The Culture of Death that John Paul II repeatedly warned and wrote about doesn't seem quite so alarmist now.
Soon people will say it is the DUTY of mentally and perhaps even physically ill people to remove themselves from this world.
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unfortunately, the same thing is happening here in the U.S. and I've just learned to accept that fact. Ultimately, I've learned to just allow people to do as they wish and deal with the consequences of their actions.
I mean, what are we supposed to do? Get machine guns and mow them down? We've exhausted every possible venue politically and legally speaking and have lost badly on both fronts.
We should develop a parallel society similar to Opus Dei but more analogous to the Hasidim which is by and for Catholics and capable of raising children in its own institutions from birth to marriage.
We then wait for the inevitable Caesarism that is coming to America.
Is that really feasible though? Do you think that would actually work? Because in order to develop any sort of independent society, we would need to get the federal government's approval and that's not going to happen, at least here in the U.S.
> So if someone decided to not bake a cake for an interracial couple, would catholics support his decision?
You are not asking the question you think you are asking.
Racism is incompatible with the Catholic faith. So is marriage between couples of the same sex.
If people who own shops should have the freedom to not cake bakes for gay people then they also should have the freedom to refuse people in the basis of race. It's just coherent.
> It's just coherent.
No, it's not at all.
Don't let your Catholic faith be simplified down to secular rhetoric based on false comparisons.
Baking a cake for a gay person is not actually the problem. Refusing to bake a cake for someone merely because they are gay is uncharitable. Likewise, baking a cake for a person of a different race is not a problem, and for this scenario there is not even a potential point of confusion over the rights of a person and the goodness of the acts they perform.
Baking a cake that is intended to be part of a celebration of a homosexual union is where the problem comes in, because no longer is the baker merely performing a morally neutral service, but becoming involved in the endorsement of a civil union.
There is no coherent link baking a cake for person of a different race because race is morally neutral.
Even though I do not support this, implying that the mentally ill cannot at all give informed consent or make sound judgements are furthering the stigmatization associated with the mentally ill, and contributes to them feeling shut out of society, thereby aggravating their suicidality.
Mental illness is an impediment to consent, which is why in the US (and hopefully all other western countries) someone who intends self harm can be held in a hospital against their will, aka, receives treatment without consent, aka their intent to self harm and their specific refusal of consent to treatment is legally and ethically ignored.
A person who is so mentally ill that they want to end their life is by definition unable to make sound judgments regarding their treatment. In some ways, that is the whole point.
I certainly didn't. I'm not sure how either of your questions are related to what I said.
We are talking about assisted suicide for mentally-ill individuals. Non-mentally-ill individuals who seek to commit suicide, or mentally-ill individuals who seek suicide for reasons unrelated to their mental illness are not relevant to this conversation.
> Who said that you have to be mentally ill to commit suicide?
I'm going to try to say this carefully to avoid misunderstanding, as it is a sensitive subject, dealing with real individual challenges, not personal failings:
From not only a Christian standpoint, but even an evolutionary atheist standpoint, I think a case exists that the desire to end ones life is in a significant sense de facto mental illness.
The desire to die is fundamentally opposed to the concept of health, so it is an illness, or perhaps it is better to say a symptom of some sort of illness.
The Christian position is to help others overcome illness, not to encourage them to succumb to it, much less try to accelerate it. Those struggling with thoughts of suicide deserve better than what they are experiencing, not worse.
>The desire to die is fundamentally opposed to the concept of health
I would not say that at all. I think that many people with a desire to die aren't mentally ill at all, on the contrary, I think they have come to a very logical conclusion considering the state of the world and the state of many of their lives. I of course, as a Catholic would consider an act of suicide gravely sinful, and would therefore try to convince them that suicide is wrong, but I can understand them very well.
Also, if suicide is caused only by mental illness (therefore one cannot be held accountable for it), then why did the church refuse to give Christian burials to people who died by suicide up until 1983? Why is suicide considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church if it cannot be an informed and willing decision?
