Deleted

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1791
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by kittycat51 »

Good question. I have one: What's the difference between question posted and a family member turning off life support? One, the person themselves decide ahead of time, the other the family (usually) makes with no input from patient. I had a family member whom as a family we decided to turn off life support. It was really hard. Is that right?

Sasquatch
captain of 50
Posts: 87
Location: Oregon

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by Sasquatch »

Well, physician-assisted suicide generally involves the administration of life-terminating drugs in order to a kill a patient. That is a form of active euthanasia (a deliberate act of killing) and I think most of us can agree that's wrong.

Passive euthanasia, which can mean terminating life-support or discontinuing life-sustaining procedures, is more of a quandary because a person is allowed to naturally die after artificially prolonging their life, rather than unnaturally ending their life through drugs. Should people who have been braindead for years or months be kept on life-support? That doesn't mean it's right to just switch off someone's life support and let them die, but these situations can be confusing. My grandpa had a friend who died last year after he decided to stop receiving a regular procedure because he felt it would be better for those resources to be used for other people. Does that count as euthanasia? I don't think so, but I can see why someone would be justified in ending their own life-support or stop receiving whatever attention they need to live.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by Michelle »

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official- ... nging-life

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life, and is therefore opposed to euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, frequently-termed assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia. When dying from such an illness or an accident becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.

User avatar
passionflower
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1026

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by passionflower »

When an unconscious person is on life support, and therefore their heart is still beating and their brainwaves are still going, they are not necessarily alive. A body can have no spirit in it and still be kept artificially going on life support. There are cases where a pregnant woman died, but her body was kept going artificially so the unborn child could remain developing in the womb and not be born ( as ) premature. Just because you are still breathing, doesn't mean you are alive.

It seems that sometimes family members have a hard time letting go, and they need to be told to turn off the expensive life support on a beloved family member. Death is a normal part of life, in fact the most important part, and we all agreed to accept this before we came here. If I had a family member who could only live via artificial life support, I would say it was his time to go, and we were all just prolonging the inevitable by trying to hang on to him ( and I don't think this pleases God )

I had cancer three times, so far. I now find I have five cancer tumors in my throat that have to be removed this month. At least this time, both the Endo doctor ,the ENT surgeon, as well as my own doctor all agree that the radiation therapy I had after being diagnosed with my first case of cancer over 30 years ago, is the CAUSE of the cancer I have now. So, you see, trying desperately to save someones' life by doing everything the medical profession has to offer, is not necessarily doing anyone any favors. And most of the time the quality of life for the person you are "saving" is so reduced, that all you did is trade one set of problems for another set of problems. Check out your local nursing home for examples of this. Like I said, death is a part of life, and we have to accept it when it comes.

Doctors are under oath to never harm their patient. Euthanasia is intentionally killing someone, so this breaks their oath.

No matter how much suffering and pain someone is going through, accepting pain and suffering is part of the fall and part of mortality and it isn't supposed to be pretty. Trying to eliminate them through purposeful death is another way, on the opposite extreme, of trying to get out of things we all agreed to before we came here.

eddie
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2405

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by eddie »

I thought a lot about Dr. Kevorkian, not such a bad idea and he wouldn't ask for a follow up visit.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by Michelle »

My thoughts on this matter are more than I can adequately share, but I feel I must try.

I believe that death in America has become, much like birth, over medicated and missing the point.

I had 3 babies in the hospital and I have had 3 at home. The experiences are not even comparable, except that they end with a baby. These are not just events, but actual milestones with spiritual insight, assistance from beyond the veil, testimony and wisdom that cannot be gained any other way.

I was present at the passing of two of my grandparents, who I assisted caring for until their death. I was with another just before her passing. The experiences were again spiritual, with the veil being thin and testimony and wisdom gained.

My mother is a hospice nurse. I have had a lot of exposure to the process we use in modern America to deal with death, especially of the elderly. It is, like birth in America, filled with drugs to dull pain, medicine to move things forward and hold them back. It is largely driven by fear and money.

I have become convinced that like over medicated and complicated births, I want no interventions at my death outside of moistening my lips or meeting MY actual requests.

Death, like birth, is a step in the plan of salvation. When speaking of Elder Hales passing, one of the apostles called it "graduating."

I believe, from seeing my grandparents pass, that we are taught from the other side and prepared during the event. When my one grandmother passing through the stages of death, someone kept insisting on giving her medicine she didn't want. She seemed, like the others, to be communicating with those beyond the veil, but would be interrupted by the pain medicine she didn't even want. It seemed to take longer that it should have.

I have not addressed trauma, but depending on the stage of life, I believe it should be again decided by priesthood blessing and prayer, whether heroic measures are taken.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: The right to die act and the church

Post by brianj »

This, the 9/11 jumpers and others who die on their own terms in a situation where their own death is imminent, is one of many questions that are impossible for us mortals to answer. I recall a story from World War 2: a US submarine had been damaged and was sinking, and the crew was abandoning ship. But one person aboard was aware that the allies had cracked Japanese encryption and were able to decrypt "secure" communications, and he doubted he could keep that secret under torture. As the rest of the crew boarded rafts, he went to the galley where he sat down with a cup of coffee. He committed suicide, but helped protect the war effort by doing so. Wrong or right?

We have prophecies of people having to flee in the last days, with comments expressing woe for pregnant women who won't be able to escape wicked people. Were I in such a situation with a woman I loved who was unable to keep ahead of evil people, I would not leave her behind even though I know I am giving up my own life by doing so. I would contemplate killing her myself to save her from a potentially worse fate at the hands of the mob. Right or wrong, I don't know. I just pray that I am never in such a situation.

Post Reply