Positive Step for the Right-To-Die Movement

[SolEX01]

Another thing... You are making a religious argument for a secular concern.

And you're making a secular argument for what is essentially a religious concern, for truth is truth regardless of what religion you are.

But why should those who have a different understanding of God, or perhaps no faith in God at all, be forced to comply with specific religious dogmas when it comes to one of the most important parts of their lives: dying?

If someone wants to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head or taking an overdose of pills, I suppose there's not a damn thing any law can do to stop him. Is such a person going to be concerned about the law at that point? When such a person calls for the assistance of a physician, however, then we can and should prohibit the physician from assisting in one's suicide and punish any physician who disobeys this prohibition.

Here is a dirty little secret.. if you go to a hospice or even sometimes if you are still in the hospital, they will wait until the family arrives, good byes are said if possible. Then they crank up the morphine..

Ask any nurse..

A family friend spent his final 63 days in the hospital after suffering from mesothelioma.  I don't believe his life was unnecessarily prolonged.  He was alert to the very end.  He couldn't leave the hospital because he couldn't breathe without receiving oxygen through the nose due to having fluid on the lungs.  The nurses at that hospital provided basic care to keep him alive.  This was 2004.

Now you're saying that medical facilities are prolonging the lives of the nearly-dead just to get a few more dollars from the government / private insurance?  Is that trend the reason why my church handed out Living Will documents and a refresher course on how the Orthodox view death?

[SolEX01]

That is a very sad story. My mother was forced to endure waaay too much suffering at the end of her life, and wanted to have her life ended a month before she finally starved to death and her organs failed (Pancreatic Cancer). A year before her, my grandmother died of ALS, and would have probably accepted assisted suicide. Shortly after my mom passed, I joined this group: http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/ We show mercy to suffering animals. We need to allow humans to die with dignity, too. The entire process would have to be as airtight and secure as possible so that it doesn't get abused. But things need to change.

I seem to recall a study in the Netherlands that 40% of the time the doctors didn't tell the patient when they were cashing in their chips.

then there's that problem with eager heirs....

Then there is the problem of eager nursing homes who want to drain you of your last cent and keep you alive until they do.

If you are 65 years old today you have a 73% chance of eventually needing Long Term Care. They have turned keeping people alive, yet  debilitated into an Art form. They are artificially keeping people alive past any reasonable natural end.

That too, though at that point you are dealing with the end of the nursing home industry where they are just mausuleums for the living, and even the heirs have given up and there is nothing left.  I seem to remember seeing something about a stay averaging less than 6 months, not enough to go through the average estate.

I also recall that recent case in, was it MN?, where the home wanted to pull the plug but the husband didn't want to, and he had the funds to keep it going.

The average stay is 3 years.. Longer for women.. Longer still if you cut out people who die in the first three months they are there.There is often a period of home care and sometimes Assisted Living before going to a skilled nursing home that is also expensive.

Long Term Care claims run on average between $250,000 and $700,000. $450,000 is what we advise people to have ready. That wipes out most estates and can leave the surviving spouse impoverished or the kids without a meaningful inheritance.

I'm sure the same is true everywhere, estate attorneys are getting a lot of phone calls from people who can't afford Long Term Care and advising people to put assets in trusts in order to become eligible for Medicaid (because Medicaid has some 3 year asset depletion rule for people over 65).

[Marc1152]

Another thing... You are making a religious argument for a secular concern.

And you're making a secular argument for what is essentially a religious concern, for truth is truth regardless of what religion you are.

But why should those who have a different understanding of God, or perhaps no faith in God at all, be forced to comply with specific religious dogmas when it comes to one of the most important parts of their lives: dying?

If someone wants to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head or taking an overdose of pills, I suppose there's not a damn thing any law can do to stop him. Is such a person going to be concerned about the law at that point? When such a person calls for the assistance of a physician, however, then we can and should prohibit the physician from assisting in one's suicide and punish any physician who disobeys this prohibition.