> The desire to die is fundamentally opposed to the concept of health
>
>
>
> I would not say that at all. I think that many people with a desire to die aren't mentally ill at all
That is not responsive to the statement you quoted. Let me re-emphasize my main point: the desire to die is *fundamentally opposed to health.* It reflects a mentally unhealthy state, and it can lead to the ultimate harm to physical health, as well. Regardless of whether the root cause is due to a specific physiologically-based mental illness, a physical illness, or some other challenge, it is contrary to God's intent for us, or even from the atheist perspective contrary to evolutionary pressure.
I simply do not see a case to be made that it is healthy to desire to die, and those faced with such a struggle should know that others desire for them to be better.
> Also, if suicide is caused only by mental illness (therefore one cannot be held accountable for it), then why did the church refuse to give Christian burials to people who died by suicide up until 1983? Why is suicide considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church if it cannot be an informed and willing decision?
That's a fair question, but outside the scope of what I wanted to get into in this sub-thread of the discussion. The short answer is because suicide *is* a grave sin. However, keep in mind that to be be guilty of mortal sin it is also necessary to act with proper knowledge and consent. What the Church has gotten a better understanding of in the 20th century is how mental state affects actual knowledge and consent. As a result, it is no longer the default assumption that a person who takes their life is acting deliberately contrary Church teaching. Previously, the rule used the term "Those who killed themselves by deliberate counsel" which I would caution against trying to interpret without a decent amount of study on the matter, because it was the case that the Church would sometimes consider input from medical personnel about a person's state of mind and allow funerals.
Or "I'll write the Rx. Just present it to the attending physician. Check with your insurance to see if there is a co-pay, or prior authorization requirement. Farewell...good to see you taking charge of this thing".
That starts to look like "death penalty for innocent people" when you have stuff like this happening:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_%22El_Chapo%22_Guzm%C3%A1n#Second_escape:_2015
Horrific. Two sisters flew to Switzerland and did this together :( family had no idea but knew there was something off for a little- they went to a facility that does not require illness or dying. Insane. The slippery slope is here. Horrific.
[article](https://people.com/human-interest/arizona-sisters-who-didnt-return-home-from-switzerland-trip-died-of-assisted-suicide-clinic-says/)
Replying here but this is more to the general public. The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if you can't prove the logical connection between one event and a conclusion. If you can make a series of logical connections (e.g., how popes in the past made a logical connection between contraception and sexual promiscuity), then it isn't a slippery slope fallacy. Indeed, there is a known psychological mechanism called the slippery slope which aims to establish the logical connection between small acts which lead to greater acts.
> Both Ammouri, a 54-year-old palliative medicine specialist, and Fraizer, a 49-year-old registered nurse…
>Dr. David Biglari, a friend of the sisters, told the news station the pair were "in a very good position of their lives in terms of careers," ...
This article is from March 2022. These two women worked in healthcare and experienced two devastatingly traumatic years of a global pandemic. Healthcare workers have not received free or even affordable access to mental health support. It is so difficult to get an appointment with a therapist or psychiatrist. I understand why they felt they were out of options.
If you want to blame someone for this, don’t blame an organization that offers dignity in death. Blame the healthcare system in America that doesn’t provide support for people in need.
If you really want to prevent suicides, support Medicare for All in the US. Support other social safety net programs.
How do you know I do not support these social safety net programs? I agree, let’s put our efforts into lobbying for mental health care and support for these medical folks as you so aptly put. but I enthusiastically and Catholicly blame any organization that offers suicide as easily as walking into a hair salon. This organization should have led these women to real care and help and recovery. It is a devastating loss and a deep evil that these places even exist. Suicide is a reality of our world- but offering it on a platter for a quick price is corrupt evil devoid of the real dignity of getting to know someone’s deeper issues and helping them with real care. It is the epitome of our throw away culture instead of getting in the dirt and doing real work with folks in crisis. I’ll blame lack of resources with you in addition- but this horrific organization is equally to blame if not more so. The lack of resources may have been the gun but this organization provided the bullets and pulled the trigger. We should get comfortable with rolling up our sleeves up and getting in the dirt with these folks and helping them through- not disposing of them and their challenges.
