Posted on 01/31/2017 12:46:34 PM PST by servo1969
Last week, my two stepsons' father, a man who loved life, killed himself.
I would like to tell you why.
Two years ago, a 62-year-old father of three named Bruce Graham was standing on an ladder, inspecting his roof for a leak, when it slipped out from under him. He landed on top of the ladder on his back, breaking several ribs, puncturing a lung and tearing his intestine, which wasn't detected until he went into septic shock. Following surgery, he lapsed into a two-week coma.
In retrospect, it's unfortunate that he awoke from that coma because for all intents and purposes, his life ended with that fall. Not because his mind was affected -- it was completely intact until the moment he took his life -- but because while modern medicine was adept enough to keep him alive, it was unable or unwilling to help him deal with the excruciating pain that he experienced over the next two years. And life in constant excruciating pain with no hope of ever alleviating it is not worth living.
As a result of the surgery, Bruce developed abdominal scar tissue structures known as adhesions. Adhesions can be horribly painful, but they are difficult to diagnose because they don't appear in imaging, and no surgery in America or in Mexico (where, out of desperation, he also sought treatment) could remove them permanently. Many doctors dismiss adhesions, regarding the patient's pain as psychosomatic.
The pain prevented him from getting adequate sleep. And he could not eat without the pain spiking for hours. By the time of his death, he had lost almost half his body weight.
Prescription painkillers -- opioids -- relieved much of his pain, or at least kept it to a tolerable level. But after the initial recuperation period, no doctor would prescribe one, despite the fact that this man had a well-documented injury and no record of addiction to any drug, including opioids. Doctors either wouldn't prescribe them on an ongoing basis due to the threat of losing their medical license or being held legally liable for addiction or overdose, or deemed Bruce a hypochondriac.
The federal government and states like California have made it extremely difficult for physicians to prescribe painkillers for an extended period of time. The medical establishment and government bureaucrats have decided that it is better to allow people to suffer terrible pain than to risk them becoming addicted to opioids.
They believe it is better to allow any number of innocent people to suffer hideous pain for the rest of their lives than to risk any patient getting addicted and potentially dying from an overdose.
Dr. Stephen Marmer, who teaches psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, told me that he treated children with terminal cancer when he was an intern, and even they were denied painkillers, lest they become addicted.
Pain management seems to be the Achilles' heel of modern medicine, for philosophical reasons as well as medical. Remarkably, Dr. Thomas Frieden, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine last year, "Whereas the benefits of opioids for chronic pain remain uncertain, the risks of addiction and overdose are clear."
To most of us, this is cruel. Isn't the chance of accidental death from overdose, while in the meantime allowing patients to have some level of comfort, preferable to a life of endless severe pain?
Though I oppose suicide on religious/moral grounds and because of the emotional toll it takes on loved ones, I make an exception for people with unremitting, terrible pain. If that pain could be alleviated by painkilling medicines, and law and/or physicians deny them those medicines, it is they, not the suicide, who are morally guilty.
Bruce was ultimately treated by the system as an addict, not worthy of compassion or dignity. On the last morning of his life, after what was surely a long, lonely, horrific night of sleeplessness and agony, Bruce made two calls, two final attempts to acquire the painkillers he needed to get through another day. Neither friend could help him. Desperate to end the pain, he picked up a gun, pressed it to his chest and pulled the trigger. In a final noble act, he did not shoot himself in the head, even though that is the more certain way of dying immediately. He had told a friend some weeks earlier that if he were to take his life, he wouldn't want loved ones to experience the trauma-inducing mess that shooting himself in the head would leave. Instead, he shot himself in the heart.
An autopsy confirmed the presence of abdominal adhesions, as well as significant arthritis in his spine.
May Bruce Graham rest in peace. Some of us, however, will not live in peace until physicians' attitudes and the laws change.
I was (spinning)...in
traction....
Trying to blame ME for YOUR lack of defining murder as your chosen religion defines it.
Great; just another #NeverTrump_Lite on my hands.
You started it; right here....
Hi. Elsie. First of all, suicide is murder, and that means it's against the Lord's Command.
You can run and hide; Lucy; but you'll have to come out of that closet someday to splain yourself.
Thank you (I am a female BTW :) )
1. Give them free, unlimited opioids which would lead to a nation of addicts.
2. Give them unlimited opioids but at a cost. Not as many addicts, but the ones that do become addicted would turn to crime and what not to get the money for drugs.
