The truth behind dying with dignity
(20) Comments
Inland Umpire said on: March 8, 2010, 7:24 pm Posts on all sides of this debate should recognize the great diversity of belief and practice among Christians regarding this issue. To allocate bipolar perspectives on the basis of whether or not someone is Christian is fallacious. Thoughtful people (cf. dogmatists) of all religious persuasions do not believe something because of a sectarian label; they associate with a particular faith tradition because it aligns with their personal spirituality. The same is true regarding whether and how people choose to express their sectarian or secular faith, including through end-of-life decisions. People's right to life and/or death comes from wherever they want it to.
Curmudgeon said on: March 6, 2010, 12:50 pm Since I'm not a Judaeo-Christian, please don't try to lay your religious scruples off on me BY LAW. The answer is simple: if your church doesn't agree with "death with dignity", don't ask for it.
yanakis said on: March 5, 2010, 10:27 pm You tossed out the concepts of secular humanism and Judeo-Christianity loosely. Somehow you typified this as a contest of world views with your belief as the best one for all of us to uphold. I read Keener’s letter which was full of examples from his personal memory. He didn’t make it about his beliefs.
Wow, I see you on a sacred crusade using the words of your belief system to bully others into submission. Your rant includes the Christian version of the how the US was developed along with the New Testament slant on how the Constitution was framed. The original framers were Deists who recently escaped from monotheistic despots, you know political bullies. So they were not seeking a reoccurrence but a means of defining personal dignity as the clash between freedom and responsibility with human sovereignty as a reasonable construct for debate. It is very difficult to accomplish so they gave us a guide, the Constitution. They did not give us infallibility. If you are implying the church fathers framed the Constitution then you are very wrong. Certain contentious renegades, philosophical reprobates and European religious outlaws with the assist of The Seven Tribes of The Iroquois Nation framed the unique document. Rebellion against authority was a feature but not primary.
You say Judeo-Christianity is necessary in order to keep us from a deprived and messy nature. What you are presenting is a solution to depravity; adherence to Christian principles. This suggests humans are indeed depraved as well as Christians. Not all humans are Christians. Maybe it would be better to suggest Christians who are depraved will find solace in the comfort of Christian guidance. Jews, Muslims and Hindus suggest their beliefs are also hedges against the multi-spectrum of human behaviors. First as a confirmed human my god is not a jealous god, nor vengeful or even almighty. After reading your form of legalism I prefer Deism as a constitutional forbearance, separation of church and ..., oh hell, I’m using reason against a belief.
Annie you also imply that dying with dignity is not a constitutionally supported event. Say what you will, but say it because you are a citizen of the US with civilian rights. You personally raise yourself on a scaffold of Christian elitism as you decry “dying with dignity” as an elitist answer from secular humans. This is so traditionally condescending I am perplexed. What was John Doran, the IR publisher, thinking? If an American family supported the “intrinsic value of every human being” then universal health care would be a no brainer. I might expect love, support and having my wishes met from age of reason to death. As an infant I could expect to be safe. As a senior citizen I might expect compassion. Might I choose to die with dignity, be protected by the laws, have all who love me, all who stand by me be safeguarded by laws? Not your law Annie, not one based on a vengeful, angry, elitist god of your projection, but one defined on civil rights.
Jack-Ruby said on: March 5, 2010, 4:19 pm The fallacious logic of the 'slippery slope' argument. We cant grant someone the freedom to make this choice because we will then inevitably open the door to something 'even worse' to come down the road.
Sisyphus said on: March 5, 2010, 3:57 pm Crush - What I hear here is most people saying --Get government out of my personal decisions, especially my end of life decisions. --
Government never had the right to step between me and my doctor or between me and my God.
Therefore, I'm not asking Government to intervene, I'm asking they get out of where they NEVER should have been.
Each individual has the Constitutional right to decide his own journey. It is up to them and their God to decide when that journey is over; not the Government, not the Church, not their family or neighbors, and certainly not Ms. Annie unless she is invited.
AnimalLover said on: March 5, 2010, 3:48 pm I completely agree crush728, we should keep people alive via any means available. I bet that we can spend $50,000 a week to keep my Grandma alive for those last few precious days. I am certain there are enough government programs available to cover those costs. If the cost of keeping her alive exceeds the benefits available to her, then the government can take a significant portion of her estate to make up the difference. I'm sure we can sell her crappy trailer in middle of nowhere South Dakota for about $10,000. (Yes, this is our financial reality) I have no problem if a person wants to live by any means; it's a fundamental part of being human. FYI, our country is going broke for this very reason. We can't do everything for everyone, I'm sorry. I know it's cold and heartless, but reality is a M'er F'er. Sorry to digress... Death is only something each person can face alone; I would think it would be better faced in a hospital with professionals trained to deal with it. It's much better than the OTC method suggested by the dear Dr. From past research, I have found that OTC forms of death will most likely leave a body that can be bloated, severe discoloration, vomiting, bleeding from various orifices... Just the thing for a loved one to see...