Here is a dirty little secret.. if you go to a hospice or even sometimes if you are still in the hospital, they will wait until the family arrives, good byes are said if possible. Then they crank up the morphine..

Ask any nurse..

A family friend spent his final 63 days in the hospital after suffering from mesothelioma.  I don't believe his life was unnecessarily prolonged.  He was alert to the very end.  He couldn't leave the hospital because he couldn't breathe without receiving oxygen through the nose due to having fluid on the lungs.  The nurses at that hospital provided basic care to keep him alive.  This was 2004.

Now you're saying that medical facilities are prolonging the lives of the nearly-dead just to get a few more dollars from the government / private insurance?  Is that trend the reason why my church handed out Living Will documents and a refresher course on how the Orthodox view death?

Things like a do not resuscitate order within a living will or some such is for sudden dramatic situations. However, in my experience, if someone is choking they will step in or if they have the flu they will give anti-biotics no matter what your living will says. There are big bucks at stake.

But the main thing is the feeding tube. They will find a way to get one in and then you have bought a couple of years of twilite life.

I have unfortunately spent a lot of time in nursing homes, plus it is also related to my business ( I am a Long Term Care Insurance Specialist).

People start to atrophy. Their hands curl up. They permanently assume the fetal position. They are fed by tube. Sometime they vocalize little screams every few minutes..... Too often they are more dead than alive.

 People deserve a better end than that.

"Dear kids,

Have them hit me up with a lots of morphine when the time comes

God will understand. "

Marc

[stavros_388]

Another thing... You are making a religious argument for a secular concern.

And you're making a secular argument for what is essentially a religious concern, for truth is truth regardless of what religion you are.

But why should those who have a different understanding of God, or perhaps no faith in God at all, be forced to comply with specific religious dogmas when it comes to one of the most important parts of their lives: dying?

If someone wants to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head or taking an overdose of pills, I suppose there's not a damn thing any law can do to stop him. Is such a person going to be concerned about the law at that point? When such a person calls for the assistance of a physician, however, then we can and should prohibit the physician from assisting in one's suicide and punish any physician who disobeys this prohibition.

Here is a dirty little secret.. if you go to a hospice or even sometimes if you are still in the hospital, they will wait until the family arrives, good byes are said if possible. Then they crank up the morphine..

Ask any nurse..

No doubt.

[Marc1152]

That is a very sad story. My mother was forced to endure waaay too much suffering at the end of her life, and wanted to have her life ended a month before she finally starved to death and her organs failed (Pancreatic Cancer). A year before her, my grandmother died of ALS, and would have probably accepted assisted suicide. Shortly after my mom passed, I joined this group: http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/ We show mercy to suffering animals. We need to allow humans to die with dignity, too. The entire process would have to be as airtight and secure as possible so that it doesn't get abused. But things need to change.

I seem to recall a study in the Netherlands that 40% of the time the doctors didn't tell the patient when they were cashing in their chips.

then there's that problem with eager heirs....

Then there is the problem of eager nursing homes who want to drain you of your last cent and keep you alive until they do.

If you are 65 years old today you have a 73% chance of eventually needing Long Term Care. They have turned keeping people alive, yet  debilitated into an Art form. They are artificially keeping people alive past any reasonable natural end.

That too, though at that point you are dealing with the end of the nursing home industry where they are just mausuleums for the living, and even the heirs have given up and there is nothing left.  I seem to remember seeing something about a stay averaging less than 6 months, not enough to go through the average estate.

I also recall that recent case in, was it MN?, where the home wanted to pull the plug but the husband didn't want to, and he had the funds to keep it going.

The average stay is 3 years.. Longer for women.. Longer still if you cut out people who die in the first three months they are there.There is often a period of home care and sometimes Assisted Living before going to a skilled nursing home that is also expensive.

Long Term Care claims run on average between $250,000 and $700,000. $450,000 is what we advise people to have ready. That wipes out most estates and can leave the surviving spouse impoverished or the kids without a meaningful inheritance.

