Euthanasia - a pagan word to most, but not me!

There was a time when I would not have considered or approved of euthanasia in any form. If it had been put to a vote I would have definitely voted against it. I like millions around the world had a closed mind to the idea. I could support my decision with ethical and religious reasons. I think my greatest fear was if the practice was allowed it would be abused and to a certain extent I still fear that. I am still against anyone other than the sufferer making the decision to end their life.  

Euthanasia, also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action with the express intention of ending a life to end  extreme suffering that cannot be relieved otherwise. In the majority of countries euthanasia or assisted suicide is against the law.

There are two main classifications of euthanasia:

Voluntary euthanasia - is euthanasia conducted with consent. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon (USA) and Washington (USA).

Involuntary euthanasia - euthanasia is conducted without consent. The decision is made by another person because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself.

There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia - this is when life-sustaining treatments are withheld.

Active euthanasia - lethal substances or forces are used to end the patient's life.

Active euthanasia is a much more controversial subject than passive euthanasia. Individuals are torn by religious, moral, ethical and compassionate arguments surrounding the issue.

I think that two factors should be considered when contemplating euthanasia: (1) is the illness or disease non-curable and (2) the extreme suffering involved cannot be relieved by other means.

In many other countries a patient can refuse treatment that is recommended by a doctor or some other health care professional, as long as they have been properly informed and are of sound mind. I think this decision should only be made by the person suffering.

Doctors regardless of the law are forced with making decisions concerning death all the time and they take into consideration what is in the best interests of the patient. Doctors consider what is in the patient's best interests based on: (1) What the patient wanted when he/she was competent, (2) The patient's general state of health and (3) The patient's spiritual and religious welfare.

Doctors and families have to decide the best option for a patient who is declared clinically brain dead and if they should switch off the life-support machines; equipment without which the patient will die. The doctor in charge will talk to the patient's family. However, the final decision is the doctor's, and strict criteria must be met. Is that not a form of euthanasia which we have come to accept?

I have stood with families when a decision had to be made to remove life support machines and I know how difficult it is. It is especially difficult when the decision is made based on suffering and not being brain dead. I would have to advise them what our church teaches about the matter and then I would go against the churches decision and tell them after seeking help from the Holy Spirit through prayer they would have to make a decision based on what they thought their loved one would want. 

I watched as a young man suffered for weeks and the doctors were telling the family he was only alive because of the life support machines. The mother finally requested the machines be taken off and the doctor refused. This was in a Catholic hospital. I ask the doctor if his faith in God allowed him to believe God could perform miracles and he said, “Yes”. I then ask the doctor if he thought if the life support systems were removed and God wanted the young man to continue to live he would and he again he said, “Yes”. I then ask the doctor if that is all true why then are you afraid to remove the life support system. He removed the life support and the young man passed away within ten minutes.

Do you remember the Karen Ann Quinlan case? She was hospitalized and eventually lapsed into a vegetative state. Several months later, while being kept alive on a ventilator, her parents asked the hospital to discontinue active care, so that she could be allowed to die. The hospital refused, there were many legal battles, and a court eventually ruled in her parent's favor. Quinlan was removed from the mechanical ventilation in 1976, but she went on living in a persistent vegetative state until 1985, when she died of pneumonia. The development of advance health directives (living wills) occurred as a result of her case. In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed.

I watched and prayed while my brother suffered with cancer in 2004. I will never forget him looking up at me and saying, “Bubba, please do not pray that God keeps me alive any longer I am hurting too bad. I am ready to go.” I took his hand and told him, “Raymond, I stopped praying that days ago and have been asking God to take you as soon as possible.” He grasps my hand tighter, his wife leaned over and kissed him and he smiled and died.

The English medical word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek word eu meaning "good", and the Greek word thanatos meaning "death".  Euthanasia is mentioned in the Hippocratic Oath. The original oath states "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death." Even so, the ancient Greeks and Romans were not strong advocates of preserving life at any cost and were tolerant of suicide when no relief could be offered to the dying.

