Just some links to interesting stuff. Mostly, I've been trying to catch up on all sorts of things that need finishing before Christmas. Till soon....!
Good news from India about Catholic and Orthodox Christians working together!
Is there a "God Spot" in our brains? Just Jen says, "Whoa!" ... and more!
Remember Terri Shiavo? Here's an Indian in a similar spot, who has a "social activist" acting "on her behalf." It scares the crap out of me that the news service speaks of a "hope" for death and this death-eating activist being "on her behalf" -- all without batting an eye.
Finally, more good news regarding cancer: they're cracking the genetic code! The headline's a little overly optimistic, but they have decoded skin- and lung-cancer. Go Science Go!
Who is Rabbert?
- Robert
- A rather opinionated fellow who takes himself too seriously. If only everyone else would take him as seriously....
More about Rabbert
Email me at king.rabbert [at] gmail.com
Rabbert also blogs at Virtue Quest.
Let Rabbert come to you!
Posts
Comments
5 comboxers:
"this death-eating activist being "on her behalf""
Isn't this a tad extreme? There *are* worse conditions than death thanks to modern medicine. Would you want to be left in that state for 3 decades??
(By the way, this is not any serious justification for euthanasia laws. It is a comment on the particular, rare, and extreme case - one that US laws, at least, are equipped to handle.)
Honestly, I'm not sure it matters to the woman much in question anyway. She's not sensing anything and she's been that way for longer than I've been alive.
I didn't think the priests and parents involved with Terri Shiavo were right, either. Her husband had sole authority on the matter and in the best position to make a difficult choice, one which would have not existed only a couple of generations ago. The priests should have been helping the parents through their grief, instead of helping to make a 3 ring circus over a very private matter.
I do think that, when it's literally a matter of life and death, it's a bit ingenuous to speak of "extreme" reactions. Life and death are about as extreme as we can conceive of, and part of what shocks me is how blase is the treatment of the whole question.
Now, it's an interesting question as to whether there is anything "worse than death." It's an interesting question under what conditions one person has the right or authority to make life-or-death decisions for another. But it's undeniable that these questions have implications that are about as extreme as our experience gets.
Therefore, I stand by my rhetoric. After all, the thought that there is a presumption in favor of death - at least on the part of this activist and the reporter who wrote the article - does in fact scare the crap out of me.
For the record, I do think that there is something worse than death; I think there's damnation. I am far more concerned for the activist than for the woman, who seems to have no ability to control anything in her life.
When there is a doubt about what is the right thing to do - and I fully admit that there is a doubt in this situation, and others like it - it seems clear to me that the presumption should be on the side of life, rather than on the side of death.
"I fully admit that there is a doubt in this situation, and others like it - it seems clear to me that the presumption should be on the side of life, rather than on the side of death."
First, in this particular case they have "errored" on the side of life -- good grief, during the time she's been on life support, thousands if not millions of children have been born *and* died.
(I'm taking wild guess that the financial support for life support is by a relative who is worried about their personal karma, rather than someone making a difficult choice for the person in question...)
And I think the major question I presented has been conveniently sidestepped, so I'll repeat it. ;)
Would *you* want to live like that for 3+ decades?
If the answer is no or probably not, then I would suggest calling the activist a "death eater" *is* extreme and does not leave the room for the grey that exists here.
You have never met the activist. Personally, I know much more about the newspaper columnist and how they feel than anything substantial about the activist. I think, given the circumstances, there's a distinct possibility that activist is on the side of the angels with this one.
Above all else, Jesus taught us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves. That will always more important than the "rule book", including Catholic theology on the value of human life.
Honestly, I don't know what the correct answer is here. There is not nearly enough information to make a judgement. My personal prayers on the subject are that justice, mercy, and God's will are done in the situation.
Amen to your prayers, Amy.
And yes, I engaged in vitriolic hyperbole by calling the activist a "death eater". I'm willing to withdraw that epithet.
As to whether I would want to live that way, I don't see how that's relevant.
First, I'll note that the woman herself is incapable of expressing a desire either to continue or to cease living in her condition. So, the question really is, who has the authority to starve her to death?
Second, to answer you directly: I didn't ask to be born in the first place. I wasn't given a choice about my gender, my economic status, my primary language. My desires are not consulted with regard to my need for corrective lenses or whether I become sick with a cold or not.
There have indeed been times when, in a depressed state, I considered death to be something desirable.
In short, unless we're willing to accept suicide as a legitimate moral option, my desire to avoid pain or suffering does not give me the authority to reject my life, so long as it is given to me.
Now, I think the "rule book" exists to guide us when we're tempted or confused about what is truly loving. It's tempting to try to avoid unavoidable pain, whether in ourselves or in those we love. It's confusing whether this food she's eating is "ordinary" or "extraordinary and medical" means of prolonging her life.
You're right: the big rule, the great commandment, is love as Christ has loved us. All the other "rules" and guidelines follow from that one.
The guideline here is, as I understand it, that food and drink are ordinary goods that should not be withdrawn unless the person is incapable of receiving them. Seems to me that this comes straight from the idea of love: to give to someone what is good for them.
I'd say the burden of proof is on the activist to show that food and drink are somehow no longer good for this woman.
Post a Comment