I'm sure the same is true everywhere, estate attorneys are getting a lot of phone calls from people who can't afford Long Term Care and advising people to put assets in trusts in order to become eligible for Medicaid (because Medicaid has some 3 year asset depletion rule for people over 65).

Putting on my professional hat for a moment..

There is no dodgy way around the costs of Long Term Care anymore. Things like "putting your money into a trust", is no longer allowable.

There is now a five year look back period for dis allowed transfers of money ( attempt's hide it or give it away so you can get on Medicaide).
If they find any, the penalty period BEGINS from when you get sick enough to need care. There are no more tricky ways around paying your bill unless you give everything away to your kids five years or more before needing care..Good luck with that.

If someone is too poor to purchase Long Term Care Insurance then they have no business going to an estate attorney. If they are poor, then they run through all their money until it gets down to $2,500. in most States and then they go on welfare, Medicaid. If there is a well spouse involved than there is some allowances made for his or her upkeep. Medicaid only pays for Nursing Homes, no home care or assisted living.

Only three things pay for Long Term Care: 1. Your own cash 2. Welfare 3. Insurance

[SolEX01]

Another thing... You are making a religious argument for a secular concern.

And you're making a secular argument for what is essentially a religious concern, for truth is truth regardless of what religion you are.

But why should those who have a different understanding of God, or perhaps no faith in God at all, be forced to comply with specific religious dogmas when it comes to one of the most important parts of their lives: dying?

If someone wants to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head or taking an overdose of pills, I suppose there's not a damn thing any law can do to stop him. Is such a person going to be concerned about the law at that point? When such a person calls for the assistance of a physician, however, then we can and should prohibit the physician from assisting in one's suicide and punish any physician who disobeys this prohibition.

Here is a dirty little secret.. if you go to a hospice or even sometimes if you are still in the hospital, they will wait until the family arrives, good byes are said if possible. Then they crank up the morphine..

Ask any nurse..

A family friend spent his final 63 days in the hospital after suffering from mesothelioma.  I don't believe his life was unnecessarily prolonged.  He was alert to the very end.  He couldn't leave the hospital because he couldn't breathe without receiving oxygen through the nose due to having fluid on the lungs.  The nurses at that hospital provided basic care to keep him alive.  This was 2004.

Now you're saying that medical facilities are prolonging the lives of the nearly-dead just to get a few more dollars from the government / private insurance?  Is that trend the reason why my church handed out Living Will documents and a refresher course on how the Orthodox view death?

Things like a do not resuscitate order within a living will or some such is for sudden dramatic situations. However, in my experience, if someone is choking they will step in or if they have the flu they will give anti-biotics no matter what your living will says. There are big bucks at stake.

But the main thing is the feeding tube. They will find a way to get one in and then you have bought a couple of years of twilite life.

The medical facility will do what it wants to do independent of my wishes or the wishes of my "Health Care Agent" specified in my living will.

I have unfortunately spent a lot of time in nursing homes, plus it is also related to my business ( I am a Long Term Care Insurance Specialist).

People start to atrophy. Their hands curl up. They permanently assume the fetal position. They are fed by tube. Sometime they vocalize little screams every few minutes..... Too often they are more dead than alive.

 People deserve a better end than that.

Was it the Terri Schiavo case that gave medical facilities the right to use these life prolonging measures?

"Dear kids,

Have them hit me up with a lots of morphine when the time comes

God will understand. "

Marc

Is that allowed for a living will, to die from a morphine overdose?

[SolEX01]

That is a very sad story. My mother was forced to endure waaay too much suffering at the end of her life, and wanted to have her life ended a month before she finally starved to death and her organs failed (Pancreatic Cancer). A year before her, my grandmother died of ALS, and would have probably accepted assisted suicide. Shortly after my mom passed, I joined this group: http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/ We show mercy to suffering animals. We need to allow humans to die with dignity, too. The entire process would have to be as airtight and secure as possible so that it doesn't get abused. But things need to change.

I seem to recall a study in the Netherlands that 40% of the time the doctors didn't tell the patient when they were cashing in their chips.

then there's that problem with eager heirs....

