Page 381 |
Previous | 748 of 1065 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
Loading content ...
Formal prohibition, however, even with the articulated reasoning of the AMA, apparently does not satisfy the advocates of physician-assisted suicide. To put the matter starkly, the salient issue for these advocates is with meaningless and purposeless suffering and pain: ffliat is meaningless and purposeless suffering and pain? How do we perceive it? Because we do not know these things "naturally," as part of the wisdom that we all innately possess, we must ask how do we fmd out what is "meaningless" and "purposeless?" What are the resources, what are the referents, what in fact controls the meaning of "meaningless" and "purposeless"? Christian Reflections on Suffering and Suicide Christians have to be trained to know where to look for meaning and purpose, and Episcopalians (of whom I am one) have historically answered those questions by appealing to scripture, tradition, and reason, with the clear understanding, as the Lambeth Conference of 1888 put it, that scripture is "the rule and ultimate standard of faith." Space is short, so I will paint the rest of this portrait with a rather broad brush. These questions go back to the earliest traditions of Western civilization. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle held suicide to be a crime against the community, and Plato even argued that it was tantamount to a crime against God." Christians later affirmed this position, but for very different reasons, specifically the Christian belief in God's incarnation as Jesus. According to this doctrine, God took on human flesh as Jesus (John 1:14), gave himself as expiation for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:1-2), and reconciled the world to himself (Rom. 5-8). Because of this, human life is valuable not because of any human attribution of worth, but because it is invested with God-given value and worth. In baptism, our lives have been given away to God. It is the notion that human life belongs to God that accounts for Christian condemnation of abortion, infanticide, child abuse, war, homicide, and suicide. On these terms, we do not own our lives, nor is the value of human life self-generated. The distinguishing mark of a Christian anthropology is that God, not ourselves, is in control. I believe that it is essential for us to recall these important components of the rhetoric of Christian faith as we undertake to comprehend moral complexities like the one before us. If we beheve in God, then what we believe about God�theology�ought to make a difference in how we engage in practical reasoning about matters of this sort. In the classical world of Greece and Rome, suicide was often idealized as a noble form of death, but from the 2nd century onward. Christian teaching has condemned it. The early fathers of the Church�Cyprian, Ambrose, Irenaeus, and Athanasius�all contributed to the Christian doctrine on suicide," but it was Augustine who succinctly formulated the Christian position and, specifically addressing the "nobility of suicide" argument, named the three grounds on which suicide is denounced: 1) it violates the command- ment, "Thou Shalt not kill;" 2) it precludes any opportunity for repentance; and 3) it is a cowardly act.'" In the 13th century, St. Thomas gave the conventional Christian position its classical formulation when he wrote that "Suicide is the most fatal of sins, because it cannot be repented of"'' In his brief but comprehensive account of how the Anglican tradition has treated suicide, David Smith notes that, while the greater weight of the evidence is on the side ofdenunciation, it is impossible to say that consent can never be given to suicide.'* Although it may, at times be a morally tolerable or even appropriate action, these times are clearly exceptional and not the rule. To be sure, thoughtful Anglicans like Dean Inge, and maybe John Donne and, at the time that he wrote Morals and Medicine, Joseph Fletcher, have defended suicide; and Inge and Fletcherendorsed euthanasia, which Fletcher defined as "These questions go back to the earliest traditions of Western civilization. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle held suicide to be a crime against the community." the painless killing of a person whose "life has permanently ceased to be either agreeable or useful [to] himself or another.""^''^' In fact, Fletcher identified 10 moral arguments against suicide and euthanasia, which he then proceeded to dispose of one-by-one en route to endorsing what he called "voluntary euthanasia" and hinting at his favor (he would later be an advocate) for the "involuntary euthanasia for monstrosities at birth and mental defectives, a partly personalistic and partly eugenic position.""'f He also suggested "with fme simplicity" that the Scriptures authorized us to commit suicide,"^^ ''*' conveniently failing to mention Judas Iscariot and neglecting to acknowledge the sheer tragedy and repugnance that instanced the deaths of Ahithophel (II Sam. 15-18), Zimri (I Kings 16:18-19), et al. David Smith's caveat is apropos: "The great moral danger of medical suicide is that it will be egotistical and manipulative, symbolic of an unwillingness to play the role of dependent when it falls to our timi. Theologically it may 'be the expression of a refusal to trust in God, an embracing of death for its own sake, a form of self-justification, a desertion to the enemy.'"'*^''*^' This judicious sensibility is a familiar refrain in the writings of both Richard Hooker'^ and Jeremy Taylor," who echo the conviction that no one can claim a right to death on the ground that their life is their own. Indeed, Taylor made the point explicit by asserting that human life belongs to God and that persons should not presume to choose the cause of their death. The core thread, says David Smith, "is the idea that 'medically indicated' suicide represents a desertion or NCMJ / August 1993. Volume 54 Number 8 381
