http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29454171/

Under the Washington law, any patient requesting fatal medication must be at least 18 years old, declared competent and a state resident. The patient would have to make two oral requests, 15 days apart, and submit a written request witnessed by two people, one of which must not be a relative, heir, attending doctor, or connected with a health facility where the requester lives.

“We’re not forcing anyone to do anything,” he said.

Debate about the morality and legality of voluntary euthanasia has been, for the most part, a phenomenon of the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty first century. Certainly, the ancient Greeks and Romans did not believe that life needed to be preserved at any cost and were, in consequence, tolerant of suicide in cases where no relief could be offered to the dying or, in the case of the Stoics and Epicureans, where a person no longer cared for his life. In the sixteenth century, Thomas More, in describing a utopian community, envisaged such a community as one that would facilitate the death of those whose lives had become burdensome as a result of ‘torturing and lingering pain’

That is where society needs to be on this topic, IMO.

Yes, Teacher, I agree with your sentiments. Of course we should always try to ascertain God’s will. I believe God has purposes in suffering, even long-term suffering. But I don’t believe that endless suffering serves any of God’s purposes–that just seems pointless to me. All tests should end at some point, and I don’t think that God would choose unending, excruciating pain as a way to teach us. That sounds too much like the catholic/protestant understanding of hell to me.

Thanks for the clarifications. I think everyone is against 1b. In this medical context, putting someone to death who doesn’t want to die is murder, not assisted suicide. (No need to talk about war, self-defense, or execution, as these are obviously different subjects.)

I decided to check the definition of Euthanasia, to make sure we’re all operating on the same definition, because I think were talking apples and oranges in some cases. Here’s the LDS church’s definitions.

Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. Such a deliberate act ends life immediately through, for example, so-called assisted suicide. Ending a life in such a manner is a violation of the commandments of God.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe that allowing a person to die from natural causes by removing a patient from artificial means of life support, as in the case of a long-term illness, falls within the definition of euthanasia.

This would seem to imply that the church endorses the way Eluana (the Italian woman in a coma) died, but rejects Chantal’s suicide by Pento.

Stanford University defines voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person’s place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment. In any case, euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient and may or may not have explicit consent from the patient to make that decision.

I won’t push the issue further, as I’m pretty sure I understand your position, and I don’t view it as materially different from mine.

Finally, wikipedia makes some further distinctions:

Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death (principle of double effect). Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means. An individual may use a euthanasia machine to perform euthanasia on himself / herself.

If we use these definitions, then it seems the church supports passive euthanasia (refusing medical treatment, or allowing morphine overdose), and non-active euthanasia (removing life support). The church is against active euthanasia (assisted suicide). I think active euthanasia is morally acceptable, but agree with FD that some proper guidelines (like #1 and #2) should be put in place to ensure that we’re not putting someone to death who doesn’t want to die. Chantal should have been given that right.

Now, I’m not sure of my position on how to deal with people who want to die because they are in excruciating pain, but are not terminally ill. I believe Dr Kervorkian assisted some people who were in constant pain that could not be relieved by drugs or other methods. When the pain is so bad, you can’t sleep, and it consumes every waking thought, I can’t imagine living like that. I wouldn’t want to live that way, and would probably welcome death if there was no way to cure the pain. If the church is saying the only way out of this is to refuse food and water, that seems like a cruel way to die. I think active euthanasia is a better option than passive euthanasia in this situation. (Non-active euthanasia would not apply in this situation, since life support is not being used.) Even in this hypothetical situation, I can see a well-meaning, but misguided, relative asking for a court ordered feeding tube to prevent my death. They would probably claim that the pain was making me mentally incompetent to make such a decision.

On the right to die stuff, I think I generally agree with Ray’s analysis, with the caveat that I think whether making decisions about one’s own end of life, or that of a loved one, seeking God’s will would be very important. In addition, making decisions about someone else would be significantly more complex, since their agency would have to be honored (if possible) and one’ own motivations would have to be carefully evaluated. That said, I could certainly see withholding medical care, nutrition and hydration from a loved one in a persitent vegatative state, rather than allowing them to remain in a medically supported coma for years.

I guess I believe that there may be purposes to suffering that we do not understand. Some suffering is a natural part of the human condition, and there is no need to go looking for it, or to prolong it when we encounter it. I agree with FD that God may intervene in our life less than we think. On the other hand, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that God wants us to experience certain things, maybe even painful things. We should be senitive to the fact that our will should align with His, especially on something so important as ending a life.

Sorry, that is a misstatement. Obviously, there are exceptions for war, self-defense, protection, etc. My brain was having a seizure when I typed that sentence.

There two basic ways for someone to die:

1) Through the proactive ending of their life;
2) By reactive “neglect” of some sort (this includes palliative care).

There are two basic “persons” who can cause someone to die:

A) That person;
B) Someone else.