Then there is the problem of eager nursing homes who want to drain you of your last cent and keep you alive until they do.

If you are 65 years old today you have a 73% chance of eventually needing Long Term Care. They have turned keeping people alive, yet  debilitated into an Art form. They are artificially keeping people alive past any reasonable natural end.

That too, though at that point you are dealing with the end of the nursing home industry where they are just mausuleums for the living, and even the heirs have given up and there is nothing left.  I seem to remember seeing something about a stay averaging less than 6 months, not enough to go through the average estate.

I also recall that recent case in, was it MN?, where the home wanted to pull the plug but the husband didn't want to, and he had the funds to keep it going.

The average stay is 3 years.. Longer for women.. Longer still if you cut out people who die in the first three months they are there.There is often a period of home care and sometimes Assisted Living before going to a skilled nursing home that is also expensive.

Long Term Care claims run on average between $250,000 and $700,000. $450,000 is what we advise people to have ready. That wipes out most estates and can leave the surviving spouse impoverished or the kids without a meaningful inheritance.

I'm sure the same is true everywhere, estate attorneys are getting a lot of phone calls from people who can't afford Long Term Care and advising people to put assets in trusts in order to become eligible for Medicaid (because Medicaid has some 3 year asset depletion rule for people over 65).

Putting on my professional hat for a moment..

There is no dodgy way around the costs of Long Term Care anymore. Things like "putting your money into a trust", is no longer allowable.

What's changed?
 

There is now a five year look back period for dis allowed transfers of money ( attempt's hide it or give it away so you can get on Medicaide).
If they find any, the penalty period BEGINS from when you get sick enough to need care. There are no more tricky ways around paying your bill unless you give everything away to your kids five years or more before needing care..Good luck with that.

I thought the trust allowed one to give away all assets while continuing to receive income, or sell them (e.g. property).

If someone is too poor to purchase Long Term Care Insurance then they have no business going to an estate attorney. If they are poor, then they run through all their money until it gets down to $2,500. in most States and then they go on welfare, Medicaid. If there is a well spouse involved than there is some allowances made for his or her upkeep. Medicaid only pays for Nursing Homes, no home care or assisted living.

Only three things pay for Long Term Care: 1. Your own cash 2. Welfare 3. Insurance

Welfare = Medicaid which is not covered anywhere else but a Nursing Home?

[Marc1152]

Another thing... You are making a religious argument for a secular concern.

And you're making a secular argument for what is essentially a religious concern, for truth is truth regardless of what religion you are.

But why should those who have a different understanding of God, or perhaps no faith in God at all, be forced to comply with specific religious dogmas when it comes to one of the most important parts of their lives: dying?

If someone wants to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head or taking an overdose of pills, I suppose there's not a damn thing any law can do to stop him. Is such a person going to be concerned about the law at that point? When such a person calls for the assistance of a physician, however, then we can and should prohibit the physician from assisting in one's suicide and punish any physician who disobeys this prohibition.

Here is a dirty little secret.. if you go to a hospice or even sometimes if you are still in the hospital, they will wait until the family arrives, good byes are said if possible. Then they crank up the morphine..

Ask any nurse..

A family friend spent his final 63 days in the hospital after suffering from mesothelioma.  I don't believe his life was unnecessarily prolonged.  He was alert to the very end.  He couldn't leave the hospital because he couldn't breathe without receiving oxygen through the nose due to having fluid on the lungs.  The nurses at that hospital provided basic care to keep him alive.  This was 2004.

Now you're saying that medical facilities are prolonging the lives of the nearly-dead just to get a few more dollars from the government / private insurance?  Is that trend the reason why my church handed out Living Will documents and a refresher course on how the Orthodox view death?

Things like a do not resuscitate order within a living will or some such is for sudden dramatic situations. However, in my experience, if someone is choking they will step in or if they have the flu they will give anti-biotics no matter what your living will says. There are big bucks at stake.

But the main thing is the feeding tube. They will find a way to get one in and then you have bought a couple of years of twilite life.

The medical facility will do what it wants to do independent of my wishes or the wishes of my "Health Care Agent" specified in my living will.

