Why is the religiuos right so against physician assisted suicide

Whatever happened to good ole fashioned seppuku?

 

I'm not religious and yet I'm opposed to doctor-assisted suicide. First, suicide is never a rational decision, so we can just get that argument out of the way. But my problem with doctor assistance is essentially that you're encouraging death. Obviously death is an irreversible "solution," and people in pain or suffering from a delibitating disease are almost always battling depression, which strongly influences decision-making and helps suppress our survival instinct. I'm ok with DNRs and such, because that person is actually dying as a result of their illness, but induced death introduces a whole new slippery slope. It seems like taking advantage of a person and getting them out of the way in a moment of weakness rather than honest compassion. It certainly can't be said that all those killed under the Oregon law were truly beyond any usefulness of life.


So basically, the difference to me between this Oregon law and the Schiavo case is that Schiavo couldn't survive without machines and would never regain consciousness (barring some sort of non-scientific miracle). With doctor-assisted suicide, these people are living (albeit in pain) and at least could have some significance to the rest of their natural lives.

 

It is a slippery slope and it is hard to define the limits of when it is acceptible. What does it lead to? If we accept this what will come next?

 

Multiple lawsuits from pissed off family members.

 

I am generally opposed to anything that has the effect of reducing the value of human life. I also do not want to see anyone suffer needlessly. If a patient needs enough medicine to control pain to put them at risk of it killing them I would have no problem with that as long as the patient knows the risk. I see that like having a risky surgery. It is an effort to help not hurt.

 

planning his death is not murder if he subscribes to it.

It doesn't matter what his family wants, it's what he wants. You act like the person in question doesn't and shouldn't have a say. In Oregon the person being permanently put to sleep is of sound mind and has to submit the request in writing. Two doctors has to approve it. You act like this is being decided at the last minute by an ex-spouse.

 

Always with the slippery slope. Everything has a slippery slope if you dig deep enough.

So you being against it has nothing to do with the bible?

 

The bible does influence any moral decision I make. In this case though I am more worried about the affect it would have on society and the future. We have incrementally devalued human life for years and this would be another rung on that ladder. I choose err to the side of protecting life.

 

People should come to an agreement on what constitutes "life." As it is right now people are going by differing terms and definitions. Wasting away for years in a hospital bed hooked up to tubes like a drooling zombie could hardly be called anything but half-life at best.

It also seems to me that the monotheistic notion of "preferring life" is not consistent. Choosing death by bravely dying in battle, or dying trying to rescue someone else, is noble... self-sacrifice and martyrdom has always been a monotheistic virtue. It seems choosing death is only wrong in this context when it is seen as an indulgence.

 

Great post. I totally agree with this.