Philosophy Now Forum

Alex Carley looks briefly at the role of reason in the euthanasia debate.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/89/In_D ... ing_to_Die

To use force to ensure a person remains alive is criminal and to insist that a person's demise be avoided by any means is cruel and callous. To continue to treat a patient when the outcome is inevitably death is not being compassionate or sensible. If death is the only eventual outcome all effort should be made to eliminate pain or reduce it to make the patient's little time left comfortable, with the only intervention being drugs to dull the symptoms of the disease, but not treating the disease, as well as providing support emotionally and/or spiritually to that person. I suppose this could be called passive euthanasia. It would be difficult to use reason only when deciding one's own death, I would imagine that "intuitive reason" would also play a part in that decision.

This seems to me to be almost impossible to say how one would decide, unless personally faced with the actuality of one's own death.

reasonvemotion wrote:To use force to ensure a person remains alive is criminal and to insist that a person's demise be avoided by any means is cruel and callous. To continue to treat a patient when the outcome is inevitably death is not being compassionate or sensible. If death is the only eventual outcome all effort should be made to eliminate pain or reduce it to make the patient's little time left comfortable, with the only intervention being drugs to dull the symptoms of the disease, but not treating the disease, as well as providing support emotionally and/or spiritually to that person. I suppose this could be called passive euthanasia. It would be difficult to use reason only when deciding one's own death, I would imagine that "intuitive reason" would also play a part in that decision.

This seems to me to be almost impossible to say how one would decide, unless personally faced with the actuality of one's own death.

Do you consider yourself to be at odds with your fellow theists, some of who consider life to be sacred; others who consider disease to be judgement; and others who reject all treatment and pain relief?
Since you are in the habit of consulting the Scriptures on serious matters, what do they say on this topic?

Do you consider yourself to be at odds with your fellow theists, some of who consider life to be sacred; others who consider disease to be judgement; and others who reject all treatment and pain relief?
Since you are in the habit of consulting the Scriptures on serious matters, what do they say on this topic?

I will be very happy to. But first, I would like to hear your views on this topic.

I wont deny you your opportunity to use your "big guns out to get me", but I am interested on your take on this topic, too.

So, when challenged you choose not to divulge your view on "In defence of deciding to Die".

Why is that?

reasonvemotion wrote:So, when challenged you choose not to divulge your view on "In defence of deciding to Die".

Why is that?

So when I challenged you to say what the Scriptures say on this matter, you responded by asking me a question!

Actually the only reason I did not respond is because I forget to "subscribe' to the thread.

My view on the right to decide to die, is simple enough, and I have expressed it more than once on this Forum. I have always thought this way, and my clash with cancer did nothing to change my mind.
My life is my own, I if I decide to die, it will be my decision and I will not take heed of any religion, or government's view on the subject. Personally I will stay alive as long as bearable for my son and partner, but as I have discussed this with them they realise that when I am ready, it is will be my final decision.
As for all other people, I hold that it has to be their personal decision. If they want to consult with other authorities then that also is their right. But I would resist any attempt by a government or a religion to impose any demand that would impinge on a person's right to choose.
Is there anything you are not clear about?
Now can you answer my question?

Thank you for answering my question.

I will reply but need to think about this.

Do you consider yourself to be at odds with your fellow theists, some of who consider life to be sacred; others who consider disease to be judgement; and others who reject all treatment and pain relief?
Since you are in the habit of consulting the Scriptures on serious matters, what do they say on this topic?

Life is sacred and it says this in Scriptures along with thy shalt not murder. Disease is experienced by all of us and it has no meritorious value. There is nothing in the Scriptures that forbids a person to seek medical treatment. God gave to man power and the freedom to choose. Whatever man chooses for himself is his decision, his consequences, his life. I am not at odds with other theists. If I need an answer I look for it in the Scriptures, not in a Church, not word of mouth from 'fellow theists", because nine times out of ten these "fellows" have never consulted the Bible. It is a powerful book.

reasonvemotion wrote:

Do you consider yourself to be at odds with your fellow theists, some of who consider life to be sacred; others who consider disease to be judgement; and others who reject all treatment and pain relief?
Since you are in the habit of consulting the Scriptures on serious matters, what do they say on this topic?