I have unfortunately spent a lot of time in nursing homes, plus it is also related to my business ( I am a Long Term Care Insurance Specialist).

People start to atrophy. Their hands curl up. They permanently assume the fetal position. They are fed by tube. Sometime they vocalize little screams every few minutes..... Too often they are more dead than alive.

 People deserve a better end than that.

Was it the Terri Schiavo case that gave medical facilities the right to use these life prolonging measures?

"Dear kids,

Have them hit me up with a lots of morphine when the time comes

God will understand. "

Marc

Is that allowed for a living will, to die from a morphine overdose?

Living wills are good. You should have one. Just don't be naive about it. Having a strong family advocate that hovers over you like a hawk is really the best thing IMHO.

Also, money talks. Having enough either through your savings or Insurance to throw at the situation can keep you out of the nursing home by being able to afford lots of home care and then an assisted living facility.. Assisted Living facilities are rather nice places most of the time.

[Marc1152]

That is a very sad story. My mother was forced to endure waaay too much suffering at the end of her life, and wanted to have her life ended a month before she finally starved to death and her organs failed (Pancreatic Cancer). A year before her, my grandmother died of ALS, and would have probably accepted assisted suicide. Shortly after my mom passed, I joined this group: http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/ We show mercy to suffering animals. We need to allow humans to die with dignity, too. The entire process would have to be as airtight and secure as possible so that it doesn't get abused. But things need to change.

I seem to recall a study in the Netherlands that 40% of the time the doctors didn't tell the patient when they were cashing in their chips.

then there's that problem with eager heirs....

Then there is the problem of eager nursing homes who want to drain you of your last cent and keep you alive until they do.

If you are 65 years old today you have a 73% chance of eventually needing Long Term Care. They have turned keeping people alive, yet  debilitated into an Art form. They are artificially keeping people alive past any reasonable natural end.

That too, though at that point you are dealing with the end of the nursing home industry where they are just mausuleums for the living, and even the heirs have given up and there is nothing left.  I seem to remember seeing something about a stay averaging less than 6 months, not enough to go through the average estate.

I also recall that recent case in, was it MN?, where the home wanted to pull the plug but the husband didn't want to, and he had the funds to keep it going.

The average stay is 3 years.. Longer for women.. Longer still if you cut out people who die in the first three months they are there.There is often a period of home care and sometimes Assisted Living before going to a skilled nursing home that is also expensive.

Long Term Care claims run on average between $250,000 and $700,000. $450,000 is what we advise people to have ready. That wipes out most estates and can leave the surviving spouse impoverished or the kids without a meaningful inheritance.

I'm sure the same is true everywhere, estate attorneys are getting a lot of phone calls from people who can't afford Long Term Care and advising people to put assets in trusts in order to become eligible for Medicaid (because Medicaid has some 3 year asset depletion rule for people over 65).

Putting on my professional hat for a moment..

There is no dodgy way around the costs of Long Term Care anymore. Things like "putting your money into a trust", is no longer allowable.

What's changed?
 

There is now a five year look back period for dis allowed transfers of money ( attempt's hide it or give it away so you can get on Medicaide).
If they find any, the penalty period BEGINS from when you get sick enough to need care. There are no more tricky ways around paying your bill unless you give everything away to your kids five years or more before needing care..Good luck with that.

I thought the trust allowed one to give away all assets while continuing to receive income, or sell them (e.g. property).

If someone is too poor to purchase Long Term Care Insurance then they have no business going to an estate attorney. If they are poor, then they run through all their money until it gets down to $2,500. in most States and then they go on welfare, Medicaid. If there is a well spouse involved than there is some allowances made for his or her upkeep. Medicaid only pays for Nursing Homes, no home care or assisted living.

Only three things pay for Long Term Care: 1. Your own cash 2. Welfare 3. Insurance

Welfare = Medicaid which is not covered anywhere else but a Nursing Home?

They turned the screws down about 2 years ago. They have put many Medicaid Planning Attorneys out of business, though there is still a narrow use for them.