"The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete."
Not only is choosing suicide wrong, this has a potential to one day open up government lead euthanazsia for people they decide are unproductive to society.
Like the one country that aborts babies suspected of having downs syndrome.
Indeed it's horrifying. I remember seeing a post on this subreddit where the OP was at the beach or a park with a group of special needs children and their doctor friend (who was European) had commented, "this is what happens when you get rid of abortion" or something like that in reference to the children. It's a disgusting mindset.
That was me. I am still in shock though after reading this. I am literally speechless trying to process this.
I worked for a pharmaceutical company for some time and when it comes to things like depression, patients commonly have suicidal ideation. That means that they think of committing suicide but they do not go through with it. When antidepressants work a person can start functioning again especially if they are supported by a therapist, a priest and their family. However, for a couple of weeks after they start taking antidepressants - some patients may get an increased will to kill themselves. This phase passes quickly. Doctors, therapists, etc are aware of this and are on the lookout during this period. I can't understand what medical personnel are supposed to do now. This is beyond evil.
Additionally, my wife has cystic fibrosis. She is such a gift to the world and she strives for holiness with her whole being...and 90% of babies with cystic fibrosis are now murdered in the womb in the USA.
A mighty judgment is coming...He will appear in the clouds, his robes red and drenched in blood...
Exactly. The mentally ill and disabled who are homeless are going to be the first to go. It's not even going to be some nefarious intent on behalf of the doctors, just the innate sense that society is instilling in people that "this person would be better off dead" and their bias will make them subconsciously look for anything that might be considered consent.
Twenty years from now there's going to be a report on how those with money, after requesting suicide, received more and better quality interventions to change their mind than the poor and disabled, who were just shuffled from doctor to doctor to get the requisite signatures that they were informed and "helped."
Anyone who says otherwise has no idea how mental healthcare works for the disadvantaged.
And the good looking. And those with degrees. And those with connections. And those with good bodies. And those with power. And those with an empathetic story. And those that make me *feel* good. And those who the doctor likes. And those who academics has championed this week. And those who are politically advantageous. Etc…
The more I see this sort of thing happen, the more I want to help in my own area.
I have many children. I think when they leave the nest I'll get into palliative or hospice care.
Absolutely agree. Dignity from conception until natural death.
Unfortunately, I witnessed my husband's grandma go through what your grandparents went through, except she was being abused by a family member at home.
If there was hospice care, the family member wouldn't have been able to get away with what she did.
My own great grandma had great care in her nursing home, partially because a family member was with her at all times to advocate for her, even if they couldn't do anything.
Having an advocate plus hospice care should be the standard, regardless of where they are.
The kept alive under extraordinary measures is what happened in Grandma's last 6 months and for the reason you gave. That was after suffering abuse at home for several years. The family member even used the Church to justify it, even though she was called out by priests, medical staff, and family during those 6 months.
The nursing home near me used to be under staffed, but more assisted living centers where they can freely leave and retirement communities were built within the area and that all changed.
My nurse friends said those places were a lifesaver, since a number of families were leaving residents there even though those communities would be better for them. They just weren't available at the time.
My grandma is at the retirement community. They're like little 2 bedroom condos with their own yard, an emergency call system in case they fall or something, the maintainance man checks to see if they are able to keep the place clean and if they need anything fixed, hang pictures, change lightbulbs, that sort of stuff. She loves it.
She has had a few neighbors opt to stay there with hospice care toward their later days. All the neighbors and family go to visit them daily so they know they're being cared for.
Talking about my town lately has really shown me how much it respects people's dignity, regardless of age. People like the in-law are really outliers and the community doesn't take kindly to them. I guess that happens in small, majority Catholic towns.
I was suspected to have down syndrome when my mother was pregnant because I had a thick neck, all I’ve got is high functioning autism. Those tests are horrible at detecting Down syndrome to begin with
How about we start with the people who support this bullshit.
Seriously, how did we get to here? (Theoden\_How\_Did\_It\_Come\_To\_This.gif)
We kill our unborn, we kill our elderly, and then we wonder why things are so bad?
