UCCan Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying

[Jaebius]

On this I think we are close to agreement. I would prefer natural death with no pain or suffering rather than "little" simply because it is difficult to objectively evaluate the pain of another.

While I first thought of writing "no pain and suffering," I honestly cannot think of a natural death that does not involve at least some pain and/or suffering. Perhaps you can. I suppose perhaps if the person died while in a coma (though that is arguably another kind of suffering).

 

[paradox3]

While I first thought of writing "no pain and suffering," I honestly cannot think of a natural death that does not involve at least some pain and/or suffering. Perhaps you can. I suppose perhaps if the person died while in a coma (though that is arguably another kind of suffering).

Oh, I have known of a couple of deaths which occurred during sleep.

 

[Jaebius]

Oh, I have known of a couple of deaths which occurred during sleep.

How do you know for certain paradox3 that they were completely asleep at the time? Even while sleeping, feeling pain is possible.

 

[paradox3]

How do you know for certain paradox3 that they were completely asleep at the time? Even while sleeping, feeling pain is possible.

You are correct, we can't know for certain that there was no pain involved, even for a moment.

 

[Lastpointe]

We are concerned about dying without pain. Are we , as a society, equally concerned about living without pain?

 

[revjohn]

While I first thought of writing "no pain and suffering," I honestly cannot think of a natural death that does not involve at least some pain and/or suffering. Perhaps you can. I suppose perhaps if the person died while in a coma (though that is arguably another kind of suffering).

There are many who will die in their sleep. Alongside of spouses who have known them their whole lives and the death will be so peaceful it does not disturb the other save for the sound of that final exhalation.

Still, having accepted that there may not be a death that is free of pain or suffering the question now is how much pain and suffering would you force upon another?

Is there a limit Jae?

 

[KayTheCurler]

For all of the discussions about this new right to have medical assistance to die, it is these cases - the particularly painful cancers - pancreatic, head and neck, liver - where I can't even imagine questioning a person's right to have their excruciating suffering ended. My ex-husband died never asking for that assistance, having been palliatively sedated to try and reduce the agony of his pain, which even fentanyl couldn't touch. He couldn't be convinced that he wasn't going to get better by some miracle. Sure clarified my plans for myself.

I'm not so sure that helping, or allowing, someone to die is all that new. My Nana had a terminal disease and her adult children were told that she could die, slowly, probably screaming in agony, or be kept heavily sedated with medications that would eventually kill her. They chose to keep her sedated - and that was in the 1950's. No legal input at all - just caring people struggling to do what seemed the most humane thing to do.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I think there's a difference between without pain and with little pain. My friend who died of ovarian cancer the fall before last had very little real pain, according to her. Certainly some discomfort, some inconvenience, but not much pain. Her words, to me. She got really really tired, and got herself moved into hospice, then just slipped away. We'd had a mutual friend who died of the same cancer a couple of years earlier, and she was somewhat distressed about her breathlessness in her last weeks, and had enough pain for a morphine pump, so similar cancers can be different.

Lastpointe, I'm so sorry to hear about your husband's diagnosis. Is he in treatment? Positive prognosis? (There is for many cancers these days.)

 

[revjohn]

Are we , as a society, equally concerned about living without pain?

Speaking personally I am not anti-pain or suffering.

Pain informs us that something is wrong and with that information, we might be able to do something about it. We might be able to put things right to end the suffering.

I am all for that.

Where the pain cannot be touched. Where the pain will snowball until it overwhelms all else.

I am for none of that.

For two weeks I endured moments of white-star inducing agony. It was necessary as we expressed poison from a wound in my body. A more competent doctor would have at least explored the wound surgically. Regrettably, I was not under the care of a more competent doctor and so, the more competent doctor I did have was limited by the bureaucracy of the institution in how he could treat. Eventually, he found a workaround, which demonstrated further how much more competent he was.

We did not enjoy the pain. It was telling us all along that something was wrong and something needed to be done. The incompetent doctor assigned to my case couldn't be bothered listening.

