Abuse

[Priuswork]

Hi,  We had a real heated discussion last night with a returned missionary who recounted a situation where an individual is confined to bed, cannot speak, or do any of the bodily functions.  And this has been going on for years.  If the person cannot express their desire to be released from physical existence, at what point does keeping them in that state constitute abuse instead of love or doing what the Savior would do in that specific situation?  If we have the ability to painlessly release them from this existence, why wouldn't this be a loving and humane way to release a loved one for those of us who realize the conditions for this existence and the purpose of it?  Which is the right course?  Love that binds them to suffer, or love that helps them to be released?

Certainly am not advocating convenience termination or starving of anyone, but at some point reason and empathy must be required of those who have been placed in charge of our existence here, which was the charge given to Adam and Eve.  

Each case of individual suffering needs to be dealt with by responsible families themselves, but I would personally not want to be kept in such a condition.  We have been commanded to not kill, but that would be for the right reasons.  I personally would not want to have to make this kind of decision.  In fact my wants would be for my benefit, to keep my loved one with me.  Being in their position, however, the suffering would not be bearable given the description of their restriction.  Suffering in this world was agreed to before we came.  Does that mean that we evoke it or embrace it, sustain it, or otherwise don't try to reasonably get rid of it?  Those responsible for suffering will have to account for it and pay for it unless they are covered under the conditions of the atonement.  Commission and omission might not have equal weight, but hopefully we can have some consideration if we don't know what we are doing?

What do you think?    

[Guest]

Elder M. Russell Ballard recently spoke to our stake.  He mentioned a friend of his who was aging and had served in many capacities.  His wife had passed away some years prior.  His children and grandchildren were getting older and were leading full and meaningful lives.  He had seen the fruits of his labors as a father and grandfather as well as many other things he had done in church and community to improve and bless the lives of those around him.

The friend spoke to Elder Ballard and asked him to be released from this life.  He explained that he had been working a very long time.  He missed his wife.  His body was not what it used to be.  Even though he was somewhat younger than Elder Ballard, he wasn't doing as well physically.  (of course, at that age, it's just a number).

After a long conversation going over many thoughts about this, they knelt down together and Elder Ballard prayed,"Father, my friend and brother has lived a good many years and has done much good in Thy Name...  but now he's suffering much in this mortal frame.  And from this side of the veil, it seems that he's done enough and he's ready to move on.  If it be Thy will, please let him enter into Thy rest..."  They embraced and said their goodbyes.

He died in his sleep that night.

I tell this story because it illustrates that the sentiment that "it is their time" may be true.  But it also illustrates that we only see on this side of the veil.  So, we cannot arbitrate death in such cases like this one per our wisdom alone.  Elder Ballard left it in the hands of the Lord.  And it was according to His will, not ours.

The situation you outlined is a hypothetical.  The problem with such a hypothetical is that it lacks all the details of real life situations.  EVERY situation has millions of nuances that may completely alter whether such a decision is right or not.  That is why every situation has it's own solution.  In the end, if the Lord says do something, do it.  If He says don't do something, don't do it.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

We are free to decline extensive processes or procedures that only serve to preserve life at any cost.  

A couple I home teach had a sister who developed a condition that required such procedures.  Basically, she had to have her blood changed 3 times a week.  It would have been expensive and painful.  She declined to begin those procedures, and died shortly after.  We figure that was an appropriate decision.

"Pulling the plug"-type decisions aren't murder.  Administering injections or taking a pill that ceases the functions of life, well, the law may or may not call it murder, but we oughtn't to such things. 

Edited March 29, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[Priuswork]

Carborendum,

If the situation was hypothetical, then your response would be reasonable.  Unfortunately that situation is real and the individual cannot speak for themselves and discuss it with the parents or the Lord, and if by any chance they can pray, intervention is evidently not happening or hasn't for years.  