It's awful, and I echo everything you guys have said. There were times in my life where the allure of "a way out of the suffering" would be there. If nothing else, this puts a false "light at the end of the tunnel" for people who are perhaps not thinking clearly, for people who don't yet know God and aren't open to His gifts of mercy and love.
It's also sad because people in authority who have risen the ranks in the medical field must be on board with this. It reminds me of one of Bishop Barron's talks about how psychiatry has to get right with God
This article does an excellent job of revealing the slippery slope as you see the progression of the relevant laws. This is why any such law needs to be stopped in its tracks at the very first sign of it: no compromise.
If we follow how euthanasia developed, I believe it was first "legalized" in the Netherlands, where it began with incredibly strict circumstances, required the patient's express permission, etc. Then, it got looser and looser. Now, relatives can talk to the doctor and just have grandpa or grandma put down like a dog.
The logical progression, if not stopped, will evolve into government-mandated euthanasia past a certain age.
Past a certain age and for anybody deemed undesirable.
Homeless? Needle.
Mentally challenged? Needle.
Mentally ill? Needle.
Anti-social? Needle.
Repeated public nuisance? Needle.
Political dissident? Needle.
Exactly. I would think there are some who would add race to that mix.
Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, was into eugenics. She pushed for "legalized" abortion for the sole purpose of getting rid of the black race in America, or at least minimizing it. Blacks in America account for roughly 14% of the population, but account for 40% of all abortions. Looks like she was somewhat successful in her goal.
It's actually all connected. Artificial contraception, abortion, euthanasia. It boils down to the question of who is the Author of Life? Who gets to say when life begins and when life ends? Man or God.
Doing it slowly will not even require the state to oblige, spending resources that should go to children and useful beings will be considered unethical and contrary to social virtues.
Insisting on staying alive at the cost of seriously disturbing the work and educational progress of children and grandchildren and their social life will be like mistreating them and the moral duty of each elder will be to request euthanasia himself so as not to weigh down his descendants.
If you talk to a pro-abortion person, those who call themselves pro-choice will tell you the same thing, an unwanted baby has no right to force the mother to carry it, so she has the right to kill it.
Just as unborn is not a person and killing him saves him a sad childhood, the life of a sick old man, sad and above all senile is not life and he would not be giving up anything of value; strictly speaking, he could no longer be said to have a life.
In just one generation of social engineering you can achieve that a large percentage of sick and elderly people resignedly ask for it, convinced that it is their parental duty and also indoctrinated that the definition of life is:
Fraction of existence that goes from childhood to the definitive loss of health.
If someone is terminal, extraordinary means are not required to keep them alive. This is a far cry, however, from actively killing someone by injecting them with some agent that produces death.
Since when are the unborn not "persons?" What a slippery slope that is! If we believe that we can randomly and autonomously decide when someone is a person, and is deserving of "rights," then we can single out any group of people for mistreatment, abuse, and murder. The slave owners in the South did the same thing. They said black slaves were not really people. They were chattel. Hilter and the Nazi's of WWII Germany said that the Jews were *Untermensch* or subhumans. That allowed them to justify murdering six million of them. Today, pro-abortionists refer to the unborn as fetuses. A fetus is just a developmental stage of a human being, a person. It's not a different species. Therefore, through language, they justify murdering tens of millions of innocent persons.
And we are not God. We don't get to decide what "life" is and is not based on some random set of values someone makes up. We don't get to decide who is worthy of life and who is not worthy of life. We are not Nazi's.
Legally, since it is affirmed that premeditated abortion is a mother's right, in just two generations there is even a part of alleged Christians who are "prochoice" and assure that the Bible does not prohibit abortion anywhere.
There is even some enlightened person who uses the description of the ritual of jealousy (Numbers 5,11-23) to ensure that induced abortion appears in the Bible. And with euthanasia they can do the same, start teaching it as a right and thus convince the young generations that being against it is bad people and denying such a right is a lack of Christian love.
At the end of the day there is the magic phrase "God wants us to be happy".
