Under careful and compassionate consideration, Catholic moral thinking does allow for disconnecting life-support systems, for example, when it is obviously not doing the patient any good. When Catholic thinking approves such life-ending decisions, it is never called "suicide".
So there might be ways in which even faithful Catholics can make wise end-of-life medical decisions. Perhaps the bishops would do more good if they clarified the conditions under which even a Catholic might decide to end futile medical treatment and/or life-supports.

James Leonard Park, advocate of the right-to-die with careful safeguards.

As a FORMER, once sincere Catholic who has studied the history surrounding the formation of, and continuing changes in philosophy of this particular religion, I can state without a doubt that its main objective has always been, and remains as such: To Control the "Masses."

Sound familiar? If not, that was the catch phrase used to describe from the inside, and denigrate from without, the philosophy of Communism.

The difference between the success of these two varieties of POWER MONGERING , however, lies is the injection of RELIGION to this "control" philosophy: If Catholic Bishops and their Pope can purport that they have direct knowledge from "God" as to what is wrong or right, good or evil, real or not real, etc., then ANYONE who actually believes in that Catholic god becomes automatic fodder for exploitation in the church's goal of furthering the proscribed tenents of their religion.

And, though slightly different from Communism in having that "god" aspect , this amoral, manipulative exploitation of "the masses" (as shown in the case of that tiny girl messaging "her" political rep to "Please, don't kill my Gramma!") is done through FEAR MONGERING, deception, violence, hypocrisy, and manipulation of its followers into believing they are each "Soldiers of Christ" -- who must fight for these church tenents to which they have been indoctrinated, or face the consequence of "Excommunication" from their beloved church - the ultimate of sins which leaves the now isolated, unforgivable sinner believing that they are damned to hell for all eternity. Why do you think the catholic church is so hell bent on making sure that as many babies as possible are born by declaring that ANY interference with conception and live birth is a mortal sin? Because they need to keep increasing the number of potential constituents in order to widen their base of power until they have reached their goal of having automatic global influence over any decisions that effect this planet and its inhabitants.

And all of this is done with an embedded, arrogant sense of entitlement by the hierarchy of the catholic church, which grows day by day in their deciphering of what's "best" for the catholic church; the true needs of Humanity be damned.

Listen, if Catholics don't approve of any particular aspect within the availability of COMPASSION and DIGNITY in the dying process of human beings - aspects of relief chosen by the actual person who is dying - then, CATHOLICS don't have to partake of the options! Let them go on being good little catholics who will go to heaven when they die because they SUFFERED UNNECESSARILY during their dying process(making them martyrs of some sort, I suppose.) But I'll be damned if I'll allow any group-think mentality, such as exists in the catholic church, to determine MY DYING PROCESS.

Even the prior catholic pope DECIDED, AGAINST MEDICAL ADVICE, within his own dying process to stop taking certain medications that COULD HAVE extended his life by hours or days or even weeks, PERHAPS. But that man was suffering intolerable pain and terminal sickness. So, HE CHOSE, instead, to stop having other people interfere with HIS BODY and let nature take its course. But you can bet serious money that he also DECIDED to accept any offer of heavy duty pain medications to ease his journey out of this Life. After all, a pope is only human.
mcf

What "death with dignity" proponents don't get, and probably never will until it's too late, is the dangerous climate they're creating. Sure, we all know someone who offed themselves because they were in pain and have compassion for that, but wait until our economy really starts tanking, and pressure is put on "burdensome" people to end their lives. We already routinely abort fetuses with Down's Syndrome and other conditions because they're considered "burdensome" and studies from the Netherlands and other countries that have long had euthanasia show subtle and not-so-subtle pressure have been put on sick and elderly folks by families and doctors to kill themselves. It's silly to say the majority supports this "right" as if that somehow makes it moral -- Hitler's party was elected by a substantial plurality and ironically, many of the same intellectual arguments about quality-of-life issues were advanced on behalf of his euthanasia policies by allegedly progressive intellectuals. It's always "compassionate" people who lay the groundwork for genocide, while deriding anyone who points out they might, just might, be doing so as extremists, fanatics, religious freaks, etc. You can celebrate Oregon's suicide-friendly environment all you want, just don't be surprised when it becomes a wider instrument of population and social control and is used against the poor and the weak and, eventually, anyone else society considers burdensome or lacking "quality of life."