This situation is not like the one you mentioned.  " That is why every situation has it's own solution.  In the end, if the Lord says do something, do it.  If He says don't do something, don't do it."  Is it not also written that we should not be commanded in all things?  We put animals to death when they suffer and call it humane and there doesn't seem to be any Church action against that.  Can we then justify the suffering of a son or daughter of God when the medical world declares no improvement, by allowing them to suffer and waste away when we can use the blessings of modern technology to painlessly release them?   

The Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to forbid blood transfusions when the life of another is threatened if a transfusion is not administered.  They cite scripture that forbid Israel to eat blood.  The Church indicates that in the case of incest or rape life can be taken.  Will the Church then condone suffering in this specific case where the suffering while possibly not physical would definitely be spiritual?  To get an idea of how that works, agree to be confined indefinitely and see how you react.  Torture?  Jail?  

[Priuswork]

NeuroTypical,

Are we to understand that in these circumstances, sins of omission are permitted, but not sins of commission?

 

[BeccaKirstyn]

2 minutes ago, Priuswork said:

Carborendum,

If the situation was hypothetical, then your response would be reasonable.  Unfortunately that situation is real and the individual cannot speak for themselves and discuss it with the parents or the Lord, and if by any chance they can pray, intervention is evidently not happening or hasn't for years.  

This situation is not like the one you mentioned.  " That is why every situation has it's own solution.  In the end, if the Lord says do something, do it.  If He says don't do something, don't do it."  Is it not also written that we should not be commanded in all things?  We put animals to death when they suffer and call it humane and there doesn't seem to be any Church action against that.  Can we then justify the suffering of a son or daughter of God when the medical world declares no improvement, by allowing them to suffer and waste away when we can use the blessings of modern technology to painlessly release them?   

The Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to forbid blood transfusions when the life of another is threatened if a transfusion is not administered.  They cite scripture that forbid Israel to eat blood.  The Church indicates that in the case of incest or rape life can be taken.  Will the Church then condone suffering in this specific case where the suffering while possibly not physical would definitely be spiritual?  To get an idea of how that works, agree to be confined indefinitely and see how you react.  Torture?  Jail?  

Are you in an area that allows legal assisted suicide? From the small bits of information about this scenario it sounds like the individual is limited in all of those important capacities but their health is otherwise normal. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Priuswork said:

Carborendum,

If the situation was hypothetical, then your response would be reasonable.  Unfortunately that situation is real and the individual cannot speak for themselves and discuss it with the parents or the Lord, and if by any chance they can pray, intervention is evidently not happening or hasn't for years.  

This situation is not like the one you mentioned.  " That is why every situation has it's own solution.  In the end, if the Lord says do something, do it.  If He says don't do something, don't do it."  Is it not also written that we should not be commanded in all things?  We put animals to death when they suffer and call it humane and there doesn't seem to be any Church action against that.  Can we then justify the suffering of a son or daughter of God when the medical world declares no improvement, by allowing them to suffer and waste away when we can use the blessings of modern technology to painlessly release them?   

The Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to forbid blood transfusions when the life of another is threatened if a transfusion is not administered.  They cite scripture that forbid Israel to eat blood.  The Church indicates that in the case of incest or rape life can be taken.  Will the Church then condone suffering in this specific case where the suffering while possibly not physical would definitely be spiritual?  To get an idea of how that works, agree to be confined indefinitely and see how you react.  Torture?  Jail?  

Whether your situation was real or hypothetical (which was unclear from the OP) is not really as important as the fact that anyone on this board doesn't know all the little details and nuances of said situation.  Because of that, we cannot adequately give advice on whether it is appropriate for this situation or not.

The rest of your post is entirely argumentative and I really don't have the time and patience to go down that road right now.

[NeuroTypical]

23 minutes ago, Priuswork said:

NeuroTypical,

Are we to understand that in these circumstances, sins of omission are permitted, but not sins of commission?