Suicide was a criminal act from the 1300s until the middle of the last century; this included assisting others to end their lives. Thomas More (1478-1535) - An English lawyer, scholar, author and statesman; also recognized as a saint within the Catholic Church, once envisioned a utopian community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of torturing and lingering pain. Since the early 1800s euthanasia has been a topic of debates and activism in the USA, Canada, Western Europe and Australasia.

An anti-euthanasia law was passed in the state of New York in 1828. It is the first known anti-euthanasia law in the USA. In following years many other states followed with similar laws. Several advocates, including doctors promoted euthanasia after the American Civil War. At the beginning of the 1900s support for euthanasia leveled off in the USA, and then rose up again during the 1930s. In 1935 euthanasia societies emerged in England and in 1938 in the USA. Doctor assisted suicide became legalized in Switzerland in 1937, as long as the doctor ending the patient's life had nothing to gain. During the 1960s advocacy for a right-to-die approach to euthanasia grew.

I now believe the patient should be given the option to make their own choice. Only the patient is really aware of what it is like to experience persistent, unstoppable suffering; even with pain relievers. Those who have not experienced it cannot fully appreciate what effect it has on ones quality of life. Apart from physical pain, overcoming the emotional pain of losing independence is an additional factor that only the patient comprehends fully. Every individual should be given the ability to die with dignity. It is more humane to allow a person with persistent suffering to be allowed to choose to end that suffering. If a loved pet has persistent suffering we put it down. It is seen as an act of kindness. Why should this kindness be denied to humans? Why should a patient be forced to experience a slow death?

Several religions see euthanasia as a form of murder and morally unacceptable. Some see voluntary euthanasia as a form of suicide, which goes against the teachings of many religions. They claim Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life. Does religion have the right to force their beliefs on everyone?

Some claim there is a risk patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are psychologically pressured into consenting. They may feel that the burden - financially, emotionally, mentally on their family is overwhelming. My father wanted to die and for eleven days he begged that he not be kept alive because of the cost and he did not want to leave my mother financially insecure – that is a valid argument in my opinion and should have been his right, but at the time I opposed.

According to the 1980 declaration from the Vatican, Jura et Bona, "euthanasia", or "mercy killing" is defined as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated." Some in the Catholic Church say to eliminate all suffering sounds very nice, but it is very unrealistic and also very pagan. They say suffering has value and I agree some types of suffering does, but I question the point in physical suffering when no end in sight. Some in the Catholic Church claim suffering provides us with an occasion to grow in wisdom, character, and compassion - to me that sounds very nice, but may be unrealistic if you are the one suffering.

One priest ask if I Remembered the song, "He Ain't Heavy; He's My Brother". He said, “Advocates of euthanasia do not see the ill this way, but only as a burden. God forgive them.” I am not talking about someone else taking my life. I am talking about me having the right to make a choice if I want to continue to suffer and be a prison to pain and poor health. It is easy to quote grandiose religious and philosophical principles if you are not the one suffering. He claims I have become ungodly and I claim I have just become realistic. He claims all life is worth living, but has he lived in constant pain and unable to leave the house or hospital? He even ask me this stupid question, “If your car breaks down do you throw it away or have it repaired?” I have my car repaired and when it reaches the point that it can no longer be repaired I junk it – euthanasia. I also do not view a human as a “thing” so I think his example is totally asinine.

The Catholic Church is even against “Living Wills” - Catholics must follow the moral teachings of the Church in these matters and should consult a priest in specific cases. But by all means avoid "Living Wills."  I have a “Living Will” I do not want a stranger making that decision for me and I do not want to put that burden on a friend or family member. My “Living Will” states they can try to resuscitate me without using any machines to do so.

No, I do not believe in abortion because the baby does not have the right to choose to live or die, but I now believe in Euthanasia giving the person suffering the right to make the choice to die. Please do not try and tell me there is no difference because taking a life is all the same. I beg to differ with you and I respect your belief.

The reason this subject came to my mind is because yesterday I picked up my Bible and it opened to Psalm 88. The author is unknown, but most likely someone ill and suffering. He pleads with God to hear his prayers. He says he is near death; he is living, but like the dead; he feels like he is drowning; he feels like he is trapped in a prison of bad health; he feels God is not hearing his prayer; he is isolated from his friends and he pleads for a miracle. Psalm 88 sums up how I feel.