Object Description
Rating | |
Fixed Title * | NCHH-17: North Carolina Medical Journal [1940-Present] |
Document Title | North Carolina Medical Journal [1940-Present] |
Subject Topical Other | Public Health -- Periodicals.; Physicians -- North Carolina -- Directory.; Societies, Medical -- North Carolina -- Periodicals. |
Description | Includes Transactions of the Society, -1960; 1961- , Transactions issued separately, bound in.; Includes Transactions of the auxiliary to the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina and Proceedings of the North Carolina Public Health Association. Official organ of the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina, 1940-May 1972; of the North Carolina Medical Society, June 1972-. Vols. for 1940-May 1972 published by the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina; June 1972- by the North Carolina Medical Society. |
Contributor | Medical Society of the State of North Carolina. Transactions.; Medical Society of the State of North Carolina.; North Carolina Medical Society.; North Carolina Medical Society. Transactions.; North Carolina Public Health Association. Proceedings. |
Publisher | [Winston-Salem] : North Carolina Medical Society [etc.], 1940- |
Repository | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Health Sciences Library. |
Host | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Date | 1993 |
Identifier | NCHH-17-054 |
Form General | Periodicals |
Language | English |
Rights | This item is part of the North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection. Some materials in the Collection are protected by U.S. copyright law. This item is presented by the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for research and educational purposes. It may not be republished or distributed without permission of the Health Sciences Library. |
Digital Collection | North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection |
Sponsor | The North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection is an open access publishing initiative of the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Financial support for the initiative was provided in part by a multi-year NC ECHO (Exploring Cultural Heritage Online) digitization grant, awarded by the State Library of North Carolina, and funded through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). |
Volume Number | 54 |
Health Discipline | Medicine |
Digital Format | JPEG 2000 |
Print / Download PDF Version | http://archives.hsl.unc.edu/nchh/nchh-17/nchh-17-054.pdf |
Document Sort | all; nchh-17 |
Volume Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/identi/searchterm/NCHH-17-054 |
Title Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/documa/searchterm/NCHH-17 |
Catalog Record link | http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb1306322 |
Revision History | done |
Description
Fixed Title * | Page 381 |
Document Title | North Carolina Medical Journal [1940-Present] |
Subject Topical Other | Public Health -- Periodicals.; Physicians -- North Carolina -- Directory.; Societies, Medical -- North Carolina -- Periodicals. |
Description | Includes Transactions of the Society, -1960; 1961- , Transactions issued separately, bound in.; Includes Transactions of the auxiliary to the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina and Proceedings of the North Carolina Public Health Association. Official organ of the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina, 1940-May 1972; of the North Carolina Medical Society, June 1972-. Vols. for 1940-May 1972 published by the Medical Society of the State of North Carolina; June 1972- by the North Carolina Medical Society. |
Contributor | Medical Society of the State of North Carolina. Transactions.; Medical Society of the State of North Carolina.; North Carolina Medical Society.; North Carolina Medical Society. Transactions.; North Carolina Public Health Association. Proceedings. |
Publisher | [Winston-Salem] : North Carolina Medical Society [etc.], 1940- |
Repository | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Health Sciences Library. |
Host | University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill |
Date | 1993 |
Identifier | NCHH-17-054-0095 |
Form General | Periodicals |
Page Type | all; article |
Language | English |
Rights | This item is part of the North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection. Some materials in the Collection are protected by U.S. copyright law. This item is presented by the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for research and educational purposes. It may not be republished or distributed without permission of the Health Sciences Library. |
Filename | ncmed541993julydecember_0095.jp2 |
Digital Collection | North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection |
Sponsor | The North Carolina History of Health Digital Collection is an open access publishing initiative of the Health Sciences Library of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Financial support for the initiative was provided in part by a multi-year NC ECHO (Exploring Cultural Heritage Online) digitization grant, awarded by the State Library of North Carolina, and funded through the Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA). |
Volume Number | 54 |
Issue Number | 8 |
Page Number | 381 |
Health Discipline | Medicine |
Full Text | Formal prohibition, however, even with the articulated reasoning of the AMA, apparently does not satisfy the advocates of physician-assisted suicide. To put the matter starkly, the salient issue for these advocates is with meaningless and purposeless suffering and pain: ffliat is meaningless and purposeless suffering and pain? How do we perceive it? Because we do not know these things "naturally" as part of the wisdom that we all innately possess, we must ask how do we fmd out what is "meaningless" and "purposeless?" What are the resources, what are the referents, what in fact controls the meaning of "meaningless" and "purposeless"? Christian Reflections on Suffering and Suicide Christians have to be trained to know where to look for meaning and purpose, and Episcopalians (of whom I am one) have historically answered those questions by appealing to scripture, tradition, and reason, with the clear understanding, as the Lambeth Conference of 1888 put it, that scripture is "the rule and ultimate standard of faith." Space is short, so I will paint the rest of this portrait with a rather broad brush. These questions go back to the earliest traditions of Western civilization. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle held suicide to be a crime against the community, and Plato even argued that it was tantamount to a crime against God." Christians later affirmed this position, but for very different reasons, specifically the Christian belief in God's incarnation as Jesus. According to this doctrine, God took on human flesh as Jesus (John 1:14), gave himself as expiation for the sins of the whole world (I John 2:1-2), and reconciled the world to himself (Rom. 5-8). Because of this, human life is valuable not because of any human attribution of worth, but because it is invested with God-given value and worth. In baptism, our lives have been given away to God. It is the notion that human life belongs to God that accounts for Christian condemnation of abortion, infanticide, child abuse, war, homicide, and suicide. On these terms, we do not own our lives, nor is the value of human life self-generated. The distinguishing mark of a Christian anthropology is that God, not ourselves, is in control. I believe that it is essential for us to recall these important components of the rhetoric of Christian faith as we undertake to comprehend moral complexities like the one before us. If we beheve in God, then what we believe about God�theology�ought to make a difference in how we engage in practical reasoning about matters of this sort. In the classical world of Greece and Rome, suicide was often idealized as a noble form of death, but from the 2nd century onward. Christian teaching has condemned it. The early fathers of the Church�Cyprian, Ambrose, Irenaeus, and Athanasius�all contributed to the Christian doctrine on suicide" but it was Augustine who succinctly formulated the Christian position and, specifically addressing the "nobility of suicide" argument, named the three grounds on which suicide is denounced: 1) it violates the command- ment, "Thou Shalt not kill;" 2) it precludes any opportunity for repentance; and 3) it is a cowardly act.'" In the 13th century, St. Thomas gave the conventional Christian position its classical formulation when he wrote that "Suicide is the most fatal of sins, because it cannot be repented of"'' In his brief but comprehensive account of how the Anglican tradition has treated suicide, David Smith notes that, while the greater weight of the evidence is on the side ofdenunciation, it is impossible to say that consent can never be given to suicide.'* Although it may, at times be a morally tolerable or even appropriate action, these times are clearly exceptional and not the rule. To be sure, thoughtful Anglicans like Dean Inge, and maybe John Donne and, at the time that he wrote Morals and Medicine, Joseph Fletcher, have defended suicide; and Inge and Fletcherendorsed euthanasia, which Fletcher defined as "These questions go back to the earliest traditions of Western civilization. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle held suicide to be a crime against the community." the painless killing of a person whose "life has permanently ceased to be either agreeable or useful [to] himself or another.""^''^' In fact, Fletcher identified 10 moral arguments against suicide and euthanasia, which he then proceeded to dispose of one-by-one en route to endorsing what he called "voluntary euthanasia" and hinting at his favor (he would later be an advocate) for the "involuntary euthanasia for monstrosities at birth and mental defectives, a partly personalistic and partly eugenic position.""'f He also suggested "with fme simplicity" that the Scriptures authorized us to commit suicide"^^ ''*' conveniently failing to mention Judas Iscariot and neglecting to acknowledge the sheer tragedy and repugnance that instanced the deaths of Ahithophel (II Sam. 15-18), Zimri (I Kings 16:18-19), et al. David Smith's caveat is apropos: "The great moral danger of medical suicide is that it will be egotistical and manipulative, symbolic of an unwillingness to play the role of dependent when it falls to our timi. Theologically it may 'be the expression of a refusal to trust in God, an embracing of death for its own sake, a form of self-justification, a desertion to the enemy.'"'*^''*^' This judicious sensibility is a familiar refrain in the writings of both Richard Hooker'^ and Jeremy Taylor" who echo the conviction that no one can claim a right to death on the ground that their life is their own. Indeed, Taylor made the point explicit by asserting that human life belongs to God and that persons should not presume to choose the cause of their death. The core thread, says David Smith, "is the idea that 'medically indicated' suicide represents a desertion or NCMJ / August 1993. Volume 54 Number 8 381 |
Digital Format | JPEG 2000 |
Print / Download PDF Version | http://archives.hsl.unc.edu/nchh/nchh-17/nchh-17-054.pdf |
Document Sort | all; nchh-17 |
Article Title | Richard P. Vance; Jack Ciancio, Rn, And Eddie West |
Article Author | Harmon L. Smith |
Volume Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/identi/searchterm/NCHH-17-054 |
Title Link | http://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/search/collection/nchh/field/documa/searchterm/NCHH-17 |
Catalog Record link | http://search.lib.unc.edu/search?R=UNCb1306322 |
Revision History | done |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Page 381