 

Nope.  Declining to take unreasonable measures to preserve life is not a sin.  And it's up to the individual and family members with stewardship over the individual, to determine what "unreasonable" means in these cases, after consulting with the Lord and receiving competent medical advice.  

Again, the line is between preserving life when death is inevitable, and deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease.  Putting to death = sin.  Preserving life through unreasonable means = not sin.

[Just_A_Guy]

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The rest of your post is entirely argumentative and I really don't have the time and patience to go down that road right now.

Frankly, the fact that people can become so obsessively heck-bent on ending the life of another, and dismissive of any contrary teachings/observations/arguments; strikes me as a major reason why people should not have the right to unilaterally end human life.

A day may come when I am in so much pain that I plead for another to end my life.  But such a person as would make the affair into a personal  or political vendetta, doggedly running roughshod over any and all who have different ideas as to my best interests, does not deserve to wield that kind of power over me.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

My wife has a pretty good opinion about steps she wants taken to preserve her life.  In such a situation, she wants the decision to be based on what's best for her children.  Meaning, if they aren't ready to let go, then they shouldn't be forced to pull her plug.  Once they're ready, then she's ready too.  

I really respect her opinion.

I, on the other hand, intend to meet my maker after being shot by a jealous lover at age 100.  My epitaph will read "It's a shame he left us before his prime."

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Frankly, the fact that people can become so obsessively heck-bent on ending the life of another, and dismissive of any contrary teachings/observations/arguments; strikes me as a major reason why people should not have the right to unilaterally end human life.

A day may come when I am in so much pain that I plead for another to end my life.  But such a person as would make the affair into a personal  or political vendetta, doggedly running roughshod over any and all who have different ideas as to my best interests, does not deserve to wield that kind of power over me.

I recall an interview of a woman who was in a coma for only a short while.  But the doctors didn't notice her coming out of it.  She was actually conscious all day.  She was trying desperately to communicate.  But she couldn't use most of her body -- partially because the machinery and drugs she was put on made it impossible.

• She found she could wiggle her finger.  A nurse noticed it.  She thanks God for that nurse every day.  But the doctors pointed out that it was just random movements and was obviously just a brain misfire.
• She moved her finger in a more regular pattern. The nurse noticed it.  The doctors said it was too regular and was obviously just muscle memory repeating itself.
• Then she started making tick marks each day until the nurse realized the tick marks were the days on the calendar across the room.  She was obviously aware of the passage of time and could see and react.

All of this happened without any change in vital stats that the doctors could know about.  And it was only because this one nurse was dedicated to saving rather than ending life.

Now the woman is an activist against euthanasia and gives motivational speeches.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Priuswork said:

Carborendum,

If the situation was hypothetical, then your response would be reasonable.  Unfortunately that situation is real and the individual cannot speak for themselves and discuss it with the parents or the Lord, and if by any chance they can pray, intervention is evidently not happening or hasn't for years.  

This situation is not like the one you mentioned.  " That is why every situation has it's own solution.  In the end, if the Lord says do something, do it.  If He says don't do something, don't do it."  Is it not also written that we should not be commanded in all things?  We put animals to death when they suffer and call it humane and there doesn't seem to be any Church action against that.  Can we then justify the suffering of a son or daughter of God when the medical world declares no improvement, by allowing them to suffer and waste away when we can use the blessings of modern technology to painlessly release them?   

The Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to forbid blood transfusions when the life of another is threatened if a transfusion is not administered.  They cite scripture that forbid Israel to eat blood.  The Church indicates that in the case of incest or rape life can be taken.  Will the Church then condone suffering in this specific case where the suffering while possibly not physical would definitely be spiritual?  To get an idea of how that works, agree to be confined indefinitely and see how you react.  Torture?  Jail?  

If this person is totally incapable of communicating, how do you know he wants to die? Maybe he's desperately trying to tell you to take care of him because he wants to live.

[anatess2]

I hated that movie Me Before You.  Hated it.  That guy was selfish as all get.

