UCCan Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Whereas I hear "We are not opposed in principle to doctors offering the same service to humans as veterinarians offer to sick and suffering dogs".

Dogs can't tell vets what they need, can't ask for better support from their family or neighbours...and surgeries and treatments are often way too expensive even if a dog could be cured. My friends cat was hit by a car twice when he was young and she had him all pinned back together - spent several thousands to save him. He lived to be 18 years old. He walked with an unsteady gate and had a weird pupil in one eye, and and uneven bite (snaggletooth) but he was so funny looking he was adorable and he absolutely loved people. He had a happy life despite some setbacks. Most people would've probably had him put down.

You know stats are coming out about projected cost savings of MAID, right? How "faithful" is that to support?

 

[Mrs.Anteater]

I hope all of you have written up a personal directive for your relatives, so they can make the right decision for you, if you can't make it yourself anymore. So if you want to go to the natural end of ALS- do you want a feeding tube once you can't eat safely anymore, so that you die when your breathing stops or do you want to eat at risk and die of pneumonia? Or, would you like to have the pneumonia treated, so you can die when your breathing stops? Or, would you like to starve to death, because you don't want to eat and risk the pneumonia? Or,maybe, you would want to wait until your heart stops, and be on the ventilator for a while?

 

[Seeler]

I hope all of you have written up a personal directive for your relatives, so they can make the right decision for you, if you can't make it yourself anymore. So if you want to go to the natural end of ALS- do you want a feeding tube once you can't eat safely anymore, so that you die when your breathing stops or do you want to eat at risk and die of pneumonia? Or, would you like to have the pneumonia treated, so you can die when your breathing stops? Or, would you like to starve to death, because you don't want to eat and risk the pneumonia? Or,maybe, you would want to wait until your heart stops, and be on the ventilator for a while?

I have a general personal directive - not for every possibility - and I have discussed my wishes with those close to me. DNR is the first one. No feeding tube - apparently choking is a danger as my Parkinsons gets worse, but to never enjoy the pleasures of eating again is not for me. At some point, it will be paliative care only - keep me as comfortable and coherent as possible, but don't force my body to live beyond its time. And if and when I indicate that it's time, help me on my way out.

 

[Luce NDs]

Again:

https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_biology_of_our_best_and_worst_selves​

 

[revjohn]

The statement says nothing that anybody who pays attention to the way the United Church talks would find surprising.

It looks at all angles. It considers all situations. Then it begins to outline a descriptive process by which everyone can honestly engage knowing that at the end of the engagement there will be difference of opinion and the grace of the document is that it does not condemn the differences which may be reached. It affirms that pastorally the denomination will not add any burden to what is already a complex and difficult decision. It lifts up what it believes needs to be valued it does not lift up what it believes should not be valued. At the end of the document you can read a strong committment that no matter the outcome of any decision the denomination, and by extension, the clergy serving the denomination, will continue to be present for families who have no choice but to live with the consequences of any decision.

It is valid to critique the timeliness of the report. The denomination failed to get working on this sooner and as a result we weigh in somewhat late. Better late than never is cold comfort to those who were looking for guidance sooner. That said, United Church clergy that could not have seen this decision coming are pretty ignorant to how the denomination tends to discern.

Critique that it doesn't draw firmer lines is also valid, though it needs to be said that The United Church of Canada does not do its theology to make other denominations happy. Typically we offer opinions which are more descriptive than they are proscriptive which will fail to satisfy those who are more extreme in their opinion while it strikes a balance for those who are more moderate.

It is far too easy to draw firm lines and then do nothing to alleviate the suffering which causes others to think about crossing lines. In the best of all worlds no individual would suffer to such a degree that they would consider ending their life simply to bring pain and suffering to an end. In issues like this the Eastern Orthodox traditions which look at sin from a medical perspective rather than a judicial one are probably most helpful.

It would help to have more pronounced theologies of pain and suffering beyond pain is bad and something to be avoided, particularly if you are also going to take a hard line on the theological value of suicide.

So the document casts a vision of what a perfect world would look like and then speaks to those who do not live in that perfect world and are trying to make sense of the crap hand they have currently been dealt.

I don't expect any incapable of appreciating a pastoral response to get the document let alone think highly of it.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I'd like to point out, as I have repeatedly, that pain management is a fairly simple issue. It's one of the reasons we're in an opioid crisis in Canada - we have lots of good pain relief. I always come back to the situation of Dr. Don Lowy. He had brain cancer and one of his big symptoms was noise inside his head. You can't mute "head noise" with pain relief.