Sometimes I wonder if we are happy enough to mask the pain rather than address it directly.

And still, we find ourselves at the place where the pain of some completely overwhelms our ability to address.

What does our humanity do then?

 

[Jaebius]

There are many who will die in their sleep. Alongside of spouses who have known them their whole lives and the death will be so peaceful it does not disturb the other save for the sound of that final exhalation.

Still, having accepted that there may not be a death that is free of pain or suffering the question now is how much pain and suffering would you force upon another?

Is there a limit Jae?

I do my personal best not to force pain and suffering on anyone John. My calling is to kindness, compassion, and love. It is a calling that we share.

 

[revjohn]

I do my personal best not to force pain and suffering on anyone John.

But you don't. Truly you may attempt not to cause pain or suffering on anyone. Your language and your position taken on the matter do force pain and suffering.

My calling is to kindness, compassion, and love. It is a calling that we share.

Or not. Your position as articulated thus far appears to avoid the incredible suffering of some and that challenges your claim to be called to kindness, compassion and love.

How much suffering is too much suffering?

How much pain is too much pain?

Or is the notion of too much for either just not exist? You've already expressed a desire for "little" pain and suffering. Where does your kindness, compassion and love manifest for those who suffer a great deal more than "little?"

 

[Jaebius]

But you don't. Truly you may attempt not to cause pain or suffering on anyone. Your language and your position taken on the matter do force pain and suffering.



Or not. Your position as articulated thus far appears to avoid the incredible suffering of some and that challenges your claim to be called to kindness, compassion and love.

How much suffering is too much suffering?

How much pain is too much pain?

Or is the notion of too much for either just not exist? You've already expressed a desire for "little" pain and suffering. Where does your kindness, compassion and love manifest for those who suffer a great deal more than "little?"

I do not root on pain and suffering. I do not desire suffering or unnecessary pain for anyone (I say "unnecessary" because sometimes pain serves to signal greater health problems).

I will always stand against assisted suicide. That imho is the most loving stance to take.

 

[revjohn]

I do not root on pain and suffering. I do not desire suffering or unnecessary pain for anyone (I say "unnecessary" because sometimes pain serves to signal greater health problems).

I will always stand against assisted suicide. That imho is the most loving stance to take.

Fair enough. You do not root on pain and suffering. You simply look the other way while expecting those suffering such pain not to inconvenience you by mentioning it.

Nobody is forcing you to commit suicide.

In resisting medical assistance in death you force individuals in pain to continue to suffer.

That, in your mind, is more loving than the alternative which I am guessing must be eternal suffering because God will certainly punish those who commit suicide with hell. If God is infinitely more loving than you are and hell is not a given then you render yourself a monster by comparison because you expect those in great pain who do suffer to continue in that state.

 

[Jaebius]

Fair enough. You do not root on pain and suffering. You simply look the other way while expecting those suffering such pain not to inconvenience you by mentioning it.

Nobody is forcing you to commit suicide.

In resisting medical assistance in death you force individuals in pain to continue to suffer.

That, in your mind, is more loving than the alternative which I am guessing must be eternal suffering because God will certainly punish those who commit suicide with hell. If God is infinitely more loving than you are and hell is not a given then you render yourself a monster by comparison because you expect those in great pain who do suffer to continue in that state.

Woah, I do not believe that all who suicide go to Hell. Not sure where you got that one from John.

 

[revjohn]

Woah, I do not believe that all who suicide go to Hell. Not sure where you got that one from John.

As I said I was guessing that you accept the great suffering of others is necessary to prevent the eternal torment of hell. Which is why you resist medical assistance in death.

Now that you have said that is not the case I find myself stymied about why you feel it necessary for those who suffer greatly to continue to suffer greatly rather than do anything to reduce that suffering.

Why would you deny any the opportunity to end great suffering. What is gained through the intense suffering of others?