Life is sacred and it says this in Scriptures along with thy shalt not murder. Disease is experienced by all of us and it has no meritorious value.

Many would disagree. A god that is all powerful and all-everything does nothing without a reason. Disease is often considered as god's judgement upon we sinners. Floods and storms are also claimed by leading churchmen to be judgements upon society; AIDS against gays etc..

There is nothing in the Scriptures that forbids a person to seek medical treatment.

There are many of your fellow theists who would also disagree given my comment above.

God gave to man power and the freedom to choose. Whatever man chooses for himself is his decision, his consequences, his life. I am not at odds with other theists.

Yes you are. I would suggest that the majority of theists are right now resisting euthanasia, suicide, and assisted dying.

If I need an answer I look for it in the Scriptures, not in a Church, not word of mouth from 'fellow theists", because nine times out of ten these "fellows" have never consulted the Bible. It is a powerful book.

So if the bible is a good source of advise on this subject, what passages do you use to justify your position?
There is plenty to justify it Abimelech, Samson (in Judges)and Joshua Ben Josef all committed suicide or chose to die when they could have avoided it.
Which makes me ponder where the rest of the theists get their justification from.

So if the bible is a good source of advise on this subject, what passages do you use to justify your position?
There is plenty to justify it Abimelech, Samson (in Judges)and Joshua Ben Josef all committed suicide or chose to die when they could have avoided it.
Which makes me ponder where the rest of the theists get their justification from.

I could give you many chapters, verses, nothing will convince you. Trying to change a person's thinking in regard to God's word is a near impossibility. Was not Jesus the greatest teacher of all, yet he could not reach everyone. We all have freeedom to choose who we will believe in and God, will never interfere with our choice. Believers will feel like a minority, because they are a minority. An example, this Forum. Look at Noah's day. That is the way is has always been. Sodom is another example.

Come unto me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.-Matthew 11:28.

reasonvemotion wrote:

So if the bible is a good source of advise on this subject, what passages do you use to justify your position?
There is plenty to justify it Abimelech, Samson (in Judges)and Joshua Ben Josef all committed suicide or chose to die when they could have avoided it.
Which makes me ponder where the rest of the theists get their justification from.

I could give you many chapters, verses, nothing will convince you. Trying to change a person's thinking in regard to God's word is a near impossibility. Was not Jesus the greatest teacher of all, yet he could not reach everyone. We all have freeedom to choose who we will believe in and God, will never interfere with our choice. Believers will feel like a minority, because they are a minority. An example, this Forum. Look at Noah's day. That is the way is has always been. Sodom is another example.

Come unto me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.-Matthew 11:28.

You are arguing against yourself

But no Jesus was never the greatest teacher. I think that might have been Buddha, or even Mohammed. Not that either of them were teaching the truth.

I disagree.

Some of us choose to believe the Scriptures and the vast majority choose not to. Why is it impossible to change a person's view point? Because he gave us free will to make our own choice and that is why Jesus was the greatest teacher. The choice is each persons to make.

reasonvemotion wrote:I disagree.

Then you, like most religious people, disagree with the truth and shy away from reality, so much so that you fail to recognise times when a person is agreeing with you - that is the blindness of faith. I pity you.

Some of us choose to believe the Scriptures and the vast majority choose not to. Why is it impossible to change a person's view point? Because he gave us free will to make our own choice and that is why Jesus was the greatest teacher. The choice is each persons to make.

Since you are not aware of all the teachers ever born, or living, you can't make that statement. You just look like the fool that you are.

Since you are not aware of all the teachers ever born, or living, you can't make that statement. You just look like the fool that you are.

Then a fool I will gladly be.