The ruling deals with a person asking for medication to administer to him/herself, not euthanasia, which is when a person uses medicine to end the life of another.
K wonders how this decision “could be a violation of Christian principles.” It violates, I believe, two basic principles.
First, Christians see life as a divine gift, an act of radical grace from God. This suggests that we need to treat all aspects of human life with care. It is a right to life, not a right to die.
Also, many commonly suppose the dignity lies in our ability to control our circumstances. In truth, we control little. Christians see human dignity in relationship to God and others. What if we could view suffering as a call to deepen relationship, rather than side-step it?
Two questions remain: When we seek to end life, whose suffering are we dealing with, ours or the sufferer’s? And, do not the stories chronicled point to a failure of medicine, not a call to administer death?
The Rev. FB
Comments:ClancyCoot (me)
To simplify what tfhe Christian prinicple the Reverand is trying to tell us is that we all must suffer as God sees fit. We wretched sinners to not deserve to end our pain and suffering on our own terms.
Curmudgeon said on: February 26, 2010, 3:31 pm
In her mid 70s, my 1st cousin Margy, a Helena native, died a horrendous, lingering death from pancreatic cancer. The only thing that gave her any relief from both the pain, and the ravages of chemo, was marijuana, which was illegal in her state of CA at that time. So her sister, a respectable grandmother, had to comb the mean streets of San Fran for dealers, so she could help her suffering sister. So what do you think, Rev, she should just have "offered up" her excruciating torment for the greater glory of Sky Daddy ("God")? I don't need that kind of "God", Rev. We're all better off without such a monster.
HakonMontag said on: February 21, 2010, 8:58 am
Say Crush - care to share where you come up with all those other sorts of people who may benefit from this ruling?
Suicidal teens? Despondent divorcees?
Oh please...
..
crush728 said on: February 20, 2010, 8:14 pm
Sorry Reverend, but your views have nothing to do with the right to life or right to death legislation. Separation of church and state right?
I appreciate your views and, mostly, share in them.
But, let's have this discussion as its meant to be, i.e. a political one. I for one refuse to have the government have any decision on my life. I truly hope that people can realize how dangerous it is to have legislation allowing, without major and sever limits, death rights. That means that anyone proving they could count for your medical decisions could decide that you should have the right to die. Whether you are actually ready to die or not.
This is not about some very struggling and few individuals. If you'll actually look into the history of litigation, most, if not all of these cases have been thrown out. Meaning, those who are suffering and on the verge of death do have the courts, the people behind them.
On the whole, the legislation with the right to die does not discern between an unhappy suicidal teen, a recovering alcoholic, a depressed newly divorcée, and a terminal patient in the last months of life. Nor does it distinguish between a terminal patient who is a young mother just striving for a few more months with her child and one who is ready to let go. At that stage you are giving up all rights to the government to decide whether you are worth a little more time or not.
Cheers Reverend, but this is not about religion. This is about the most basic right of human beings, the right to life.
..
a_thought said on: February 20, 2010, 2:25 pm
I agree with what the Rev. says and I also admire him in taking a stand probably knowing he would meet this kind of resistance. Nice work and tahnk you.
..
marquis said on: February 20, 2010, 9:39 am
Haven't Christian martyrs then violated these principles?
..
Bojangles said on: February 19, 2010, 8:48 pm
You are welcome to choose for yourself Rev., but you must put aside your own personal fear (I think you call it faith) and respect that my relationship with God is all I need to know the choices for my own personal path.
I pray to God, that your church won't be in charge of my end of life. That would be a truly heartbreaking way to go for anyone. Suffering as directed by the hand of the Church. Such a sadly familiar pattern, No? Oh.. how we miss the good old days of the Crusades, right Preach?
When God calls me, I plan to answer, and you best get your Dogma the heck out of my way, thank you!
..
PT said on: February 19, 2010, 1:52 pm
With all due respect to the Rev. Brookhart and his theological viewpoints, I have to disagree with his suggestion that faith is strengthened through suffering. It may or may not be. The Bible says suffering is redemptive IF it is done for the sake of the gospel. Rom.5:3-5, Rom:8-17ff, 1 Cor. 12:26, and 2 Cor. speak about suffering but they are all in the context of followers in a young, persecuted church willingly sacrificing themselves to spread the word. Surely the Reverend does not suggest that Jesus, who spent his life relieving physical pain, would find a person to be morally lacking if they chose to alleviate their own suffering in the face of a horrendous dying process. As a caregiver, I dismiss entirely the premise that there are medical means to relieve all suffering at the end of life. There is not. Anyone who says there is, has not sat at the bedsides, I have sat by. It is true that suffering brings some people closer to God. But others feel distanced and distracted. It is not for anyone but the person to decide how to approach the transition from life to death. And it is certainly not Christian to imply that a person who suffers for suffering’s sake is in some way more Christian than one who does not.
..
dietz1963 said on: February 18, 2010, 7:43 pm
I always love this one. When it serves the religious purpose, then all things that happen is the will of God. When it doesn't serve religious purpose, then it has to be something else.