This means that there are four different, fundamental manners of death for each individual:

1A) Active suicide through “unnatural” means;
2A) Passive suicide through “natural” means;
1B) Generally considered murder, manslaughter, assisted suicide, etc;
2B) Refusal to administer life-prolonging care.

My main distinction is that I am wholly opposed only to 1B – someone else actively taking someone else’s life without commonly accepted justification and against the person’s will. I don’t think anyone should end another’s life against that other’s will – ever. Therefore, I am against euthanasia in every instance where it is known that the person does not want his or her life to end.

Every other instance is open to allowance for me. Obviously, mental capacity should play a part in each determination, but I simply don’t believe suicide and palliative care options qualify as “euthanasia”.

I’ve been trying to leave a comment on your blog for 2 days, but it won’t let me. That character generator is not working, so it won’t let me leave my comment. (I tried Explorer and Firefox and it does the same thing.)

I’ve been thinking about what you said, and I agree that there is much discomfort in the church regarding euthanasia. Death is such an uncomfortable topic for everyone. Even for me, I expect to outlive my parents. It is unthinkable for me to imagine how I will react when either one of them dies. I think this is the reason most people don’t do a living will–it’s just too uncomfortable of a topic.

When I met with the lawyer, he had a form for me to consider who I would like to speak at my funeral. I chose a sister as the person in charge of my estate should my wife and I die together, and I just told her that I didn’t want to think about my funeral–I’m sure whatever decisions she made would be fine with me.

Anyway, back to the church’s discomfort. I think all of society has discomfort regarding euthanasia. “The issue is the idea that life is one of the most important gifts God gives us, and we should submit to his will when deciding on how it is ended.”

Let’s look at polio, or bubonic plague, or breast cancer, or whatever. At one time, it was considered God’s will that people be afflicted with these diseases. Now all 3 of these diseases are highly curable. Where once it seems that God wanted these people to die, now it seems that it is God’s will that we use our science to prevent death.

I don’t believe that God’s will has changed. I don’t believe that God afflicted people in the middle ages with the plague, wanting them to die, and now he changed his mind and wants us to live. I think God would have been happy if society had progressed to a point where the plague had been curable in the middle ages.

I agree with FD–“I think perhaps He intervenes or changes the course of nature a lot less than we think.”

I’m certain we as society misunderstand God all the time. Who is to say that God didn’t allow the discovery of Pento… to alleviate suffering, and allow people to die in dignity?

In my post on MM on Joshua, one of the commenters said “If God says “kill” you kill. If God says “don’t kill” you don’t kill. What’s so hard to understand about that?”

It makes me laugh because on the one hand, we call Joshua’s genocide righteous, and the Crusades unrighteous. Could it be that we (as society) just have really thick heads? Is God inconsistent here, or are we inconsistent in understanding God’s will?

We certainly don’t seem to interpret God’s will consistently, yet claim God is the same, yesterday, and forever. Perhaps all of God’s seemingly inconsistent behavior is the result of our own misunderstandings of God. Perhaps God doesn’t deal so arbitrarily as it seems at times. Perhaps he does want euthanasia, and we are trying to apply “thou shalt not kill” in a situation that is not applicable.

D&C 138:50 says, “For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.”

Isn’t a person in a coma for 16 years also in a form of bondage, being neither fully dead or alive?

Could it be that He wants us to alleviate the suffering of dying people like Chantal just as much as He wants us to alleviate the suffering of starving children?

I think the answer to this question is obvious–Yes! We need to eliminate the suffering of Chantal, and the starving children of Ethiopia, but the ways we do that are different because the situations are different.

The Teacher brings up a good point, which is the only reason why I think the Church opposes euthanasia. “The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.” He gave us life and He decides when it ends. But the older I get and the more complex I discover life to be, the more “disconnected” I think God is from us. I’m not saying He doesn’t care or is oblivious to our suffering. But I think perhaps He intervenes or changes the course of nature a lot less than we think. First of all, God seems to let the laws of nature unfold, which have allowed for terrible diseases to form and affect us. For some reason He lets nature take its course for the most part, giving “free agency” to gene mutations and superbugs. Maybe we underestimate just how much agency He gives us as well. In fact, He gives human beings enough agency to kill each other, rape children, commit genocide, and plenty of other attrocities without intervening in most cases. For some reason, He allows us to cause horrible suffering to our fellow man (which we will no doubt pay for later). Is it impossible to think that He also gives us agency to end a life when it’s on purely compassionate grounds? As MH said, I’m not so sure that God really directly wants or intends for someone’s face to be eaten by cancer and left in excruciating pain to die a slow death any more than I think that He wants children in Ethiopia to starve to death. But for some reason He appears to allow both things to happen as long as we don’t intervene. Could it be that He wants us to alleviate the suffering of dying people like Chantal just as much as He wants us to alleviate the suffering of starving children?