[anatess2]

P.S.  My take:

One should not play God.  Neither in ending a life nor prolonging a life.  Doctors know this... or they should.

[Priuswork]

More light has been shed on this situation.  It now has been disclosed that the subject individual while unable to talk, can watch comical movies and visibly laughs indicating that there is quality of life, even in such confinement.  So now the parent's care of this middle age individual is justified, in my mind at least, for ongoing care.  The extent of suffering is still a concern and we still need to justify confinement when there is no quality of life.  I personally cannot believe a just and loving God would not require us to take reasonable action to avoid suffering wherever we can prevent it.  Equating killing with releasing is to let the letter of the law kill and the spirit of the law die.  

[NeuroTypical]

4 minutes ago, Priuswork said:

I personally cannot believe a just and loving God would not require us to take reasonable action to avoid suffering wherever we can prevent it. 

Heh - good luck never having children.

Just guessing here Priuswork - are you in your teens or early 20's?  Because if you are, I don't see anything wrong with your opinion that ten years and burying someone close to you won't fix.  Your perspective on this will change as you mature. 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Priuswork said:

More light has been shed on this situation.  It now has been disclosed that the subject individual while unable to talk, can watch comical movies and visibly laughs indicating that there is quality of life, even in such confinement.  So now the parent's care of this middle age individual is justified, in my mind at least, for ongoing care.  The extent of suffering is still a concern and we still need to justify confinement when there is no quality of life.  I personally cannot believe a just and loving God would not require us to take reasonable action to avoid suffering wherever we can prevent it.  Equating killing with releasing is to let the letter of the law kill and the spirit of the law die.  

You are looking at this in the wrong light, in my opinion.  "Require us to take reasonable action to avoid suffering" is the wrong perspective when such action requires you to actively kill someone.  Suicide - regardless of whether it is done by your own hands or somebody else's - is not Godly as a solution to suffering.

The issue, therefore, is not whether the person is suffering or not.  The issue is - whether you are ACTIVELY keeping the person from death only to suffer.  God must be the person we turn to in making decisions between ending a life or prolonging a life - not our opinion on our own or someone else's needs.

Edited March 29, 2017 by anatess2

[BeccaKirstyn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

I hated that movie Me Before You.  Hated it.  That guy was selfish as all get.

I don't think we ever have any right to judge from the outside looking in on those situations. Until you are living their life, and understand the full extent of what they feel everyday, then you can make that judgment. That movie specifically didn't portray exactly what the book did when it came to showing both sides of this conflict. The pain and suffering of the individual, and the want and desire of the loved ones to persuade them to stay. It is a very sensitive and difficult situation.

Edited March 29, 2017 by BeccaKirstyn

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I don't think we ever have any right to judge from the outside looking in on those situations. Until you are living their life, and understand the full extent of what they feel everyday, then you can make that judgment. That movie specifically didn't portray exactly what the book did when it came to showing both sides of this conflict. The pain and suffering of the individual, and the want and desire of the loved ones to persuade them to stay. It is a very sensitive and difficult situation.

It doesn't matter the pain and conflict.  The Earth is an exercise of pain and conflict.  I can judge from the outside looking into that movie because... it's a movie.  Or a book.  Which I also hated.  There are no 2 sides to this conflict.  Euthanasia is suicide for that dude who has LOVE.

Now, look at Darth Vader.  He was a slave child without a father, was tortured by images of his dying mother, he was emotionally abused and manipulated by his mentor, he lost his wife, his kids, his best friends, his moral compass, his teacher cut off his legs and left him with 95% of his body burned off so he has to live in pain under a life-support respirator, he ended up ruling a galaxy under the evil dictatorship of the Emperor hoping everyday to finally wrest power and set things to right while doing everything wrong in the process.  He lived with the pain everyday never losing hope that eventually he'll get his deliverance and a chance for atonement.  And he did, although he ended up sacrificing his life for it. 