Reverend, who are you to say as a human being what is God's will or not or even against it? Do you have "chats" with God? And by that I mean a two way dialog? It always amazes me the arrogance of some that seem to "know" what is Gods will. News flash, there are several contradictory things within the Bible and why? How about cause it was written by human beings.
..
Tiger Woops said on: February 18, 2010, 6:20 pm
As much ad it pains me to agree with purple, I applaud the comment. It is no business of and bible-thumper of and sect of religion to dictate what is right for me. Having watched several of my family die painful deaths, it should be the decision of each individual when they are ready to go. To HELL with the bible bangers and their concerns. THEY are not the ones suffering. !
..
JR said on: February 18, 2010, 4:13 pm
Frankly, I dont care if you claim it violates Christian principles. So what?
..
4061111 said on: February 18, 2010, 3:18 pm
Reverend, sorry, you are making a huge error in "assuming" that everyone believes as you do and as such, your interpretation that people with incurable diseases should suffer to the fullest extent until they actually die, simply so they can fulfill your vision of getting closer to God is, well, goofy.
Sir, if you should be so misfortunate as to suffer from pancreatic cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease (ALS), or some other horrific and painful, and INCURABLE disease, then you are perfectly free to either partake or not of current medical treatment. You are also free to suffer to the fullest extent of the disease so you may commune with God until your passing.
However, that is your right and your choice. But do you have the right to enforce your belief system on another? No, you do not. Any more than somebody has the right to force their belief system on you, one that you don't advocate.
Nowhere in this ruling does it say that euthanasia will be delivered as a convenience because somebody is no longer an economical asset (THERIGHTCHANGE).
The Reverend's pontificating merely supports the belief that one person (him) or one entity (the church) has more importantance in dictating the life of an individual than that individual themselves.
..
checolbar said on: February 18, 2010, 10:28 am
Amen Reverend!
..
mc said on: February 18, 2010, 10:03 am
rev. as a member of the helena episcopal church, and having sat in front of you during your sermon last night I have to say that you do not embody my beliefs. You may see end of life suffering as a way to be closer to god, but i see it as physical, mental, and emotional anguish that is not so easily relieved by intermittent thoughts of god waiting for you after death. medicine cannot cure death and it's wrong to force someone to suffer on the off chance that they might feel closer to god.
..
HakonMontag said on: February 18, 2010, 9:20 am
Rev. - while I respect your views, your basic premisses are flawed.
Your two ending points are basically flawed as follows.
1) The law does not allow euthenasia. It allows for one to end ones own suffering. So your question as to whose suffering is being ended is flawed.
2) Your supposition that medicine is flawed is inherently opposed to your stance that all things are from God. If all things are from God as you state then we should not rely on medicine or doctors at all, since they then are interfering with the devine wisdom of God. Anyone who seeks medical attention for anything...and I mean anything...is interfering with the will of God, given your views.
You can't have it both ways.
..
Purple said on: February 18, 2010, 9:04 am
May you never be afflicted with a disease for which there is no cure, a disease which leaves you in perpetual pain until death ends that pain.
When a person is diagnosed with that type of disease, their healthcare should be done "pro bono" so that the person and their family will cease having to pay for that care. Many physicians only continue courses of treatment for financial reasons - they rake in the money while the patient and their family are going bankrupt.
Wanna bet that you would be comforted by the idea of being able to end the misery you would be suffering via physician assisted suicide!
..
Sisyphus said on: February 18, 2010, 8:54 am
Who has the most rights to me?
When I was a child, my parents made nearly all my decisions for me.
After I got a draft notice, the US Military had nearly complete control of "Me" for a few years.
The US Constitution:
We the People of the United States, ... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and ...
Bishop implies that even though the Creator gave us a free will, we don't have much wiggle room when it comes to our lives, so the Church owns us.
I declare "I own me." I reject the notion ANYONE has more right to my life than I.
Not my family. Not my Government. Not my doctor. Not my neighbor. Not any church or their leaders.
it's between myself and my God. I don't need an interpreter or a lawyer to intercede.
If my God and I determine that my life is over, the rest of the world should just butt out.
Forcing any human to stick around when they and their God have decided to depart is a slap in the face to both them and their God.
..
dollerholler said on: February 18, 2010, 5:53 am
The one point you are forgetting sir is.....not everyone in Montana is a christian. So if the state says you can't take your own life, based on "christian ideals" it is in violation of the bill of rights. Now I am a christian. I do happen to believe that god will call me up when he sees fit. And so it is not my place to do it for him. However, I do not think it is the governments place to tell me I have to believe that. Besides if a person conforms to christian ideas becuase he is forced to by the state, and not by his own will. Then is he really following christian beliefs?
..
Therightchange said on: February 18, 2010, 2:22 am
One small step for the liberal State Supreme Court which will bring on one giant step for death panels to decide which of us it is economical to treat and which of us should die from lack of medical attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment