Desmond Tutuh now supports Euthanasia - a thing he use to be against. What do you guys think about Euthanasia. Is Euthanasia against sanctity of life?

Assisted dying: Desmond Tutu
signals support
13 July 2014 Last updated at 09:34
Retired Anglican South African Archbishop
Desmond Tutu said: "The fact is that I have
changed my mind"
Desmond Tutu has said he would support
assisted dying for the terminally ill.
Writing in The Observer he said he reveres
"the sanctity of life but not at any cost".
He also suggested that prolonging the life of
Nelson Mandela had been an "affront" to his
dignity.
His comments follow a U-turn by former
Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who
also said he would support assisted dying
for the terminally ill.
The Church of England (CofE) has called for
an inquiry into the issue.
In his column the 82-year-old retired
Anglican Archbishop of South Africa said: "I
think when you need machines to help you
breathe, then you have to ask questions
about the quality of life being experienced
and about the way money is being spent."
He also described as "disgraceful" how
former South African leader Nelson Mandela
was kept alive with intensive hospitalisation
in the final stages of his life and was
photographed with various visiting
politicians.
He said: "You could see Madiba [Nelson
Mandela] was not fully there. He did not
speak. He was not connecting. My friend
was no longer himself. It was an affront to
Madiba's dignity.
"Yes, I think a lot of people would be upset if
I said I wanted assisted dying. I would say I
wouldn't mind actually."
He said: "I have been fortunate to spend my
life working for dignity for the living. Now I
wish to apply my mind to the issue of
dignity for the dying. I revere the sanctity of
life - but not at any cost."
His comments follow those of Lord Carey,
who wrote in the Daily Mail that he had
dropped his opposition to the Assisted
Dying Bill - due for debate in the House of
Lords on Friday - "in the face of the reality of
needless suffering".
"The fact is that I have changed my mind.
The old philosophical certainties have
collapsed in the face of the reality of
needless suffering," he wrote.
Assisted dying debate
What is the current law on assisted dying
around the UK?
The 1961 Suicide Act makes it an offence to
encourage or assist a suicide or a suicide
attempt in England and Wales. Anyone doing
so could face up to 14 years in prison.
The law is almost identical in Northern
Ireland. There is no specific law on assisted
suicide in Scotland, creating some
uncertainty, although in theory someone
could be prosecuted under homicide
legislation.
Have there been any previous attempts to
change the law?
There have already been several attempts to
legalise assisted dying, but these have been
rejected.
The Commission on Assisted Dying,
established and funded by campaigners
who have been calling for a change in the
law, concluded in 2012 that there was a
"strong case" for allowing assisted suicide
for people who are terminally ill in England
and Wales.
But the medical profession and disability
rights groups, among others, argue that the
law should not be changed because it is
there to protect the vulnerable in society.
What is the situation abroad?
In other countries, such as Belgium,
Luxembourg and the Netherlands,
legislation has been introduced to allow
assisted dying. France is considering a
possible introduction of similar legislation,
although there is opposition from its
medical ethics council.
Campaign group Dignity in Dying predicts
that a lot more countries will follow suit.
However, the current Archbishop of
Canterbury, Justin Welby, regards the
Assisted Dying Bill as "mistaken and
dangerous" and the Church of England
(CofE) wants to see an inquiry into the issue.
The Church said a Royal Commission would
include expert opinion and could carefully
assess the various arguments.
It believes the current bill should be
withdrawn to allow that inquiry to take
place - a call rejected by Lord Falconer, the
Labour peer who tabled it.
Some 110 peers are already listed to speak
in the House of Lords when the bill is
debated on Friday.
Desmond Tutu has pointed out that the
debate will take place on Mandela Day,
which would have been the former South
African president's 96th birthday.

http://m.bbc.com/news/uk-28282323

To keep. Loved one in a vegetative state is a tough decision to make, but I believe the "vegetable" will rather want to go meet his maker

EddyNumerouno: To keep. Loved one in a vegetative state is a tough decision to make, but I believe the "vegetable" will rather want to go meet his maker

thanks for response

Papa Tutu has spoken from the experience of seeing Madiba medically kept alive even when his spirit was long gone.

Yes, I will subscribe to it but only my wife should be my attorney if I be so incapacitated.

It is very good.

I could remember when my mother has cancer and the doctor know that my mother told him that he should make nothing that will keep her alive.
It was the same they make with my husband when he had cancer and there was no help, he could die in piece and no machines help him to stay alive for some weeks more!!!!!!!!!!!

but what about the centrality of faith, hope and love to the Christian teaching? Even from the dead, Jesus raised a Lazarus.

i can see so many of you supporting it are
doing so on the ground of compassion.
Lets see it this way, would you also
support Eugenics? Eugenics is a scientific
that seeks to improve the mental and
physical characteristics of the human race
by choosing who should be parent ie, who
should get married and procreate or not.
If you go into the lives and struggles of
people of 'poor gene' eg migdets, you will
be drawn by compassion too and may
begin to support what many of them
secretly believe - that thier likes may never
procreate so as not to bring in more
midgets who will withness the same pain
they had to go through. How ok is that
thinking?

What part of "thou shalt not kill" is difficult to understand?

italo: What part of "thou shalt not kill" is difficult to understand?

Please, help me ask

-the catholics that killed infidels during the crusades
-the catholics and christians who vote for capital punishment

As regards Euthanasia, this is what i believe,
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
Whatever its motives and means,
direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal
of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions
should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient,

Ubenedictus: As regards Euthanasia, this is what i believe,
Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
Whatever its motives and means,
direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgement into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.
Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal
of 'over-zealous' treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted. The decisions
should be made by the patient if he is competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the patient,

@ bold

In short, euthanasia is okay when it is costly.

