Brittany Maynard was diagnosed with an incurable brain cancer last spring and she was given 6 months to live. She and her husband moved to Oregon, where she ended her life Nov. 1 under the state's physician assisted suicide law.
Three days later, with the family in mourning, the Vatican issued a scathing denunciation of the act, saying "We don't judge people, but the gesture in itself is to be condemned".
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl … /18471979/
Is this what we've become? So concerned with our political stance that we'll jump at every opportunity to further the agenda, even the single death of a loved one? "We don't judge people, but what she did is to be condemned" - how much more brutal could the statement be? This is no better than the actions of Westboro in picketing graveside services.
Brittany's video, made shortly before her death, and release according to her wishes on what would have been her birthday today.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ql23tj6t65pkk … l.mp4?dl=0
Justice Brandeis said in a 1928 dissent on a ruling of the supreme court, that if the 4th amendment meant anything it includes the right to be left alone. It talks about being secure In your possessions, documents, person, etc. What does any of that mean if you cannot be left alone in the most private and intimate aspects of your life?
My feeling exactly. It's one thing to immediately decry the atrocities that we hear of - it's another to use the grief of a family that lost a loved one for political gain.
Where do I send my campaign contribution?
Credence2 for Congress!
I am not Catholic and don't often support their stances. Their stance on life though is a good one that I have seen, generally speaking. Not many views value life the way they do.
On this particular case, I can claim some ignorance, and only really recall the day that the news came out and read the story and saw the video. She had just taken a trip with her husband to the Grand Canyon, and taken some very sweet and cute pictures, and good for her. She mentioned her headaches were awful, and had seizures, and things were likely to get worse. She was going to die, true, and it all way painful. She had the option to take a pill and end it all, and took that while her family held her in their arms, if I am recalling correctly.
From the Vatican's POV and the world, we see cases in people that also suffer with seizures, horrible conditions of all kinds and pain. I don't claim to have some knowledge of that that I don't, and hope I never have to.
This I think is about condemning the "idea" of taking a pill for the same reasons as she did, and ending her life prematurely. I would have liked to have known what hospice would have suggested for pain and comfort to the end. This seems to be about taking into our own hands, something that generally isn't, and that is taking human life before its natural time to go, whether or not you believe in God. Like it or not, it does encourage the idea for others in a similar situation. To consider moving to a state where its allowed to go to a doctor to get such a pill. You can never go back and undo such a thing, and add back the days, weeks, months that were taken. They may always wonder as a family. They will always have their days without her now. They will never have any moments back with her.
It was a widely publicized situation at Ms Maynard's express wish, to bring this issue out in the open. I think it is more productive to have the Catholic position confirmed and discussed than to stay silent and avoid that debate.
Excellent point. I agree with Wilderness for those wanting privacy, but she very much set herself up as a poster child for the cause.
I worry there is some teenager out there that is a day, a week, a month away from a transplant or a similar situation and they are wondering if they should just quit or give up.
How would that relate this this subject? The Vatican is saying they oppose suicide, the woman in question made a choice to commit suicide rather than pursue palliative care for her terminal condition. Someone still on a curative path in their treatment is not part of that debate that I can see.
Life is a terminal condition. We all got to stay strong for the guy or gal or kid in the hospital bed next to us.
So you are saying that you feel that someone terminal being able to choose to die encourages suicide, or that the Vatican opposing it does? I am just trying to work out your point.
It is a viable concern that providing, (or even presenting), euthanasia as a legal and socially acceptable option for terminal patients where that selection would for many seem reasonable, could destigmatize suicide in the minds of youth, impressionable folks or just those who are depressed. Considering their personal challenges as insurmountable as that terminal patient's situation, it would be easy for them to rationalize a moral equivalence where suicide is a viable option. After all, it's their life, if acceptable in terminal cases, even when comfort and palliative care are possible, why not always?
All excellent points and you express them well bBerean. Also when a teenager or child or anyone really, is fighting for their life and holding on to all they got, it takes a lot out of them psychologically. It's tough to hold it all together when you are fighting for your life, with some medical condition. They need a positive outlook and positive support. They especially need good examples of those that would not quit, who held on no matter what the cost. People that spent their last few moments looking for a cure or painting one last picture or taking one last photograph or whatever they could do to make the world a little bit better.
That's a nice thought and everything, but someone with stage 4 brain cancer (like Brittany Maynard) isn't going to be spending their last moments (or even last few weeks) in a peaceful state painting pictures and taking photos. That's kind of the point, actually. These people want to end their lives on that happy, hopeful note, not losing themselves completely.
And I don't think that is a bad thing. This is an issue that should be considered and discussed in contexts beyond religious ones.
Good point, although I doubt Brittany would have wished publicity on her parents so early after the death. The video she made was scheduled for release much later, after a period of adjustment for her loved ones.
She was speaking frequently and directly to the media throughout the months preceding her death. I remember seeing articles on her making the choice, delaying it, things she did on her bucket list, etc. And that is just as someone who scans the top stories every morning but had not particular interest in the story. She was a very engaged activist for assisted suicide for the terminally ill.
She was speaking frequently and directly to the media throughout the months preceding her death. I remember seeing articles on her making the choice, delaying it, things she did on her bucket list, etc. And that is just as someone who scans the top stories every morning but had not particular interest in the story. She was a very engaged activist for assisted suicide for the terminally ill. So I think the national and international attention was fully engaged already. If it were not, the Vatican would probably have never been prompted to comment. Just as they have not commented on the prior people undertaking this same legal/ethical/medical process.
I understand your point, and will have to agree that making a statement (although I will always feel that organized religion should not be involved in making laws based on their religious beliefs).
But I still take exception to such a statement even before the girl is in the ground. There are other people involved, in deep grief, and it wouldn't have hurt the Vatican to wait a few days or even until Brittany's video came out if they knew of it (doubtful).
Now stop it! Don't you know how dangerous honest discussion can be!
This is a discussion the church, (anybody's church), needs to have.
by Deborah Sexton7 years ago
I watched the new 2010 movie about Jack Kevorkian on HBO. "You don't know Jack" One of the statements they made was that "If a person goes into a coma, the hospitals are allowed to pull the plug and allow...
by Dave Mathews5 years ago
Abortion and euthanasia, and suicide all require a cessation of life. For abortion it is a requirement for the cessation of life of the fetus. For euthanasia and suicide, it is a requirement by an already living and...
by Austinstar6 years ago
Westboro Baptist church to picket the Arizona funerals. Angels coming to defense. How many think it should be the Hell's Angels? Coming to smash the Baptists to their knees?
by ambersagen5 years ago
So I saw this article this evening about the newest, strangest thing the KKK is up to. Apparently the KKK is now protesting the protesters from the Westboro Baptist Church hate group. This just cracks me up. You know...
by LailaK5 years ago
Let's say that an adult has thoroughly thought of suicide and he/she wants to implement it. Should others interfere? Should he/she be stopped? In the end the person is an adult and it's his/her life. What is your...
by pisean2823117 years ago
why they criticize every other faith and sect?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.