3. Don't prescribe opioids. Those in pain would have to find other sources.
I know from experience that opioids, like all addictive drugs, trick yourself and your body into thinking that there's more pain then there actually is in order to feed the addiction. There's no moral judgment on this, it's just what happens. Keeping opioids rare IS the solution. We have a heroin epidemic because people got addicted in the first place.
I give you the invitation, the courtesy of being the one to offer an initial definition of key terms (which is considered a huge advantage in any debate, as I'm sure you know) and you give m nothing but the back of your hand. OK, here we go. More discussion of murder here:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/evvatsummary.htm
I would say authoritatively, in Evangelium Vitae n. 57:
"Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.There's the definition."The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity."
The Gospel of Christ gives us the most definitive reason for not destroying our bodies, as St. Paul says:
1 Corinthians 6:19-20
Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
So, back to you, Elsie.
I'm am befuddled by your 'bafflement'.
When are you going to address MURDER as your chosen religion defines it?
You; evidently; see things differently now.
I was talking to the chaplain about bad platitudes people use around death and he quickly got very mad as he recalled something from very early on in his career.
“Caleb,” he said. “I remember the worst thing I’ve ever heard.”
“At the time, I was a new chaplain at Caln Hospital and I was also a new pastor of a small, local church. A lot going on all at once. Which is often what happens when you’re fresh out of seminary as a new pastor.”
“I got a phone call late one night and it was a member of our church calling me. She was just hysterical.”
“I was trying to get her to calm down so I could understand what she was saying. And finally, she caught her breath and she told me her son had just shot himself in the attic. He shot himself in the head. Dead.”
He continued, “I’d seen a number of suicides and suicide attempts at Caln Hospital, but I knew this boy.”
“About 10 minutes before the service started, the boy’s mother came to me crying. She said, ‘Gerry, I’ve been doing so good during the viewing and visitation’. Gerry specified that it was a huge viewing, full of “on-lookers” as he called them. “But,” she said, “someone just came up to me and told me that she’ll be praying for me because she can’t imagine what it must feel like to know he not only killed himself but now he’s in hell.”
“Is that true?” she pleaded with Gerry. “Is my boy really in hell?”
Gerry stopped telling the story momentarily to let it all sink in. “I gave her a huge hug, and I told her as confidently as I could, ‘He’s not in hell.’ But I was so pissed.”
We commend his soul to the mercy of God.
AND?
Myself; and possibly some lurkers; are still waiting the CHURCH's definition of MURDER - since you seem reluctant to back up your previous assertion that suicide is MURDER (sometimes).
The problem is societal. We treat addicts with compassion and organize laws and behavior around helping them as if they will be OK if EVERYONE else changes their behavior.
Compassion for those with a true need for opiates due to chronic pain is secondary to junkies need to not be judged by society for their self destruction.
It’s too much to accommodate junkies who have an effectively incurable insatiable desire for opiates over those who have treatable pain, but are denied treatment because a junkie might end up with pills.
The fact is treating legitimate pain WILL kill junkies. We need to decide if it’s a worthwhile sacrifice. I think it is, but those who have an addicted family member or friend may believe that others should suffer so they can continue to live.
And then get sued when he falls off the roof. And in what universe do teenagers know how to fix a roof anyway? lol
I guess you must have missed #185, definition of murder.
So now, how does your chosen church define it?
So; Rome's take is EXACTLY what the Bible says; eh?
I guess it won't be launching any crusades in the near future.
The Swiss Guards can stand down now; as we don't want to accidently take the life of another human; for ANY reason!
First, since you have been repeatedly invited to do so, why don’t you supply a better definition? Don’t you have one?
Second, this is not a Bible verse, this is Natural Law. You might like to look into the book of Romans to see how Paul acknowledges Natural Law.
Third, you seem to have missed that the definition prohibits the *deliberate* taking of *innocent* human life. It is not vitalism or pacifism. It doesn’t rule out legitimate police and military action. In fact, the immunity of innocent people from directly intended attack is what makes legitimate police and military force *legitimate.*
It’s the difference between us and ISIS.
Not totally buying the premise, that a patient with real pain, can’t get neceaasry pain meds.
If the docter prescribes a 7 day supply, and the patient is back begging for more in 3 days, what should the doctor do?
I do not consider Prager to be wise in matters of addictions.
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.