Then it's allowing the patient to choose euthanasia for him/herself.
Then it's this:
Then we get to The Final Solution It will always end the same way. The idea is to desensitize the population first, in small steps.
Posted on 07/16/2016 9:27:04 AM PDT by Salvation
Q. I am a student nurse, and I never have yet had to deal with questions from patients about euthanasia. But I was wondering: When I am a nurse, if I have a patient who is serious about euthanasia and feels that it is the best choice for him or her, how should I respond? Would I be indirectly allowing that person to die by “passing the buck”? The nurse is the patient’s advocate, but what can I morally do if the patient’s wishes are incompatible with my morals as a Catholic, without stifling the patient’s autonomy?
Kelley, via e-mail
A. Your role as a patient’s advocate cannot eclipse your vocation as a disciple of Jesus and a Catholic. You should not be asked to violate your conscience and Church teaching on this matter. The Church teaching from the biblical tradition is clear that we cannot cooperate directly in an evil act, which euthanasia is, since it directly takes the life of another, usually by killing them through lethal injection.
|
|
|
|
If a patient speaks to you about his wish to be euthanized, it is best to avoid engaging in a debate. Rather you would probably do best to say that you cannot recommend such a course for medical, social and religious reasons.
Medically, euthanasia introduces grave distortions into medical practice by asking doctors and nurses to engage in an act of killing. But this is not the purpose of the medical community, which is oriented to bringing healing and care, not causing death.
To ask the medical community to facilitate euthanasia shifts the focus and puts increasing pressure on doctors and nurses to recommend death to lessen costs, etc.
Socially, euthanasia endangers the lives of others since the so-called right to die soon becomes the duty to die. The physically and mentally handicapped, and others who are chronically ill or suffer, will increasingly find their dignity discounted and their lives accounted as “not worth living.”
Pressure to euthanize them will surely grow as it has in some countries which have legalized euthanasia already. Religiously, euthanasia usurps God’s role as the one who gives life and determines a person’s years. Further, as Christians, we are taught the need and the glory of the Cross.
Suffering is not meaningless for a believer. Suffering when given to God produces glory and helps us to set our focus on heaven (see 2 Cor 4:10-18). Insofar as your patient’s autonomy goes, that is more of a legal matter that will depend on the passage of certain laws, etc. You cannot force him or her to agree with you, but you have some rights to advise them as to what you think, and you cannot be required to cooperate with them.
If they ask for another nurse, that would likely be their right, but you need not facilitate their request or find a pro-euthanasia nurse for them. Let them do the work and make the request to others.
Hence you are not “passing the buck.” Rather your stance must be to refuse to cooperate in evil, even if you cannot ultimately prevent it.
I hope this helps. Each situation will vary a bit, but these are some general principles to offer in what is currently a shifting legal landscape.
OSV column by Monsignor Pope. Ping!
First, do no harm.
But sometimes the practice of medicine causes death or premature death. It is a conundrum. Care and comfort is how I would promote it.
Is buying a sailboat and setting out to sea to perish over time a sin? Would walking into the woods making camp in a remote area and passing on (with a view) a sin?
Is blowing your brains out to avoid extreame torture and slow death by barbarians a sin?
It all depends on your intentions. You cannot hide your true intentions from God. With that said, “making a camp in a remote area, then awaiting death”, is my way of checking out fantasy. I don’t know what is a sin, since I don’t believe what religious leaders tell us. Helping someone die sooner by injecting them....would never do that. Giving them a ride out to the woods, sure thing. Same with helping them put the sailboat on the water. It allows them the choice for them alone. From my point of view, modern Hospice, is damn close to “Dr Death”. They “hurry things along” quite efficiently, instead of allowing a natural ending.
I got the thought about an old movie in which the Roman general had decided to commit suicide after losing a battle and not wanting to be captured. He asked one of his soldiers to hold the general’s sword while the general impaled himself on it. One soldier refused, another complied.
To me, the position of the nurse presented here is similar, she is being ask to assist in a suicide. By Catholic teachings and Christian morality, she is required to refuse to participate. Also, current law would charge her with murder.
Best way to avoid this issue is don’t practise in a state where it is practised
>>Also, current law would charge her with murder.<<
Not in Oregon or Nevada.
Euthanasia begins with empathy, is sustained with false empathy, soon is carried out in the name of convenience and economy, and irrevocably ends as homicidal predation against the young, the old, and those least able to resist.
In practice there is *no* righteous euthanasia, and it is dreadfully harmful to the soul. An argument can be made that it is worse than suicide.
What is the definition of euthanasia? My mother in law who was in her 80’s suffered a severe stroke, causing visual loss, inability to communicate and move. My husband and I elected to not have a feeding tube inserted, because she had drilled into us( for many years) to never do to that to her if she became incapacitated. We let her pass away comfortably with morphine for pain.
A nurse is never required to assist in abortions, but they may be required to take care of a patient if medical care is withheld, like my mother in law.
**Medically, euthanasia introduces grave distortions into medical practice by asking doctors and nurses to engage in an act of killing. But this is not the purpose of the medical community, which is oriented to bringing healing and care, not causing death. **
And by asking family ......
Thank goodness, the family and physicians dont have to ask you. When you are bedridden, sitting in your own waste with bedsores, cannot see, comprehend, or communicate you might change your tune.
I’m not surprised at Oregon but am at Nevada...however, nearly everything is a gamble there.
A good post Brumuy.
Kaila, you were the family in this case and you made the call in alignment with your mother’s wishes. She was at a point where ‘extreme measures’ would have kept the body alive with no hope of recovery.
In your case, as in a near similar case with my own mother a year ago, you elected to follow her wishes for her to die a natural death. The morphine merely kept the pain under control. I was fortunate that after the removal of the iv to prevent dehydration because the doctor invoked her living will excluding extreme measures, and sent her back to the nursing home she asked for water and began drinking and eating on her own, which she had not done for 4 days in the ICU. She is still alive, but I was set for her to be dead before i arrived at the hospital from where I live out of state.
Your mother was NOT in a condition where I understand most euthanisia cases are of “I just don’t want to live any more.” She was terminally ill.
In yet another example of linguistic distortion for propaganda purposes, the left prefers the term “assisted suicide”.
According to lefty intentionally obfuscatory logic, it’s really only suicide, you see, not murder. The victim —er —courageous patient is really just offing himself, and by so doing, is boldly seizing control of his own fate. Nobody’s forcing him. The others are just “assisting” him, like good little smiley helpers.
In fact, the word “suicide” literally means “self murder.” There is no such thing as “assisted self murder.” If another’s hand is involved, it is no longer “suicide” but “homicide” which means, literally, “death at the hands of another person.”
This utter nonsense is typical of the left’s efforts to scramble the collective consciousness, making that which is evil seem noble and idealistic.
God gave us a higher intelligence than animal instinct, which allows humans to **recognize** good and evil. He also gave us free will, the ability to **choose** between good and evil.
Thus, the nurse in the OP should respond, “If you’re determined to commit suicide, you’re on your own. Leave me out of it.”
Then it's allowing the patient to choose euthanasia for him/herself.
Then it's this:
Then we get to The Final Solution It will always end the same way. The idea is to desensitize the population first, in small steps.
Good post. We are warned by God.
2324 Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.