FrankD said on: March 5, 2010, 3:36 pm I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If my mother can choose to end my life with her feet up in the stirups, then I should be able to choose to end my life as I see fit as well. NUFF SAID!
crush728 said on: March 5, 2010, 1:36 pm I think a lot of the posters are missing the real point of this article which is stated (unfortunately) after all the religious talk.
Basically, Dr. Bukacek is right to say that there are already methods to ease the passing of a suffering individual. And she is right to say legislation will only lead to mis-use of 'dying with dignity' legislation.
I agree with her in these last paragraphs. Keep the government out, and err on the side of caution.
Think of it this way, are you against the death penalty? Why? Most people state that it's better to let a killer go lose than to kill an innocent man. Well, then, using that logic, it's better to keep someone alive a little longer then kill someone too early.
And for anyone who is going to shoot back, "just wait till you witness suffering" I worked at St. Jude Children's Research hospital for 5 years. I saw.
Darkness said on: March 5, 2010, 1:08 pm The truth about dying is everyone dies alone. You may have others there around you when you go, but in the end it is you that is dying. Death is a decidedly personal experience.
If you can't accept that you really haven't come to terms with life
HakonMontag said on: March 5, 2010, 11:15 am "Where in Declaration of Independence does it assert that our life comes from God and that life and right to life do not come from government, but from God?
Now that's about the scariest thing I've ever read...
My right to life comes from the government? Eech!
Bojangles said on: March 5, 2010, 10:52 am Bubabootie you're pretty funny. who's rational again?
Tell me why giving a person the right to make decisions about one of the most fundamental individual rights is so threatening to you crazy christians. All of Christianity is based on a leap of faith. Nothing about Christianity is 'rational'... walking on water, burning bushes, rising from the dead.. What's rational about those hoccus-poccus stories?! You might want to consider that the next time you espouse your greatness.
By the way.. "I hate liberals" isn't exactly what Jesus would do....
Christians have the right to fear death and live through the means of human built machines - Fine. You pay for it.. you can suffer a good christian's death. But if you have that right, I should have the right to go when called to. You have your god. I have mine, and everyone else has theirs.
The Christian religion has been about control from its inception. 'If you don't believe as I do, you will burn in hell.' This is no different.
Do unto others, folks! trust that others have their own relationships with God and let them follow the path laid before them.
checolbar said on: March 5, 2010, 9:40 am Very well said Dr. Bukacek!
I couldn't agree more!
Rambler01 said on: March 5, 2010, 9:22 am I have a whole lot of questions for Dr. Bukacek:
Where do you get the idea “secular humanists believe there is a group of elites capable of deciding whose life is worth living?”
Don’t priest (elites) interpret God’s word for Judo-Christians?
Where does your idea that our founding fathers built our country on a Judo-Christian world view? Have you heard the word Deist? Have you heard Jefferson and Adams and other founding fathers referred to as Deists?
Where in Declaration of Independence does it assert that our life comes from God and that life and right to life do not come from government, but from God?
By the way, our constitution starts with “We the people”. We were first country whose government derived its authority from the people, not from God. Might that have been purposeful?
Why do you believe we “need laws to impose morality?”
If you believe God is omnipotent why does he need mere humans to enforce His laws?
Can’t he do that all by himself?
dolphind3 said on: March 5, 2010, 9:21 am Dr., I hope that you don't have to watch someone you love die a painfull and long drawn out death. I have done it twice and it sucks. Some physicians think that they are god, maybe you should read factorfictions comment. Well said.
captbob said on: March 5, 2010, 9:18 am Interesting argument, but not particularly convincing. First, bring out the straw dog: "Secular humanists think so highly of our species that they believe there is a group of elites capable of deciding whose life is worth living." I know lots of secular humanists. Not one believes this. In fact, this argument is antithetical to the humanist belief that the individual is sovereign, not the other.
The coded appeal to "Judeo-Christian values" similarly does not ring true. Christians also share values with Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Wiccans, and Taoists, but that would alter the message that somehow people who believe in "Judeo-Christian" values are somehow separate, other, and better, than people who have different religious beliefs. Besides, "Judeo-Christian -Islamic-Hindu-Buddhist-Zoroastrian-Bahai-Wiccan-Taoist values" is just asking for trouble from your spell-checker.
The leap from a sovereign Creator to the distinctly Calvinist "While humans have this intrinsic dignity, they are also depraved, in need of a redeemer and the rule of law" was difficult to swallow.