No trusts. No annuities... no giving your stuff away. Not only is there a FIVE YEAR look back, but if you incur a penalty  period ( a time period that you cant get on medicaid) it used to run from when you made the illegal transfer. NOW, it starts from when you actually need the care. 

Medicaid only pays for a skilled Nursing Home. No Home Care. No assisted living, There are  some very very minor exceptions.

[PeterTheAleut]

Another thing... You are making a religious argument for a secular concern.

And you're making a secular argument for what is essentially a religious concern, for truth is truth regardless of what religion you are.

But why should those who have a different understanding of God, or perhaps no faith in God at all, be forced to comply with specific religious dogmas when it comes to one of the most important parts of their lives: dying?

If someone wants to commit suicide by shooting himself in the head or taking an overdose of pills, I suppose there's not a damn thing any law can do to stop him. Is such a person going to be concerned about the law at that point? When such a person calls for the assistance of a physician, however, then we can and should prohibit the physician from assisting in one's suicide and punish any physician who disobeys this prohibition.

Here is a dirty little secret.. if you go to a hospice or even sometimes if you are still in the hospital, they will wait until the family arrives, good byes are said if possible. Then they crank up the morphine..

Ask any nurse..

Yes, there is a very fine line between giving someone enough morphine to alleviate the intense pain some experience in their last days and giving someone a morphine overdose. I'm not going to judge any nurse that does this since that line is different for each patient. There's just no way of knowing that the morphine you think is enough to ease the pain is actually just a tad too much.

[ialmisry]

I seem to recall a study in the Netherlands that 40% of the time the doctors didn't tell the patient when they were cashing in their chips.

It's true. One of the few reasons why I'm ashamed to be Dutch. They'll sometimes pull the plug even without permission.

Actually, were it not for what seems a deeply ingrained work ethic and residual morality, the place would have collapsed into a pile of libertinism.  That it hasn't says much for the resilience of Dutch culture.

That's the result of centuries of calvinism. It's indeed still deep within the Dutch, even if they're not religious anymore. It's curious that the secularisation of the Netherlands was mostly because of the Americanisation of society.

yeah....we only export the best

[orthonorm]

Do you really think it's ok to ask someone else, family member, friend, or "medical expert" to kill you?

Anything less is barbaric...  though it should either be a doctor or yourself who does the deed.

Death is barbaric.

I am going to agree with no one here likely since it seems maybe two poster have even a ballpark notion of what is going on, but how on earth I must ask is death barbaric?

That comment makes no sense Peter. Death is something alien to the Greeks?

And guess what folks, if you are Christian, you ain't dying. It's OK.

You either believe this or you don't. Most here don't. Hard to argue with a corpse I know and yet that is what it seems to me to be the radical break made in Christianity is.

You don't die.

Not physically.
Not spiritually.

You don't die.

As St. Paul writes:

55EHI DEVARECHA MAVET EHI KATAVECHA SHEOL? ("Where are your plagues, O Death? Where is your destruction, O Sheol?" HOSHEA 13:14) 56Now the sting of death is chet (sin) and the ko'ach (power) of chet (sin) is chukkat haTorah [see Dt 27:26; Ga 3:113; Ro 7:7-13]. 57But Baruch Hashem, Who is giving us the nitzachon (victory) through Adoneinu Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach.

http://ojb.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/15.htm

The last shofar has sounded! chukkat haTorah is broken! Chet is forgiven! (And so is everyone else.)

What do you call it when all of a person's biological functions permanently (well, this side of the Parousia, referring to the second coming of Christ, anyway) cease?

We have a term called death which is a nebulous state of being poorly define by many if at all.

But you have Christian belief.

If those who died are dead, then why do you pray to them? What did Christ trample down again?

I really don't know what point you're trying to make.  Whatever it is, it's obviously over my head.  I thought the topic of this thread was the so-called "Right-To-Die Movement", and then you go and get all filosofacal and meddafizzicul on us.

Someone called "orthonorm" wrote this: "You don't die.

