³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

No-one should minimise the suffering of an individual or their family as death approaches.

Why then is the Christian position opposed to 'assisted suicide' or euthanasia?

1. Our lives belong to God, so He is the One to decide when life should
end. We are tenants, not owner-occupiers.

2. In the Bible, individuals who asked God to end their lives were never answered in the affirmative.

3. A big question about this whole issue is one that few seem to have the courage to face - 'If I help this person end their lives, where am I sending them to?'

"No-one should minimise the suffering of an individual or their family as death approaches."

I think you said it exactly wrong there pastorphilip.

But maybe a more substantial point for you to answer would be about allowing people the freedom to choose for themselves. You think euthanasia is wrong, and you cite the bible in support of your position. Silly I think, but that is your good right. But can you at least try to realize that most people in the world don't believe in your god, and don't think of the bible as gods word? Leave those people to decide for themselves. How would you feel if you lived in a country where the majority of people thought unbearable incurable suffering was something to relieve people from and they then went on to impose their views on those who want to go on living their painful lives?

Peter
There's not much point in trying to persuade believers in fairies or supernatural beings to be rational.
Even less point it trying to persuade them that humans are capable of framing voluntary euthanasia laws that protect the vunerable.
But voluntary euthanasia in the UK is inevitable eventually.

allybalder

"There's not much point in trying to persuade believers in fairies or supernatural beings to be rational."

Whatever the merits or demerits of euthanasia I really thought we had gotten away from the weak, 'faith equals irrational' argument.

You can do better, I know you can. :-)

petermorrow,

"Whatever the merits or demerits of euthanasia I really thought we had gotten away from the weak, 'faith equals irrational' argument.

You can do better, I know you can. :-)"

Could you please remind everyone here of where you (or someone else) had effectively refuted the notion of faith being irrational in a way that was convincing for non-believers?

So, Peter, you are telling me that the only measure of any worth in an argument about faith is that I convince non-believers? Mmmm, wouldn't being convinced make you a believer?

There have been endless debates on here about faith not being a leap in the dark, about it being historical, about it being placed in a person, about testimony being valid, about there being valid arguments for theism, about not being able to prove or disprove god; that you are not convinved, doesn't make faith irrational.

Peter, you know we Christians don't just *believe* (as Helio would say) in sky pixies!

After all Peter the last serious debate you and I had was based on the concept of you and I are, and the concept of 'I' was something you admitted was hard to define, are 'we' irrational? I think not.

I'm not expecting you to exercise faith Peter, but I do expect you to know that there better answers than 'sky pixie', that's all.

pastorphilip;

"3. A big question about this whole issue is one that few seem to have the courage to face - 'If I help this person end their lives, where am I sending them to?'"

The flip side of that coin is that if you take measures, especially heroic measures to save their lives, why is that different?

Peter #2

Each of us will one day answer to God - whether we have believed in Him or not! (Romans 14v12)

Marcus,

Because the decision contemplated is irreversible and has consequences about the individuals eternal destiny. I would suggest that is serious enough to take into account in this whole issue. Don't you agree?
(see Hebrews 9v27)

Hello petermorrow,

"So, Peter, you are telling me that the only measure of any worth in an argument about faith is that I convince non-believers?"

Arguments that don't convince non-believers may be good somewhere else. But maybe you should be happier about the arguments you present that convince non-believers rather than just those who already believed. I often agree with DD and Helio and vice versa. It would usually be harder for me to get Bernard, RJB or you to agree with some of the things I say than them. So actually the answer to your question would be yes to some degree. The arguments that convince skeptics from the the opposing camp are the more impressive ones.

"There have been endless debates on here about faith not being a leap in the dark, about it being historical, about it being placed in a person, about testimony being valid, about there being valid arguments for theism, about not being able to prove or disprove god; that you are not convinved, doesn't make faith irrational."

We won't agree on whether the arguments you mentioned are convincing, but you should try to understand that if the arguments are not convincing because they are simply wrong, that it would leave your faith without a rational basis.

"Peter, you know we Christians don't just *believe* (as Helio would say) in sky pixies!"

No, there are indeed a number of layers wrapped around it. These give it intellectual credibility in your eyes and in those of other believers. As I don't think they amount to anything, you can peel away those layers and find the same intellectually empty thing at its core. Just adding some layers of thinking around an empty core might make the empty core less easy to spot to many, but it doesn't fill up the empty core. After what can be lengthy examination, you eventually still find 'Magic Man is the answer'.