When a sick person begs for death because of pain.....dont do it because it is immoral

When a sick person is too costly to keep alive........do it/kill the patient to save money/time/work



This ridiculous reasoning from christians/catholilcs has caused misery around the world.



It is funny how christians are always focused on the money

TheBigUrban2:

@ bold

In short, euthanasia is okay when it is costly.

i never said this! My response doesn't even mention "cost". I hope you don't enjoy lying

When a sick person begs for death because of pain.....dont do it because it is immoral

everybody has one pain or the other, is that a reason to help them commit suicide? I think not.

When a sick person is too costly to keep alive........do it/kill the patient to save money/time/work

never said this.

This ridiculous reasoning from christians/catholilcs has caused misery around the world.

i guess the "ridiculous reasoning" is the one you created for yourself.

It is funny how christians are always focused on the money

money isn't even mentioned in my post. You see you have a comprehension problem?

TheBigUrban2:
Please, help me ask

-the catholics that killed infidels during the crusades
-the catholics and christians who vote for capital punishment

I don't know the Catholics that killed "infidels" during the crusades and the circumstances under which they killed. Some say they were fighting to defend Christians who had been decimated by Muslims who invaded for no reason.

I don't know the Catholics who vote for capital punishment an their reasons for doing so...if I did, I would ask them why.

But I do know you who advocate the killing of innocent, harmless and defenseless human beings through euthanasia.

I ask you: what part of "thou shalt not kill" is difficult to understand?

italo:

I don't know the Catholics that killed "infidels" during the crusades and the circumstances under which they killed. Some say they were fighting to defend Christians who had been decimated by Muslims who invaded for no reason.

I don't know the Catholics who vote for capital punishment an their reasons for doing so...if I did, I would ask them why.

But I do know you who advocate the killing of innocent, harmless and defenseless human beings through euthanasia.

I ask you: what part of "thou shalt not kill" is difficult to understand?

you just defended the crusades.


Goodbye. There is no need discussing with someone not ready to tell the truth

Ubenedictus: i never said this! My response doesn't even mention "cost". I hope you don't enjoy lying


money isn't even mentioned in my post. You see you have a comprehension problem?

Wait, what does your comment imply;

Ubenedictus: Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate;

What makes a medical procedure burdensome or extraordinary? The cost of money and labour (especially when the patient isnt getting better).


So let us be honest- you support Euthanasia on the basis of money. If a terminal patient is too costly, kill the vegetable!!

TheBigUrban2:


you just defended the crusades.


Goodbye. There is no need discussing with someone not ready to tell the truth

1. I dont remember defending or attacking the crusades.

2. If you don't like the crusades but like euthanasia, then...

3. What is the truth about the crusades?

TheBigUrban2:



Wait, what does your comment imply;




What makes a medical procedure burdensome or extraordinary? The cost of money and labour (especially when the patient isnt getting better).


So let us be honest- you support Euthanasia on the basis of money. If a terminal patient is too costly, kill the vegetable!!

read the comment in it context it is extraordinary, burdensome and even dangerous when the expected outcome of the procedure is death. When some one is brain dead and his organs are shutting down, it is considered extraordinary to put him on life support. It is not based on cost, but on the context of the medical procedure.

To inject a lethal substance into a patient because his care is costly is still immoral and consider murder in catholicism. So it isn't about cost.

Ubenedictus: read the comment in it context it is extraordinary, burdensome and even dangerous when the expected outcome of the procedure is death. When some one is brain dead and his organs are shutting down, it is considered extraordinary to put him on life support. It is not based on cost, but on the context of the medical procedure.

To inject a lethal substance into a patient because his care is costly is still immoral and consider murder in catholicism. So it isn't about cost.

The main reason for removing life support is cost.


It makes no difference if you give the vegetable patient a lethal injection or remove life support- you are killing him with both actions

TheBigUrban2:



The main reason for removing life support is cost.


It makes no difference if you give the vegetable patient a lethal injection or remove life support- you are killing him with both actions

i disagree on both count.

Ubenedictus: i disagree on both count.

lol....I understand. I exposed your flawed thinking.

TheBigUrban2:


lol....I understand. I exposed your flawed thinking.

rather you exposed your flawed thinking, there is a difference between accepting inevitable death, and actually causing death.


But in your flawed thinking you don't see the difference.

Ubenedictus: rather you exposed your flawed thinking, there is a difference between accepting inevitable death, and actually causing death.


But in your flawed thinking you don't see the difference.

What?

You dont know that most, if not all euthanasia patients are facing certain death?

They have terminal illnesses. They just want to die quicker because of the pain.

There is no difference between removing life support from someone with terminal illness and giving a lethal injection to someone with terminal illness.


You are killing both patients

TheBigUrban2:


What?

You dont know that most, if not all euthanasia patients are facing certain death?

They have terminal illnesses. They just want to die quicker because of the pain.

There is no difference between removing life support from someone with terminal illness and giving a lethal injection to someone with terminal illness.


You are killing both patients

sorry dear its not the same thing, in one case the patient dies of natural causes in the other he is killed by a deadly substance.

Ubenedictus:

sorry dear its not the same thing, in one case the patient dies of natural causes in the other he is killed by a deadly substance.

Nope, one dies because his medication was taken away and the other dies because he was given relief medication.


They both died because the doctor chose to change their medication

TheBigUrban2:


Nope, one dies because his medication was taken away and the other dies because he was given relief medication.


They both died because the doctor chose to change their medication

if lethal substances are relief medication, i hope you take them the next time you have a headache.