I will continue to suffer as long as God gives me the strength to do so, but when the time comes that I can no longer bear the suffering I will choose to end it. I see no glory in suffering for the sake of suffering when you are nearing the end and can no longer contribute to society. This is not a decision I made lightly. I believe if God wants me to live I will live without life support or medication. In fact I believe putting all my faith in God speaks more of my faith than to fight to stay alive by artificial means.  I do not want anyone who has not walked in my shoes to tell me what I should or should not do. I do not judge them and do not want them to judge me – please let God be God and do the judging. 

Which is better - committed sexual relationships or casual sex?

I know the 60’s were supposed to be the sexual liberating years, but even in the 60’s people in the church questioned a girls morality if she had a child out of wedlock. Then and now they allowed the boy to escape criticism.

We had it happen in our family and the young girl was sent to spend several months with a “sick aunt”. The common practice of church going parents was to send the girl away to have the baby and put it up for adoption. The secret was supposed to be kept forever, but sometimes the secret came out later in life to haunt the young girl, who was now a woman, with another family.

Churches don’t often spend a lot of time reminding people of the importance of sexual intimacy. Society tends to trivialize and cheapen it. People talk about “hooking up” or having “friends with benefits.” Sex has become merely an end in itself. It is common now in our society to think that after a first or second date the couple is supposed to have sex.
This trivialization of sex does not liberate us it robs us of sexual intimacy. The Bible uses an interesting word for sex:  to know.  So when Adam was intimate with Eve the text says, "Then Adam knew his wife…"

When you have shared your body with another, you have shared what others cannot see or experience.  You know that person as others do not.   We are not ready to reveal our innermost selves to another human being after one or two dates; the bonding that happens is premature. And when we pull away from one person and bond quickly with another and another, sexual intimacy eventually no longer bonds us to our partner.

I am not saying you are a bad person when you have trivial or casual sex. Unfortunately we are human with human desires and some of those desires are moral and some are immoral. We long for intimate touch and companionship. It requires extraordinary restraint and self-discipline not to experience sex before marriage. But it is still a Biblical principle.  I confess as a priest I have been tempted many times and it sometimes it was extremely difficult to fight the temptation.

It is later in life when you really begin to appreciate the covenant you have with another human being ‘in sickness and in health’. It is comforting to know that someone will be with you in good and bad times. It helps your ego to be told you are still handsome or beautiful when everything begins to sag and your teeth are in a glass in the bathroom.

Sex has far more meaning than our society gives it credit.  I ask you to consider even if you have had casual sex in the past to consider thinking of sexual relationships in a way that pleases God and does nothing more than bring you instant gratification that usually end with heartache.

I read the study that stated U.S. researchers found that in those who were up for it, casual sex was associated with higher self-esteem and life satisfaction and lower depression and anxiety. That may be true if you are a sexist, manipulative, coercive and narcissistic man. It is important to note that the test trials were done only among 300 college students away from home for the first time.

I also found it interesting that the ‘scientist’ doing the test came to the conclusion that those who benefited from casual sex were generally extroverted, sensation-seekers, impulsive, were not comfortable with commitments, invested less in romantic relationships and were more likely to cheat on a romantic partner.

Another study from Ohio State University found that casual sex can cause depression and can even lead to thoughts of suicide.  This research involved 10,000 students. Casual sex increased suicidal thoughts by 18%.

The choice is yours God’s plan or the world’s plan!

Do homosexual children need protection from some church leaders?

I certainly am not a supporter of President Obama.  To say I do not like him and disapprove of what he and his administration have done is putting it lightly. I honestly believe if Obama could serve a third term and was reelected the United States would be destroyed.

The one thing I do agree with Obama on is that LGBT conversion therapy should be banned for minors and vulnerable adults in the United States.  It should be a Federal law that anyone practicing or encouraging such quackery would serve a minimum of ten years in a Federal prison. This law would apply to religious leaders and mental health workers.