Not physically.
Not spiritually.

You don't die."

And someone called "orthonorm" wrote this: "How is death barbaric? Sometimes it is quite wonderful for many. It is certainly necessary."

By my admittedly poor and probably quite faulty reckoning, there's gotta be more than one personality here calling itself "orthonorm".

And I explain the what lies in between.

There are deaths without dying. And dying without death.

The problem that you are going to run into is orthopraxis, not orthonorm.

When I recite the Creed, I state that I believe in the resurrection of the dead, not the resurrection of the undead.

52 And the kevarim (graves) were opened, and many gufot (bodies) of the kadoshim who had fallen asleep were made to stand up alive.
53 And coming out of the kevarim after the Techiyas HaMoshiach, they entered the Ir Hakodesh (Holy City) and appeared to many.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027&version=OJB

[Hiwot]

Trampling down death to give us the right to die?

Not really relevant since the death he trampled down was not physical death, but hey, you still get marks for being clever. 

Was Christ's resurrection merely a spiritual resurrection, such that His bones can still be found in the tomb?

this reminds me, one time a person I know was invited to a birthday party where the folks were Bahai , and one guest was ridiculing the orthodox teaching of Christ's Resurrection saying' well the reason they did not find anything in the tomb was because Jesus had told his disciples that eating his flesh and drinking his blood would make them live forever.so they must have taken him at his word' and the person I know replied ' you are right Christ did teach that whoever eats his flesh and drinks of his blood shall have Eternal Life. but as you would recall, he never said anything about chewing his bones, so you see if they had come at night and cannibalized him , the Romans would have found his bones in the tomb.' the clown laughed then quickly changed the subject.

My Bahai friend, who is a very righteous person in conduct, maintains that Christ was a spirit, as "a spirit does not have flesh and bones as I have" leaves out "blood", which is the only real marker of a physical being.

hehehe, Nicholas, its incredible how grown up people reason this way. those present in that event were older mature people who appear for the most part very devout people. that man was at some point Orthodox he knew few words here and there in the liturgical language, he had gray hair. the person that answers him was only 19 yrs old at time and trying hard to be respectful as a guest and towards the man, while this man was going all out to prove his knowledge of the christian Bible and orthodoxy and his disdain for what he called all those who misunderstood Christ. his argument was irrational, it was all over the place, the cannibalism theory was said in a joke but the point was made to reaffirm the previous one he made about the apostles being totally ignorant of what Christ meant. he said Christ told them that his words are spirit and the flesh counts for nothing  on John 6 and they still continued thinking he was talking about his flesh and blood.

[stavros_388]

Debates about medically-assisted suicide usually obsess about whether suicide itself is ever justifiable. Religious people, medical folks, lawyers and others weigh in with high-sounding moral opinion, usually grounded more in emotion than reason. Obviously, suicide is a sad business; we do well to throw every possible resource at staving it off, particularly among the young. But people end their own lives, despite our best efforts and whether or not we approve. The real question about the medically-assisted version is not whether it’s good or bad, but rather, who gets to make the final decision about a particular life — the person or the state. I’ve watched some terrible endings — and don’t let doctors tell you they can always control pain these days. Still, I don’t know if I could counsel someone else to end their life prematurely; that sets up significant ethical dissonance in me. But I do know that the decision properly belongs to the person directly involved, not to disinterested bystanders obsessed with legal, financial or moral niceties.

http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/04/11/susan_griffiths_case_highlights_need_for_assisted_suicide_in_canada.html

[J Michael]

Debates about medically-assisted suicide usually obsess about whether suicide itself is ever justifiable. Religious people, medical folks, lawyers and others weigh in with high-sounding moral opinion, usually grounded more in emotion than reason. Obviously, suicide is a sad business; we do well to throw every possible resource at staving it off, particularly among the young. But people end their own lives, despite our best efforts and whether or not we approve. The real question about the medically-assisted version is not whether it’s good or bad, but rather, who gets to make the final decision about a particular life — the person or the state. I’ve watched some terrible endings — and don’t let doctors tell you they can always control pain these days. Still, I don’t know if I could counsel someone else to end their life prematurely; that sets up significant ethical dissonance in me. But I do know that the decision properly belongs to the person directly involved, not to disinterested bystanders obsessed with legal, financial or moral niceties.

http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/04/11/susan_griffiths_case_highlights_need_for_assisted_suicide_in_canada.html

Well, I suppose any response to that that might be seen to disagree could be discredited and dismissed as being high-sounding opinion, grounded in emotion. 