@youvebeenwarned -- You have some valid points here: of course any or all of the social science fiction scenarios you pointed out here could possibly happen IF we allow it to. But they are most improbable in this era of American History. To compare death with dignity to genocide and involuntary euthanasia is just a distraction from the actual reality that ALL humans face - Death - and how we, as individual human beings wish to experience it, if we are lucky enough to have a choice.

The questions are:
-- What is the BEST way for ANY individual to experience their own dying process?
-- Who, other than that dying individual, has the right to take the power from that individual's choice of process?
-- Why has religion been allowed to infiltrate the very premise of this country's existence; Separation of Church and State? Please do your research on the history of intermingled religions and governments. You will understand how that kind of intermingling led to the very decision made by a group of British citizens to leave their Motherland in order to find and form a new COUNTRY without religious interference. No small feat - no small reason.

This discussion that we are having right now, right here, is not being held in regard to a third world country, or any other country for that matter. We are talking about the rights of American citizens to determine their OWN fates; in this particular case, OUR RIGHT to die within our own, personal parameters of "belief" and coming from personal choice.

When I die, it will not be yours to decide how or when. Nor will it be the catholic church, nor christian fundamentalists, nor existentialists, nor PETA, nor The American Medical Society, etc.

DEATH IS A SINGULARITY in that EVERYTHING THAT LIVES will eventually die. As humans, we have the cognitive ability to control many things for the betterment of our lives. As a species we are not perfect, but as individual Humans we have always had the ability to make decisions for ourselves about the most primal events - unless thwarted in that decision-making process by outsiders.

Anyone who does NOT live within my body, has no right to control the process of the death of MY body. Those that try, are usually called "criminals."

Perhaps, at the time when I am deemed "dying", I may believe in reincarnation and will be looking forward to my next transformation and reveling in my dying process.
Perhaps, at that time, I will be in nursing home with attendants who have been abusing me to such a point that I am in intolerable agony, and only the hospital to which I will be taken for my deadly injuries will be able to relieve me of having to continually experience that agony until it kills me.

I don't know in this moment because I AM NOT IN THE DYING PROCESS RIGHT NOW. So, if I don't know what I will or will NOT want to experience at the time of MY OWN impending death, how can someone else DECLARE THE RIGHT to determine that for me and everyone else?

Will it matter to you if I choose to have the morphine upped so that my respiration decreases to nothingness? That is what happens in Hospice situations regularly. I say: "I am grateful for the existence of that possibility for myself, and for those I love, and even for you - a person I have never met, nor will."


What the question is NOT: What if some scenario that would be pretty improbable to occur in America in the 21st Century and going FORWARD (like genocide) were to happen all because we are empowering people to make choices for themselves as to how horrible or not horrible their dying will be, if given the opportunity? No. That IS NOT the question because it is based on sophistic logic. (look up "sophistry" if you have to.)

To allow our citizens the right to VOTE for the RIGHT TO CHOOSE how they will die when their time comes, will not automatically lead to genocide, euthanasia, public hangings, burnings at the stake, or any other frenzied, extremist political actions unless some individual gets all fired up, then forms a group that decides to curtail our rights through the use of extremism.

But it will allow us ALL, including you, self-empowerment, hence, relief from the psychological and physical agony that so often accompanies a process we will all have to withstand - dying...

