Christ's decision was to obey the Will of His Father; it was in no way, shape or form a "c/b analysis."
You err in stating that '[one] does not suffer for the sins of others.' In fact, suffering 'for the sins of others' occurs regularly--witness the parental anguish over a wayward child. You would defend your statement by arguing that 'such suffering does not effect remission of the child's sin,'--true. However, it MAY relieve the purgatorial suffering of that child. Of course, I don't know how Purgatory figures into your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
The "a priori" injunction against simple--it's contained in the 5th Commandment. Under the commonly-accepted interpretation of the 5th, neither you nor I have the authority to actively end a life (whether it is your own, or mine, or Schiavo's.) Clearly, this is reflected in the onerous jurisprudential requirements for capital punishment to be applied.
Note that "actively ending" is FAR different from "passively allowing" a death to occur--the circumstances which Supercat outlined in his "in extremis" scenario.
You may, somehow, find a Biblical passage which gives you the authority to end your own, or another's, life. You will be the first, aside from Peter Singer and some of his predecessors (Nietzsche among those.) Few traditional Jews or Christians have followed the path of N. or S.
You misquote me. What I said was, "Although we occasionally suffer the repercussions of our own sins, we never suffer to discharge the sins of others." We do sometimes suffer from the sins of others (i.e. people injured by drunk drivers) but we never suffer for the sins of others. Christ did.
[Suffering] MAY relieve the purgatorial suffering of that child. Of course, I don't know how Purgatory figures into your own personal interpretation of Scripture.
Obviously, it doesn't, since 'purgatory' doesn't exist in Scripture. The RCC is an accretionist church (as are the Mormons) where additional doctrines can be (and have been) added to Scripture. 'Purgatory' is one which the RCC has added to its array. It is not found in Scripture.
The "a priori" injunction against simple--it's contained in the 5th Commandment. Under the commonly-accepted interpretation of the 5th, neither you nor I have the authority to actively end a life...
The 5th commandment reads, "You shall not murder." (Ex 20:13). It doesn't say "you shall not actively end a life." For that matter, it doesn't say "you shall not passively end a life" or "you shall not negligently end a life." (Although other passages do deal with negligent homicide.) It says simply, "You shall not murder." Now the "commonly-accepted interpretation" which you reference may be some RCC dogma, but it is not "commonly accepted" by anyone else.
Note that "actively ending" is FAR different from "passively allowing" a death to occur--the circumstances which Supercat outlined in his "in extremis" scenario.
No, once Supercat engages in his cost/benefit analysis and determines to withhold the treatment, medicine, etc, then death 'passively' ensues. But the withholding is an active decision, only the result is passive. As with Terri, the withholding of hydration was active, and the resulting death was passive.
Now RCC adherents attempt to distinguish treatment or medication from hydration, but the result is equally passive. You can imagine the mental pretzels involved in trying to find a Biblical distinction between treatment or medication on the one hand and hydration on the other. There is none.