This is not a Judeo-Christian value, this is a Protestant/Calvinist value. The Reformation was fought to argue this point. Good Catholics don't need rule of law, they have rule of the church. Jews have mitzvot (their own law), handed directly from God to Moses, and cannot be determined by legislatures. Why bring these theological distinctions into this argument unless it's meant to be some sort of code to intimate that this particular perspective on "the right to die" stems from a divine source? A perspective which the author wants to impose on the rest of her fellow citizens.
The idea that "Our country’s founding documents and the writings of our founding fathers reveal the Judeo-Christian world view is the one on which this country was built" couldn't be further from the truth.
Our constitution was designed specifically to prevent the rancorous and frequently corrosive influence of organized religion on political life. The authors of the Declaration and the Constitution were men of many faiths, (many of them personal faiths), and all could bear witness to the tyranny of religion in the realm of earthly politics. The separation of State from religion is explicit in many cases, and implicit in the pluralistic structure of the tripartite governing structure of our nation.
Finally, I'm puzzled by the insistence that we don't want "elites" making final decisions, but it's ok for medical professionals to ease pain and suffering to the point of death? Since when is it ok for medical professionals to interfere with the will of God? If God chooses to grant pain, isn't it a little presumptuous for medical professionals to ease that pain up to and until the point of death? Doesn't being drugged-up with morphine (or some derivative) interfere with that conversation with God that "Judeo-Christian" religions argue is the meaning of "natural" death?
I don't follow the thread here, and I'm trying very hard. I'm guessing that this boils down to, "Don't commit suicide because life and death should be in Gods hands."
What this argument doesn't address, and is at the core of of the right to die with dignity, is that sometimes, God has particularly cruel methods of inflicting human suffering and removing hope. Further, as human beings, with the ability to make our own decisions, it is perfectly ok to talk back to God, and redeem our own dignity in those areas we can control.
One could make the argument that this conversation is the essence of the conversation with God, and is one that enriches life. On the other hand, that conversation isn't particularly illuminating when one party is suffering dementia, or is in such pain that other thought is not possible.
to deny an individual's right to choice over their life, is to subsume the individual to external authority, be it another individual or a committee. This, by definitions, makes people in those positions, elites.
And surely the author doesn't suggest that elites should somehow determine who lives and who dies?
Sisyphus said on: March 5, 2010, 9:05 am Ms Annie purports to enlighten us with truth (she put that word in her title), while showering us solely with opinion.
The founding fathers were mostly Diests. The concept of Judeo-Christian didn't even surface until the end of the 19th Century, so to assign it to the Founding Fathers is anything but truth.
For an avowed Pro-Life Christian to declare she has cornered the heart, soul, and motivations of secular humanists to the point as to speak for all of them is too ignorant for words.
But, the real essence of this subject as it pertains to Ms. Annie is simple
If her suffering, terminally ill patients would rather she pray with them rather than put meds in their IV, that is their right. They have that choice and no one should insert themselves between her and her patient.
She shows her true colors when she refuses to extend that same right to other doctors and patients who make different choices.
No one is forcing people to end their lives, they are simply giving them that option to say goodbye to their loved ones and slip away with their wishes honored and their dignity intact.
The truth is, Ms Annie is not privy to conversations between dying patients and their God, so she can't know what is the best end of life choices for them to make.
FactorFiction said on: March 5, 2010, 8:46 am This editorial is simply preposterious. Patients are in charge of their treatment and medical care, not physicians. Patients seek out doctors for their care and not the other way around. If someone is experiencing debilitating pain or suffering it is up to them how they want to continue on, and not their physician.
HakonMontag said on: March 5, 2010, 8:28 am Your truth is not everyones truth.
Bojangles said on: March 5, 2010, 8:04 am Talk about elitist! You think that your beliefs about God are the only one's that count, that somehow you have a divine connection to interpret God's will. You and the rest of your christian pals are so self righteous and judgemental that you feel you have all the answers for the rest of us. You're sick if you think God's intention was for a bunch of doctors and crazy priests to hook every declining life to a machine! If you can so appreciate God's love, why are you all so afraid of dying?! And why is it that you think this life is so important that we must cling to it for every last artificial second when God comes calling.
No one is playing God more than you and your cronies!
bubabootie said on: March 5, 2010, 12:51 am Well done Dr. Bukacek.
Secular Humanists (read "liberals") always play to the emotional argument, rather than the rational one. Another failure of the initial article is that it doesn't take into account that still a majority of Montanans are of the Judeo-Christian faith (if not by actual faith, by upbringing). Yet again, laws that inacted by our representatives are supposed to reflect the majority of the constituents.
Why can't liberals just figure out this whole "constitution" thing and how government is supposed to work? It's not hard, we all had American Government in school.