 

[Jaebius]

So the document casts a vision of what a perfect world would look like and then speaks to those who do not live in that perfect world and are trying to make sense of the crap hand they have currently been dealt.

I don't expect any incapable of appreciating a pastoral response to get the document let alone think highly of it.

This is a sound statement. My own reaction was more theological than pastoral.

 

[revjohn]

This is a sound statement. My own reaction was more theological than pastoral.

That is debateable.

You may have some theological assumptions that you do not find support in the document. Your criticism was in no way rooted in any theology. It was a reaction. I'll give you that much. And as far as reactions go I expect it to be of the knee-jerk variety. One of reflex and not sober thought.

That you appear to recognize that is a step forward. It doesn't change a word that you said which is where the pastoral damage, if it has happened, will happen. No way you can pastor effectively if you are going to be putting your foot in your mouth first thing. You may find profit in remembering that very little is actually about you and most is about who you are going to represent to the people you are called to serve.

If you want to go the fire and brimstone route forget having a pastoral ministry.

If you are more interested in being an agent of grace you are going to have to listen more often and more intently.

 

[Jaebius]

Your criticism was in no way rooted in any theology. It was a reaction. I'll give you that much. And as far as reactions go I expect it to be of the knee-jerk variety. One of reflex and not sober thought.

I disagree, all-around. It was not knee-jerk, and was rooted in the theology of affirming life. Theologically speaking, I stand opposed to any document that opens the door to what I see as murder. After all John, are we not told in the Bible that we shall not kill.

If you are more interested in being an agent of grace you are going to have to listen more often and more intently.

This much is true.

 

[revjohn]

I disagree, all-around. It was not knee-jerk,

Sure it was. You didn't bother to understand the document for what it was you had a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. You reacted as if a pastoral response doesn't affirm a theology of life when, as a matter of fact, it seeks to be present in the difficult moments of life rather than pontificating morality for a distance. Nothing is more life affirming than that.

The document does not open a door to murder. It plunks itself down into where decisions are being made and your callous application of crime is further evidence that you just do not comprehend that the document is not a theoretical expression it is grounds to folk who are, right this moment, wrestling with this issue in ways perhaps you have been fortunate enough to avoid up until now.

The Biblical command is Thou shalt not commit murder rather than Thou shalt not kill and to if you think that simplistically solves the problem of what to do with people who live with unendurable pain you haven't even the inkling of beginning to have a clue. Which is probably why you should invest more time into listening or asking questions rather than drawing lines that others are not going to recognize.

Scripture also exhorts us to be merciful does it not? What is merciful about allowing individuals to continue to suffer? What about their ongoing pain redeems anything that Christ on the cross could not or has not already redeemed? Sure, we could say as the Lord said to Paul, "My grace shall be sufficient for thee." What then does that grace entail? That is where the pastoral conversation needs to happen.

It is entirely possible to arrive at a different conclusion where you would prohibit members from exercising this option. If that position isn't arrived at pastorally then the theology you appeal to will not be anything but chains and shackles and you won't be binding the enemy.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jaebius]

The Biblical command is Thou shalt not commit murder rather than Thou shalt not kill and to if you think that simplistically solves the problem of what to do with people who live with unendurable pain you haven't even the inkling of beginning to have a clue.

Is it more just to murder someone who is unendurable pain more just than to murder someone who is not? Of course not. Murder is murder John, and all murder is wrong. People's being in pain does not take away the sinfulness of ending their lives.

Scripture also exhorts us to be merciful does it not?

It does.

What is merciful about allowing individuals to continue to suffer?

An excellent question. It's why we as a society must continue to make medical advancements toward alleviating suffering. As followers of Christ, however, people like you and I should stand against falling into sin in efforts to help people.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

And we need better disability advocacy. Just about anyone with a serious impediment trying to live within norms that they don't fit into, is suffering. There are two ways to deal with that...kill the sufferer (with MAID) or appreciate and learn about the challenges of living in a society that is not set up for people with disabilities...and change that, along with attitudes about it.

I applaud England's decision to not go down the road we've embarked on.