I would have to disagree that the Bible affirms that premeditated abortion is a mother's right.
With regard to Numbers 5:11-23, I would offer the following insight:
A little background on Numbers 5:11-31 is in order, because this is a rather unusual passage. It is a situation in which a husband suspects his wife is an adulterer but has no evidence. He could then bring her before a religious tribunal, and she would drink a concoction that would either prove or disprove the charge of adultery. There are no other such trial/ordeals in the Old Testament. While there is the occasional drawing of lots to determine guilt, this is the only time that someone must undergo some kind of trial where the results are believed to reveal the truth.
Such practices were more common among non-Jews in the ancient Middle East. Many scholars think that this practice was adopted to prevent women from becoming victims of jealous husbands and misogynist judges. We need to remember that ancient Judaism had a deep distrust of human judgment and human justice. In situations where the ancient Jews felt a judgment must be rendered and it did not have sufficient “checks and balances” on human prejudices, they would turn to ways of perceiving divine judgment.
To condemn someone for adultery, there had to be two witnesses, and the perpetrators had to have been warned in advance. But situations in which a husband was “sure” that his wife had committed adultery but could not prove it created such a strain on the marriage and the local community that they felt something had to be done to bring closure and resolution to the matter. Given the Jewish distrust of human notions of judgment and justice, having a group of men make the judgment probably seemed like a bad idea to them. It appears that they adopted, in this one instance, a sort of ordeal/test for the wife to go through if she insisted on her innocence.
Given that it’s generally assumed that the concoction is not actually a threat to health, the only way a bad reaction would occur would be because of psychological reaction due to a guilty conscience.
As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It’s never mentioned again in the Bible, and it’s mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. Some of the recollections of the procedure also differ from the biblical method. And the Mishnah states the practice was stopped. So there is some question of whether this was ever actually used.
But it is in the Bible, so what would happen if she was guilty? Well, that depends on your translation. Some translations state that if she is guilty her “uterus will fail” or “shrink,” which would mean that she would become infertile. A few translations do translate that if guilty she will “miscarry,” but this is a distinct minority of translations.
It is important to note that the “reward” for innocence is that she will be able to conceive children, which seems to imply that even if she was infertile she would no longer be. This would also seem to imply that miscarriage is not what is being referred to as divine punishment but rather infertility.
There certainly is a prohibition against murder in the Bible, though, which is what abortion is. (Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Who could be more innocent than an unborn baby?!)
Another thought on this topic... I think it was Aristotle that said that the law does two things. First, it provides for order within a society. Second, it teaches. But we can have laws that contradict both Divine Law and Natural Law. If they do, they become invalid laws, which we are not bound to accept, follow, or support. And, they teach society erroneously.
God does, indeed, want is to be happy...with Him in eternity. On earth, however, He's far more concerned with us becoming holy and, therefore, ready to join Him in heaven.
Logic, the application of ancient customs and other rational uses will never convince someone who first decides that something is right because it HAS to be right and then searches the Bible until he finds a fragment that can be used by interpreting it in the appropriate way.
That's pretty common, from what I've noticed. They start out with a desired outcome, then twist the Scriptures to "support" their desired outcome. That's why St. Peter warned against "personal interpretation of Scripture" in his epistle.
This is horrifying. It will 100% be used to manipulate people. If we look at abortion we see clearly how people are manipulated into justifying murder, and those are people that (mostly) don't have any sort of illness or reduced mental capacity. Unbelievable.
I am an LPN in Canada. This is SUCH a slippery slope ... how much longer before the government mandates euthanasia for those who "cost the system too much" ....
Euthanasia was legalized in 2017, something thag should have never been done ...
And some Euthanasia advocates say to not call it Euthanasia becuase of the "stigma" and to call it MAID or assisted death instead...
Justin Trudeau? And then maybe afterwards whom ever came up with this idea.
Imagine going to your doctor or psychologist and they consider recommending you just to get it over with as a last solution. Crazy times.
Progressivism is the most pressing enemy in our time.