"After all Peter the last serious debate you and I had was based on the concept of you and I are, and the concept of 'I' was something you admitted was hard to define, are 'we' irrational? I think not."

Are you standing in for Graham for providing bad reasoning or something, now that he is not posting?! My last remnant of intellectual respect for Graham disappeared when after 300 posts in the thread you refer to, he came up with the god of the gaps argument as his best shot for arguing the case for theism in a particular area. So not present anything of merit for theism, just point out the problems that others have with their explanation and then expect to win from that by default. Similarly, you now expect criticism of your irrational faith to quiet down, because other views may not have all the answers? For FSMSs sake, try to make a case that stands on its own strength rather than the weaknesses of others!

"I'm not expecting you to exercise faith Peter, but I do expect you to know that there better answers than 'sky pixie', that's all."

If you want intellectual respect for your position from me peter, then earn it first. I don't do automatic respect for beliefs.

petermorrow, if I just sounded harsh in post 9, then let me hereby state without reservation that while I think your views are wrong, I do see distinctions between different believers and that compared to pastorphilip, you are Albert Einstein.

In response to my question to pastorphilip if he could just realize that not everyone sees the bible as word of god, pastorphilip presents a bible verse as an answer.

*sigh*

Can anyone tell me if there is any more circular, bad way of answering? Reason and christianity are like water and fire to a number of believers, aren't they?

I listened to the drama. It was very engaging and effective in sketching out the life of a fine journalist, who had a serious illness and subsequent disability and then suffered financial troubles, loss of friends and independence.
It implied that the illness was to blame for all this, and not that the poor quality assistance he'd received from his friends and the state, and that he had no other choice than to end his life to avoid further suffering for himself and his loved ones.

The suicide clinic Dignitas does not assist in the death of people with terminal illness only. Some had chronic conditions like Crohn's disease or disabilities like tetraplegia. It is clear that Dignitas has widened the eligibility criteria for its services.

Dignitas has also been . Yet in the drama, the doctor says that it is a non profit organisation and in justifying his role, he says that "For every 50 suicide attempts we have one suicide and the others are failing, with huge costs to the health service."
This is what Ludwig Minelli himself has said and seems to imply that it would be more cost effective and less messy if there was a higher level of "success". But aren't the majority of suicide attempts said to be cries for help and those doing it hoping to be found and saved?

Any law that allows for the euthanasia of a certain type of person, say terminally ill or very disabled, discriminates against that group by saying their lives are less worthy of protection that others. I believe all human lives are valuable. I am not religious and think these discussions are better made without recourse to what is written in someone's holy book.

If euthanasia, or to use it's new name, assisted dying, becomes legal, there will likely be less pressure to make the sort of social changes necessary to give people a real choice. Already, disabled people report concerns about having to persuade doctors that they do not want "Do Not Resuscitate orders" when they have medical procedures, they have to fight for the right to receive full medical care as they are falsely deemed to live awful lives and it's assumed that they'd prefer to be dead. Some disabled people I know wish that some of the concern the public have for their end of life questions would spill over into concerns for living their lives too.

pastorphilip;

Hebrews 9v27 (TNIV);

"27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him."

As I recall, we've been down this road before pastorphilip. In fact it was a passage you cited that gave the answer. Everyone's destiny is the same. They will die and then they will be brought back to life by Christ who will conquer death. Only the order in which they are returned to life will differ. But since they are not conscious when they are dead and once they are alive again they will live for all eternity then it hardly seems to matter.

So what is the answer to my question? If as you say only god can decide when life will end, what do you say about heroic efforts to keep people alive and where does the role of medical treatment to save lives end?

"1. Our lives belong to God, so He is the One to decide when life should
end. We are tenants, not owner-occupiers."

Should medical treatment be accepted by anyone who agrees with your statement? I'm sure you've heard of a sect called Christian Scientists in the US who will not accept many kinds of invasive treatment including blood transfusions. Court orders are issued to force such treatment for children when their parents would deny it to them. What do you say about that?

Marcus,

While it is true that everyone's time will come to die, everyone's destiny is NOT the same. Check out eg Luke 16v19 - 31 and Matthew 25v46

What makes the difference when we stand before God is what our attitude has been to Jesus Christ. (see John 3v16) And that is not something we can decide on behalf of someone else.

On the latter point, a tenant is required to look after the property until he leaves it, ultimately responsible to the one to whom it belongs.