Not sure what point you were trying to make.

[stavros_388]

Debates about medically-assisted suicide usually obsess about whether suicide itself is ever justifiable. Religious people, medical folks, lawyers and others weigh in with high-sounding moral opinion, usually grounded more in emotion than reason. Obviously, suicide is a sad business; we do well to throw every possible resource at staving it off, particularly among the young. But people end their own lives, despite our best efforts and whether or not we approve. The real question about the medically-assisted version is not whether it’s good or bad, but rather, who gets to make the final decision about a particular life — the person or the state. I’ve watched some terrible endings — and don’t let doctors tell you they can always control pain these days. Still, I don’t know if I could counsel someone else to end their life prematurely; that sets up significant ethical dissonance in me. But I do know that the decision properly belongs to the person directly involved, not to disinterested bystanders obsessed with legal, financial or moral niceties.

http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/04/11/susan_griffiths_case_highlights_need_for_assisted_suicide_in_canada.html

Well, I suppose any response to that that might be seen to disagree could be discredited and dismissed as being high-sounding opinion, grounded in emotion. 

Not sure what point you were trying to make.

Just sharing a relevant-to-this-thread news article - which I think makes some salient points - for peoples' consideration.

[J Michael]

Debates about medically-assisted suicide usually obsess about whether suicide itself is ever justifiable. Religious people, medical folks, lawyers and others weigh in with high-sounding moral opinion, usually grounded more in emotion than reason. Obviously, suicide is a sad business; we do well to throw every possible resource at staving it off, particularly among the young. But people end their own lives, despite our best efforts and whether or not we approve. The real question about the medically-assisted version is not whether it’s good or bad, but rather, who gets to make the final decision about a particular life — the person or the state. I’ve watched some terrible endings — and don’t let doctors tell you they can always control pain these days. Still, I don’t know if I could counsel someone else to end their life prematurely; that sets up significant ethical dissonance in me. But I do know that the decision properly belongs to the person directly involved, not to disinterested bystanders obsessed with legal, financial or moral niceties.

http://www.thestar.com/life/2013/04/11/susan_griffiths_case_highlights_need_for_assisted_suicide_in_canada.html

Well, I suppose any response to that that might be seen to disagree could be discredited and dismissed as being high-sounding opinion, grounded in emotion. 

Not sure what point you were trying to make.

Just sharing a relevant-to-this-thread news article - which I think makes some salient points - for peoples' consideration.

Okee dokee  .

[Daedelus1138]

   It's nice to see a diversity of opinions here among Orthodox Christians on this topic.

  This is obvious to me: technology has given us godlike powers but this same technology brings its own slavery- the medicalization of death is an obvious example of this-  we cannot avoid it and it leads to conflicts of our deepest values.

 After homosexuality, euthanasia will be the next big issue Christias must face and think about theologically and try to come up with new answers to new problems, especially as baby boomers start to approach their golden years and the social safety nets of post-industrial nations are strained.

  I find it noteworthy that the Stoics had alot in common with Christians in their ethos, yet they did not condemn suicide in extraordinary circumstances.

[William]

  It's nice to see a diversity of opinions here among Orthodox Christians on this topic.

There is no diversity of opinions. There is one rogue poster advocating euthanasia who does not even claim he is representing authentic Orthodox teaching.

[katherine 2001]

Do you really think it's ok to ask someone else, family member, friend, or "medical expert" to kill you?

In some cases, yes.

It's okay to ask someone else to commit a serious sin (murder) that God will judge them for?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Positive Step for the Right-To-Die Movement