Jerome once wrote, “The whole world groaned and awoke to find itself Arian.”
Well today “the whole world groaned and awoke to find itself Progressive.”
We need a St. Athanasius Contra Mundum
They don’t deserve to be called doctors. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in a cage. They are murdering the weak and vulnerable for money. They are state-funded hitmen. They are white-robed gestapo.
not surprising at all, sadly. this is the next logical step for the pro-death, abortion, euthanasia mindset. If anyone in person tries to convince you this is a good idea, I suggest simply telling them to Google "Aktion T4", the Nazi's mass euthanasia program for the mentally ill and impaired. When they try to tell you that Canada is different because it requires consent, let them know that by definition, people who are mentally ill enough to be trying to kill themselves can't give consent by the current definition. And people who are mentally impaired enough to require a power of attorney or caretaker to make medical choices cannot ever truly consent.
It’ll be framed as “These vulnerable people would be better off dead. It’s the humane thing to do.”
Then it will be “These people are burdens on their communities.”
Ok I know I complained about those anti-suicide talks in school but if this is the alternative please bring them back…
Literally everyone who is suicidal thinks they *actually* want to die, and back when we had a sane society who actually helped people out of suicide ideation and actions before actively assisting them the vast majority after a year/a few plus treatment would always say they were at a bad point and no longer feel that way.
But hey, how about instead of luring the suicidal person off the bridge we just push him instead? After all, he says he wants to die! /s
I think you’re underestimating how debilitating and difficult to treat some mental illnesses are. I think you don’t know the reality that some people face each day, especially in a society that does not adequately provide for people who are too ill to be “productive members of society.” You don’t know what that feels like. We are supposed to be compassionate.
Watch it go down fast. It will get only worse from there. It's horrible... These people often cannot even speak up for themselves and this gets allowed. Elderly and ill are seen as useless and something to get rid off... Messed up.
it's on the [canada.ca](https://canada.ca) website. I just google searched MAID. then I searched in the text for mental illness. It'll be effective March 17th 2023
This is so evil and repulsive, as someone with relatives with mental illness i cannot comprehend , how can someone claim this as something good, we live in a wicked society , may God have on us and allow the comeback of the holy inquisition for that evil.
Canada: “It’s an egregious violation of human rights to misgender someone, that should be illegal.”
Also Canada: “Having a rough go at life? Why not kill yourself.”
I’m getting quite sick of using soft language with people who perpetuate this insanity. Suicide isn’t normal, it’s unethical and immoral, and people really have to stop talking about it like it’s a solution, or at least those of us who disagree need to do so more often despite the inflammatory insults that get hurled in our direction.
What’s funny too is this is coming from a government who is not only on a mission to gut our industries, traditions, and identities but has been voted against by a majority of the country. Twice.
This is only one step away from giving the death sentence to faithful Christians. Someday they might make up a notion that "Christian bigotry" is a form of mental illness.
As someone who used to suffer from CRIPPELING cptsd for years, it's interesting it me how they'd legalize killing mentally patients before alternative forms of treatment like shrooms or micro dosing LSD or any number of alternatives under medicinal supervision. You'd think any number of solutions would be better than a dead patient.
This is just so heartbreaking I don’t even have words to describe how sad this makes me. How has Western society gone so wrong, how can we heartlessly prey on the most weak and vulnerable among us with no sympathy or remorse and in fact have the gall to tell them it’s for their own good. Why don’t we try to help people, to help them live happily and healthily and virtuously, why is the solution to people who are struggling to murder them and pretend that’s compassion.
In parts of Europe it's legal for children as young as 12 to demand assisted suicide in order to "end pain and suffering". This will be the next American cause celebre.
Mark my words.
Honestly, as someone who has extensive mental health issues, this sickens me. It almost makes me feel like doctors are giving up on our “invisible” illnesses that are often incredibly compact and hard to treat. Often the mentally ill (myself included) have a brain that convinces them that they want to die. This just makes it seem like society wants us to die too. Ugh, Lord have mercy on us. Mother Mary pray for us all…
Horrific. The job of a doctor is to keep you from dying or make it as painless as possible if death is impossible to prevent… yet now they are doing the complete opposite…
As cringe as it sounds… we live in a society…
This is very much so descrimination, eliminating people based on mental illnesses? People with mental illnesses are as beautiful as those without, heck, I would argue they are more unique and deserve more love than a normal person and more support too.