Darth Vader makes William Tray a whiny baby.

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now, look at Darth Vader. 

Really?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Priuswork said:

So now the parent's care of this middle age individual is justified, in my mind at least, for ongoing care.

Well, now that they have your permission...

[BeccaKirstyn]

50 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It doesn't matter the pain and conflict.  The Earth is an exercise of pain and conflict.  I can judge from the outside looking into that movie because... it's a movie.  Or a book.  Which I also hated.  There are no 2 sides to this conflict.  Euthanasia is suicide for that dude who has LOVE.

Now, look at Darth Vader.  He was a slave child without a father, was tortured by images of his dying mother, he was emotionally abused and manipulated by his mentor, he lost his wife, his kids, his best friends, his moral compass, his teacher cut off his legs and left him with 95% of his body burned off so he has to live in pain under a life-support respirator, he ended up ruling a galaxy under the evil dictatorship of the Emperor hoping everyday to finally wrest power and set things to right while doing everything wrong in the process.  He lived with the pain everyday never losing hope that eventually he'll get his deliverance and a chance for atonement.  And he did, although he ended up sacrificing his life for it. 

Darth Vader makes William Tray a whiny baby.

 

I definitely don't think those are equal comparisons if that was your intention.....while the book is a fictional story, it is based on the real life struggles of those who are paraplegic/quadriplegic or have similar deficiencies that require them to be cared for by a person. Because they can't do anything for themselves and suffer in pain every single day. 

I am simply saying that we are not to be the judge of those who don't want to live with that pain (emotional, physical, and mental) anymore. There's only one person who has that responsibility, and we are not Him. 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I definitely don't think those are equal comparisons if that was your intention.....while the book is a fictional story, it is based on the real life struggles of those who are paraplegic/quadriplegic or have similar deficiencies that require them to be cared for by a person. Because they can't do anything for themselves and suffer in pain every single day. 

I am simply saying that we are not to be the judge of those who don't want to live with that pain (emotional, physical, and mental) anymore. There's only one person who has that responsibility, and we are not Him. 

Okay, so taking this out of book form and into real life.  We don't judge, yes.  But I can still tell a paraplegic/quadriplegic wanting to end his life that it is wrong in the same manner that we say everyday on this forum about the rightness and wrongness of everything under the sun.

 

P.S.

On a personal note:  My boss back in 1995 or so was a quadriplegic.  QUAD.  He drives his own van.  Marvel of modern science, that guy.

Edited March 29, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Priuswork said:

 I personally cannot believe a just and loving God would not require us to take reasonable action to avoid suffering wherever we can prevent it.

But God didn't promise a life without suffering, indeed He knew we would come down here and suffer. This life is a test in which we have to sometimes have sorrow and suffering. 

If you were a parent whose son who wanted to learn ride a bike, would you  stop him because you knew he would fall of and hurt himself? You might and consider yourself a good parents, because you prevented him from suffering the pains of learning how to ride a bike. But in reality you actually stopped his progression by not letting him learn for himself and grown from his experiences. So it is with Heavenly Father but obviously on a much grander scale. He knows we will suffer and and have sorrow and he allows us to suffer because he knows the greater plan. He knows that because we suffer we will learn and grow, and one day reach exaltation.

[mordorbund]

For what it's worth, the Church Handbook of Instruction has some guidelines and counsel on this topic.

Quote

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is defined as deliberately putting to death a person who is suffering from an incurable condition or disease. A person who participates in euthanasia, including assisting someone to commit suicide, violates the commandments of God. (See also [Prolonging Life].)

Prolonging Life

When severe illness strikes, members should exercise faith in the Lord and seek competent medical assistance. However, when dying becomes inevitable, it should be seen as a blessing and a purposeful part of eternal existence. Members should not feel obligated to extend mortal life by means that are unreasonable. These judgments are best made by family members after receiving wise and competent medical advice and seeking divine guidance through fasting and prayer.