 

[GordW]

Is it more just to murder someone who is unendurable pain more just than to murder someone who is not? Of course not. Murder is murder John, and all murder is wrong. People's being in pain does not take away the sinfulness of ending their lives.



It does.



An excellent question. It's why we as a society must continue to make medical advancements toward alleviating suffering. As followers of Christ, however, people like you and I should stand against falling into sin in efforts to help people.

However, to use the value-laden term murder, while I appreciate it is how you feel about the issue, is not opening yourself to discussion. Has it occurred to you that it may be death that isnot only the natural course of things (and may have been artificially delayed for some time) but also the only way to alleviate suffering? Not always of course but the possibility is there.

 

[Jaebius]

However, to use the value-laden term murder, while I appreciate it is how you feel about the issue, is not opening yourself to discussion. Has it occurred to you that it may be death that isnot only the natural course of things (and may have been artificially delayed for some time) but also the only way to alleviate suffering? Not always of course but the possibility is there.

Death is the natural course of things, I agree Gord. I believe that God alone as Sovereign has the right to determine when that natural death should occur. Perhaps you disagree.

 

[Luce NDs]

Geez ''' even conservative republicans provide a blade for the losers (in the games) to find their way out of a looser position ...

Why losers are better at mythology ... and some are glad heh ate Ur ...

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

However, to use the value-laden term murder, while I appreciate it is how you feel about the issue, is not opening yourself to discussion. Has it occurred to you that it may be death that isnot only the natural course of things (and may have been artificially delayed for some time) but also the only way to alleviate suffering? Not always of course but the possibility is there.

We all do things to artificially delay death - taking drugs for chronic issues, infections, and whatnot.

The way the law is set up, it is not just for those who death is the very last and only way to alieviate suffering. It is worded "death is reasonably foreseeable" - everybody's death is reasonably foreseeable because it will happen to everybody. It fails to recognize that people can find quality in their lives despite suffering and fails to put much focus there - instead allowing patients and their doctors to opt for an easy way out - long before natural death might otherwise claim their lives - if that's their preference. And that devalues the lives of those with the same conditions who want to live - literally and figuratively because cost savings reports are already being discussed. I'm appalled with the non-challantness that people are viewing this issue. They may claim to be taking it seriously - but from the wrong direction. And that's what the law is doing - how it is shaping opinion.

As for the UCCan statement - it is purposely ambiguous. That's typical.

 

[Mendalla]

We all do things to artificially delay death - taking drugs for chronic issues, infections, and whatnot.

But, in the end, there is a finite limit to how much we can delay it and possibly always will be. We can delay it, IOW, but at some point it is still going to become inevitable. The question is not how long we can keep ourselves alive, but whether we should delay death and endure suffering just to maintain existence?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

But, in the end, there is a finite limit to how much we can delay it and possibly always will be. We can delay it, IOW, but at some point it is still going to become inevitable. The question is not how long we can keep ourselves alive, but whether we should delay death and endure suffering just to maintain existence?

We are all doing that. And yes. Suffering comes in many forms in various ways, and is part of life, part of learning, and of overcoming.

 

[Waterfall]

I personally think there is validity to both sides, it just comes down to, should another's belief be the deciding factor for someone else? Does the gift of free choice include this also?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I personally think there is validity to both sides, it just comes down to, should another's belief be the deciding factor for someone else? Does the gift of free choice include this also?

What if the free choices of others impact how groups are viewed, prejudicially, in society? I realize a lot of people do not think that if they were diagnosed with a serious chronic disabling condition, that if they chose MAID, that it would affect anybody else, but I disagree. Over time, it will. It will culturally impact how disability is viewed and it is not progressive. It impedes progress in the area of disability and inclusion - as per UN principles that we are signatory to. Especially if the budget shows that MAID is a cheaper option, than the resources required to live as well as possible. I'm so annoyed that this issue has been championed as a darling of free choice by "progressives". Culling the herd - even if it is done painlessly and rather silently - is still archaic. And that's where, if it's not family pressure of being a burden - then societal pressure of being a burden will be felt. And that is an unecessary layer of "suffering" added to the issue. That, I think, is a shameful reflection on how our society values life. In dollars and cents and inconvenience of caring. I knew from the get-go that if government was passing this - economic factors were drivers of it. Nobody believed me and still don't want to but there have already been reports and articles written about cost savings. That will only get worse if it is not recognized. That is not a faithful choice. But I can anticipate that it could be spun that way.