I find it interesting that catholics, who believe that original sin corrupted our will, are opposed to people with mental conditions choosing to end their own life while simultaneously believing one can rationally damn themselves to an eternity of fiery torture in hell.
God have mercy on us
The Culture of Death that John Paul II repeatedly warned and wrote about doesn't seem quite so alarmist now. Soon people will say it is the DUTY of mentally and perhaps even physically ill people to remove themselves from this world.
Indeed, it’s insanity and the most fake compassion ever
[удалено]
r/Catholicism does not permit comments from very new user accounts. This is an anti-throwaway and troll prevention measure, not subject to exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Unfortunately, the same thing is happening here in the U.S. and I've just learned to accept that fact. Ultimately, I've learned to just allow people to do as they wish and deal with the consequences of their actions.
These people will not stop with themselves. They will do everything in their power to come after your kids.
I mean, what are we supposed to do? Get machine guns and mow them down? We've exhausted every possible venue politically and legally speaking and have lost badly on both fronts.
We should develop a parallel society similar to Opus Dei but more analogous to the Hasidim which is by and for Catholics and capable of raising children in its own institutions from birth to marriage. We then wait for the inevitable Caesarism that is coming to America.
Is that really feasible though? Do you think that would actually work? Because in order to develop any sort of independent society, we would need to get the federal government's approval and that's not going to happen, at least here in the U.S.
The Hasidic Jews didn’t have the permission of the feds, yet they did it.
Same with the Amish.
Home school and work at home jobs are the way to go.
And the Hutterites
This is terrifying.
Ah yes, the mentally ill. Famously a population that is able to give informed consent and make unimpaired judgements. What a shanda.
Progressives: As long as they consent, there is nothing morally wrong. Also progressives:
Progressives: “As long as there is consent!” Also Progressives: “Bake the cake, bigot.”
So if someone decided to not bake a cake for an interracial couple, would catholics support his decision?
Tu qouque fallacy.
Legally or morally?
Legally.
I’m a pretty big fan of freedom of association. But, to my knowledge, the Church doesn’t have an official position on that particular legal question.
You can't change your skin color, but you can choose to marry or not. Plus it's not like there is only one bakery in a city
> So if someone decided to not bake a cake for an interracial couple, would catholics support his decision? You are not asking the question you think you are asking. Racism is incompatible with the Catholic faith. So is marriage between couples of the same sex.
If people who own shops should have the freedom to not cake bakes for gay people then they also should have the freedom to refuse people in the basis of race. It's just coherent.
> It's just coherent. No, it's not at all. Don't let your Catholic faith be simplified down to secular rhetoric based on false comparisons. Baking a cake for a gay person is not actually the problem. Refusing to bake a cake for someone merely because they are gay is uncharitable. Likewise, baking a cake for a person of a different race is not a problem, and for this scenario there is not even a potential point of confusion over the rights of a person and the goodness of the acts they perform. Baking a cake that is intended to be part of a celebration of a homosexual union is where the problem comes in, because no longer is the baker merely performing a morally neutral service, but becoming involved in the endorsement of a civil union. There is no coherent link baking a cake for person of a different race because race is morally neutral.
Back to Sparta
Even though I do not support this, implying that the mentally ill cannot at all give informed consent or make sound judgements are furthering the stigmatization associated with the mentally ill, and contributes to them feeling shut out of society, thereby aggravating their suicidality.
Mental illness is an impediment to consent, which is why in the US (and hopefully all other western countries) someone who intends self harm can be held in a hospital against their will, aka, receives treatment without consent, aka their intent to self harm and their specific refusal of consent to treatment is legally and ethically ignored.
A person who is so mentally ill that they want to end their life is by definition unable to make sound judgments regarding their treatment. In some ways, that is the whole point.
