 - 20 years or so.
But that's how democracy works unfortunately. We don't let people keep slaves
Wha? Try telling my wife and kids that 🙁
Joking aside the euthanasia debate is a difficult one. Is it mainly down to religious people being against it or are there other reasons? Genuine question.
I’m in favour of it personally. If somebody is genuinely suffering then, to me, it seems like the compassionate thing to do. Good to see PP agrees. Are their other religious folk on here who agree? It would be good to hear from you and your thoughts pro or con.
The same for abortions too come to think of it. What are the religious contributors thoughts and why?
Your kidding funk?
Why kidding? Genuinely interested to read what people’s opinions are. If they differ from religious doctrine, how do they reconcile their personal beliefs with their religion.
Not trolling and surely (most) contributors can debate without throwing a hissy fit
There are non-religious objections to euthanasia, e.g. off-ing someone in order to get their assets.
The fear is you start to make exceptions, and then the standards drop and the system quickly gets corrupted.
E.g. when no-fault divorce was introduced, it was to be used in extreme cases; now people get divorced for what would have then been considered unacceptable reasons.
There are indeed non religious objections - the slippery slope argument and the coercion argument.
IMO [i]and its only an opinion[/i] this is bogus and put forward by the religious objectors to try to attract secular objectors
IIRC polls show a huge majority in favour of legalising suicide nd a majority for physician assisted passive euthanasia ie the doc supplies the pills but does not administer them.
I’m sure you are not. But you only have to read any thread on the subject - eg the Marie Stopes to understand why you are unlikely to get much of a response
funkmasterp - Member
Not trolling and surely (most) contributors can debate without throwing a hissy fit
No one not even me has throw a hissy fit yet. Its a highly emotive topic but its important. So far since I drifted the thread off in this direction everyone has been thoughtful and polite.
IMO and its only an opinion this is bogus and put forward by the religious objectors to try to attract secular objectors
You are right, the main energy/motivation for the anti-euthanasia position is undoubtedly religious. If you are secular, you could find the objections reasonable, but you are hardly going to bother too much with campaigning, whereas it obviously crosses religious lines. Basically the secular position is they are building a new quarry a mile away from me, but I don't live right next to it so I can't be bothered to object, whereas the religious position is that their houses border the new quarry.
funkmasterp - Member
Not trolling and surely (most) contributors can debate without throwing a hissy fit
No one not even me has throw a hissy fit yet. Its a highly emotive topic but its important. So far since I drifted the thread off in this direction everyone has been thoughtful and po
I didn’t know you in your previous incarnation, but I’ve always found you to be reasonable, well, apart from that dodgy moustache thread where you looked like Charles Bronson 😉
I’m genuinely interested to hear from religious folks who agree with euthanasia and how they reconcile this with their beliefs.
I’m genuinely interested to hear from religious folks who agree with euthanasia and how they reconcile this with their beliefs.
I'm sure there are some liberal Christian writers who would support a very restricted form of euthanasia, as they would abortion, along the lines of defining compassion as one of the overwhelming qualities of God as evidenced by the life of Jesus. Someone like Keith Ward, a famous liberal theologian, would probably argue like this; he goes sofar as to argue that Jesus offered
no moral teaching in his book "Love is his Meaning". But many Christians wouldn't accept Ward's arguments.
You are right, the main energy/motivation for the anti-euthanasia position is undoubtedly religious.
Yet when the Dignity in Dying conducted a poll, a higher percentage of Chrisitans were in favour of legalising than the general populace.
+1 for hearing anyone's view on euthanasia and particularly from those who practice any religion, as per funkmaster.
I can appreciate the concerns, however, can these be addressed in the form of a Living Will? When of sound mind and body an individual can clearly state their request possibly with certain conditions as and when the time arrives?
Accepted, the possibility of coercion from a relative will exist and for that I have yet to find a solution. As for the medical professionals, could they also choose and a register held? Or is that too simplistic?
Interesting mefty - got a link - when consultants were polled it was overwhelmingly split on a religious divide iirc. I'll check
the link i got was 79% agreed with this question Can you support assisted dying if you are religious? [ 75% of the general population 84% of disabled people. ]
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/public-opinion/
https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/key-question/assisted-dying-support-religious/
I am not sure they broke it down anymore by religion from my 5 mins googling but i could not find any detailed analysis
also interested in a link but i dont think that proves what you claim - though it is also what they claim it shows.
In 2015 the largest poll ever conducted on the issue found that 82% support assisted dying. Support is consistently high regardless of age, gender or political persuasion.
However a change in the law in what way? Not clear on that site but its probably safe to assume that it would be a change in the direction off liberalising itPolling shows that 79% of religious people support a change in the law on assisted dying.
Very interesting allthe same. It must be a vocal minority rather than the majority of religious folk. Every day is a school day
from dignity in dying
Isn’t assisted dying happening already?People are being assisted to die in this country outside the law. Research suggests 1,000 people each year receive help to die, illegally, from a doctor at their request.
My experience and depending how you define it its far far more than this. I guess my definition is a much wider one than theirs. Is ever increasing doses of drugs " to control symptoms" assisting them to die?
One of the things I really would like to see is some much more objective and open way of assessing and implementing end of life care plans.
And above all else its the patients wishes that must count.
It must be a vocal minority rather than the majority of religious folk.
The official position of the Catholic church is anti-euthanasia; same with the Orthodox; Protestant churches vary but most are anti.
It's a case of a widening gulf between official church teaching and what the laity think. The same crops up in the usual culture war debates, e.g. homosexuality, abortion, etc. However, things could be changing as the pews are emptying and the resurgent churches are generally the ones who keep to a conservative line, and where the wider (increasingly young) laity agrees with this.
So these survey results will change over time.
Hmmmmmm
Checking it would appear my memory of consultants views is not quite right, different surveys produce differnt results but the gulf between gps and hospital consultants and palliative care consultants is there but the "Overwhelming" majority is not
My experience and depending how you define it its far far more than this.
Polls aren't necessarily representative. "Hey Doctor, have you illegally helped someone to die?" - "Umm... no?"
Mind you, anecdotes are not evidence either, so.
Death by stats and polls. Not what I was expecting, 😀
If the OP actually returns to this thread to collect his questions, may I apologise now for being one of the main derailing protagonists. I have enjoyed it though, thank you 😉