 

[Jaebius]

As I said I was guessing that you accept the great suffering of others is necessary to prevent the eternal torment of hell. Which is why you resist medical assistance in death.

Now that you have said that is not the case I find myself stymied about why you feel it necessary for those who suffer greatly to continue to suffer greatly rather than do anything to reduce that suffering.

Why would you deny any the opportunity to end great suffering. What is gained through the intense suffering of others?

You and others, it seems to me John, try to present a dichotomy that is suffering vs. ceasing of suffering.

I feel the real dichotomy that needs to be considered is human will vs. God's will.

In other words, do we just do whatever we feel is right, or do we rather listen to God our Sovereign King.

Let us keep in mind the commandment, "Thou shalt not slay." - Exodus 20:13 (WYC).

 

[revjohn]

You and others, it seems to me John, try to present a dichotomy that is suffering vs. ceasing of suffering.

Only because it is a dichotomy which does, as a matter of fact exist. And it is less about suffering and an absence of suffering than it is about suffering with or without reason. I can embrace suffering if it is a path to healing. I will fight against it if the only thing waiting at the end of the path is death. Unless, there is some proof that there is a greater reward waiting for those who suffer unto death than there is for those who do not then the suffering is for not.

I feel the real dichotomy that needs to be considered is human will vs. God's will.

That is also something that does need to be considered. If the consideration winds up being a trite humanity wants to avoid suffering and God delights in suffering we are right back where we started with pain and suffering being necessary for some reason and the only proper faith response is to permit it to continue. If we get there then we need to consider how all attempts to alleviate pain fall onto that human will vs God's will axis and that is going to make more monsters than not.

In other words, do we just do whatever we feel is right, or do we rather listen to God our Sovereign King.

Not like that isn't a common thread in Wondercafe2 or WonderCafe.ca which came before it right? Do we faithfully listen to what God as Sovereign is telling us? Can we embrace the notion that God as sovereign might tell us something different from what he tells others. And that is where the discussion bogs down.

If I support medical assistance in death I will still make sure that it is a necessity. I won't just support suicide on request. There is also a possibility that I might disagree that a medically assisted death is necessary. It isn't a blank cheque.

If I refuse to support medical assistance in death I simply tell others that their suffering is unimportant. I don't have to do anything to attempt to alleviate it and if I decide that alleviation is good and right I have an easy out when such alleviation cannot be found. Sucks to be you is the pastoral response.

Let us keep in mind the commandment, "Thou shalt not slay." - Exodus 20:13 (WYC).

Yes, let's.

The commandment is not to commit murder. It is not as some translations rendered, Thou shalt not kill. So the question then becomes what is the difference between murder and medical assistance in death.

 

[Luce NDs]

Oh, I have known of a couple of deaths which occurred during sleep.

I've been known to do that when dropping off ... and I know some that do this with assistance of drugs, alcohol or sex ... does blind sect do the same thing? Thus sect tarrying ... they can drag on in process!

 

[GordW]

I would posit that the argument could be easily made that medical intervention is subverting the natural course of events already in many many cases. Why is subverting the natural flow of things good when it extends life (which has benefits and costs)) but not when it comes to ending pain and suffering?

 

[KayTheCurler]

You really hit a crucial nail on the head with your words GordW.

I know of an example that addresses that type of situation. Woman in her 90's. Been lost in dementia for twenty years and suffering from arthritis and various other debilitating ailments. Was diagnosed with breast cancer and the nursing home asked for directions for her treatment. The family chose "Send her to the city for whatever it takes to beat this". The old lady had to be heavily drugged to travel, stayed heavily drugged through the necessary testing. She underwent surgery, developed an infection in her wound and then got pneumonia. She suffered greatly until she finally died.

In my view (and I suspect, yours) it would have been kinder to leave her in some sort of peace to die in place. Nothing worthwhile could come out of upsetting a confused patient in that manner. I believe life is very precious but don't see prolonging it when there is n hope for recovery and comfort.