Peace on Earth. Goodwill to Humankind.
mcf

MCF, I sincerely doubt you've done anything more than read a few Jack Chick tracts or you would realize how silly your arguments sound. Gee, why don't you just add some quotes from the Protocols of Zion while you're at it, since we all know the worldwide-control cabal includes Jews, Freemasons, the Vatican and some gamers in Dick Cheney's basement dungeon. If the Catholic Church was so powerful, why do most of its members actually ignore its teachings on birth control and abortion? And if it really wanted to control the world, don't you think it had a better chance when it actually had real political power, in the Middle Ages, for example, than in the 21st century after it had been almost driven to extinction by communists in Europe and right-wing terror regimes in Latin America? And I'm pretty sure given the sex abuse scandals, the CC has been rendered fairly impotent (pun intended) in the West. As a former Catholic myself, I have my problems with the church, but world domination and control is not one of them. And for the record, the church has always said extraordinary means are not needed to keep someone alive, so the late pope wasn't doing anything particularly un-Catholic in the end. The church opposes direct suicide, which is different than doping someone up at the end so they don't feel pain. Maybe it's a nuanced difference, and I know some people don't see the difference, but I can, and you would, too, if you dropped the DaVinci Code schtick and actually read a Catholic catechism or two.

@Youvebeenwarned -- how old are u?

@youvebeenwarned - how old are you?

(@ youve been warned Sorry, I didn't notice the response was from
"someof mybestfriendsarecatholic" )

To him/her I ask: How old are you?

BTW, I was breast fed Catholic catechism texts. I speak of facts not conspiracy theories or fictions. And you're correct in noticing that The catholic church has been faltering in a number of areas. But this is not the first time for that, and it won't be the last. This bureaucratic religion is steadfast - with subterfuge and hypocrisy as its calling card; and accumulating political clout as its mainstay.
PS Some of my best friends are catholic, jewish, bhuddist, Italian, Irish, male, female, young, old etc., etc.... what difference does that make? Who cares? And what does any of that have to do with the real discussion surrounding Death with Dignity?

Facts are facts. How a person lives out his/her last days on this planet is nobody's business but their own. It's as simple as that. Any tangential verbosity is a waste of my time.
mcf

You're off topic. Death with Dignity is too important a topic to divert attention away from its significance just as it is being attacked.

You have a right to your feelings, but this is not the venue to discuss abortion rights. That fight has been fought and supposedly won, yet it is still under constant fire. But that is a discussion for another time.

However, your particular statement in this context and venue can only inflame "Right to Lifers" who would use your direct slam against people with disabilities as a reason to keep the concept of Compassionalte Death with Dignity out of the hands of the voting citizens of this country. That is an invalid diversion.

Those who would have us all die as THEY wish us to experience death - and under their control - is the issue. If you mix in abortion rights or anything else that supports personal rights, then you allow them to clog the progression of clear & direct thinking about the subject at hand: The inherent right of experiecing DEATH WITH DIGNITY - for all Human Beings who have actually been born and are deemed to be alive, sans machines and extraordinary measures.

The process of an individual's death should be the decision of the person who is actually dying, when at all possible - This universal experience should NEVER be mandated & controlled by others. That is tantamount to torture, which I consider criminal.
mcf

@Rip City Hustle:
Just thought I'd look back to see if this "conversation" had continued since last I posted, only to find a compliment wrapped in a whimsical conclusion re: my having the condition of Asperger's (A social form of Autism.).

FIRST, thanks for your support of my statements re: Death with Dignity.

SECOND, care to expand on your theory that I have Asperger's to the 'nth degree, i.e., what specifically brought you to that conclusion?

THIRD, what would make you think that anyone who has Aspergers and is correct or astute about a serious subject WHILE having that condition, be considered a "rare juxtaposition" of states of being?

P.S. Although untrue, I'm not offended in any way. Just curious about everything that passes my line of consciousness, hence, your conclusion. As a matter of fact, I thought your response rather startling & cute in its off-topic assessment of me gleaned from my writing. You showed an intelligent, quick-wit which doesn't show up often in posts. Usually, anything that is considered by the poster as being funny is more likely to be mundane, or humor hiding an underlying level of rage - not obscure & delightful; as was yours.
mcf