The American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, said that therapies that claim to cure homosexuality or transgenderism are harmful to the participants. Suicide, depression, substance abuse and homelessness, among many other things are often related to the rejection of children due to their sexual orientation, their gender identity or their gender expression by parents, friends, relatives, churches and society in general.

Attempting to convert the feelings of homosexual or transgender individuals has been found in a great many cases to increase the health risks of participants and such conversions are frequently conducted by people trained in religion who do not have any or little medical training.

Instead of conversion therapy the report found that, “Supportive families, peers and school and community environments are associated with improved psychosocial outcomes for sexual minority youth.”

In April, President Obama called for a ban on conversion therapies following the suicide of Leelah Alcorn, a transgender Ohio teen who had undergone a conversion program.  There are many, many studies that have demonstrated conversion therapy is harmful.  California, New Jersey, Illinois and the District of Columbia all passed legislation to ban the therapy for minors and some vulnerable adults and other states have introduced legislation to do the same.

Alan Chambers, the once president of a conversion therapy organization called Exodus International, one of the largest religious conversion therapy organization closed the organization and offered a public apology for the damage they had done.  I say too little too late Alan Chambers for you have blood on your hands.

JONAH, another group offering conversion therapy was found guilty of fraud in a lawsuit brought by gay Orthodox Jewish men. 

Parents and mindless gay adults that follow religious leaders like Rev. Mohler who is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary need protection.  He has stated publicly and he teaches seminarians studying to be Southern Baptist ministers that Christians should not attend a same-sex wedding even if it is their own children.  In his recent book he states, boycotting weddings of gay friends and loved ones will be excruciatingly difficult, but “We cannot be silent.” He cannot understand how any Christian could congratulate a couple of a same sex union.   

He and other religious bigots have stated even if scientists proved people are born gay, the “sinfulness of homosexuality” would not be eliminated.  I guess he believes God is not perfect and creates “junk”.  It should be obvious that I believe God does create homosexuals and that they are loved and regarded highly by God.  If God creates homosexuals and condemns them to a life of ridicule then He is not a loving God, but, instead a cruel and vindictive God.

Mohler has somethings in common with the Catholic Church in that he also believes limiting family size is a sin.  He has also criticized the Catholic Church and said it teaches a false gospel and the pope holds an “unbiblical office”. Mohler believes those who practice yoga, “either deny the reality of what yoga represents or fail to see the contradictions between their Christian commitments and their embrace of it.”

His 213 page book “Speaking truth to a culture redefining sex, marriage and the very meaning of right and wrong” is dedicated to intelligent evangelical readers.  This man encourages parents to use conversion therapy to fix their homosexual children.  With a doctrine like this it is obvious to me why the Southern Baptist denomination in the USA is in decline. It has lost over one million members since 2003. If they stopped their bigoted teachings maybe they could disciple the up to  2.2 million homosexuals in the USA.  Regardless of what you believe on this subject how can you say this is the way God intended Christians to act toward some members of society and be disciples for Christ. Christ did not discriminate.

The Rev. Joseph Phelps, pastor of the Highland Baptist Church praised Moher’s intellect, but called his words on homosexuality harsh and offensive.  He went on to say that his words would damage the families and cause division in society.  Phelps members are the ones that go around the United States holding rallies that say “God hates fags” and “The only good queer is a dead queer.” I did not think there was any group more vile and disrespectful than Rev. Phelps group, but I guess there is.

I think Jesus would encourage Christian to attend the union of a same sex couple.  Did He not dine with prostitutes and drunkards? Attending a union of a same sex couple does not necessarily signal approval, but it does signal love and support of the couple.

I cannot put heat on the Southern Baptist leaders without acknowledging that some Catholic bishops have urged parishioners not to attend gay weddings. 

I have many gay and lesbian friends and I enjoy their company.  I would have no problem going to a union of a gay couple, going to dinner with a gay couple, loving and encouraging a gay couple. I would encourage friends, parents and relatives to attend their union. I would discourage any attempt at trying to convert a homosexual to a heterosexual lifestyle.  Gay or straight your children are the children God gave you. How could anyone possibly turn their back on them and consider they are good parents?