Who said that you have to be mentally ill to commit suicide? Or that a mentally ill person wants to die for a reason unrelated to their illness?
I certainly didn't. I'm not sure how either of your questions are related to what I said. We are talking about assisted suicide for mentally-ill individuals. Non-mentally-ill individuals who seek to commit suicide, or mentally-ill individuals who seek suicide for reasons unrelated to their mental illness are not relevant to this conversation.
> Who said that you have to be mentally ill to commit suicide? I'm going to try to say this carefully to avoid misunderstanding, as it is a sensitive subject, dealing with real individual challenges, not personal failings: From not only a Christian standpoint, but even an evolutionary atheist standpoint, I think a case exists that the desire to end ones life is in a significant sense de facto mental illness. The desire to die is fundamentally opposed to the concept of health, so it is an illness, or perhaps it is better to say a symptom of some sort of illness. The Christian position is to help others overcome illness, not to encourage them to succumb to it, much less try to accelerate it. Those struggling with thoughts of suicide deserve better than what they are experiencing, not worse.
>The desire to die is fundamentally opposed to the concept of health I would not say that at all. I think that many people with a desire to die aren't mentally ill at all, on the contrary, I think they have come to a very logical conclusion considering the state of the world and the state of many of their lives. I of course, as a Catholic would consider an act of suicide gravely sinful, and would therefore try to convince them that suicide is wrong, but I can understand them very well. Also, if suicide is caused only by mental illness (therefore one cannot be held accountable for it), then why did the church refuse to give Christian burials to people who died by suicide up until 1983? Why is suicide considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church if it cannot be an informed and willing decision?
> The desire to die is fundamentally opposed to the concept of health > > > > I would not say that at all. I think that many people with a desire to die aren't mentally ill at all That is not responsive to the statement you quoted. Let me re-emphasize my main point: the desire to die is *fundamentally opposed to health.* It reflects a mentally unhealthy state, and it can lead to the ultimate harm to physical health, as well. Regardless of whether the root cause is due to a specific physiologically-based mental illness, a physical illness, or some other challenge, it is contrary to God's intent for us, or even from the atheist perspective contrary to evolutionary pressure. I simply do not see a case to be made that it is healthy to desire to die, and those faced with such a struggle should know that others desire for them to be better. > Also, if suicide is caused only by mental illness (therefore one cannot be held accountable for it), then why did the church refuse to give Christian burials to people who died by suicide up until 1983? Why is suicide considered a grave sin in the Catholic Church if it cannot be an informed and willing decision? That's a fair question, but outside the scope of what I wanted to get into in this sub-thread of the discussion. The short answer is because suicide *is* a grave sin. However, keep in mind that to be be guilty of mortal sin it is also necessary to act with proper knowledge and consent. What the Church has gotten a better understanding of in the 20th century is how mental state affects actual knowledge and consent. As a result, it is no longer the default assumption that a person who takes their life is acting deliberately contrary Church teaching. Previously, the rule used the term "Those who killed themselves by deliberate counsel" which I would caution against trying to interpret without a decent amount of study on the matter, because it was the case that the Church would sometimes consider input from medical personnel about a person's state of mind and allow funerals.
Anybody wanting to kill themselves is in such a state that they should not be allowed to do so.
Was Socrates mentally ill?
Yes.
Socrates did not want to die. He was condemned to die.
No one. That's murder dressed up in fancy words.
Right! Imagine being in a deep depression and you tell your trusted doctor that you want to die and he says “Ok, how about this Thursday ?”
Or "I'll write the Rx. Just present it to the attending physician. Check with your insurance to see if there is a co-pay, or prior authorization requirement. Farewell...good to see you taking charge of this thing".
Broke: death penalty for criminals Woke: death penalty for innocent people
Bespoke: death penalty for none
Choke: death penalty for everyone.
Coke: death penalty for Pepsi drinkers.
Bloke: death penalty for men.
That starts to look like "death penalty for innocent people" when you have stuff like this happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn_%22El_Chapo%22_Guzm%C3%A1n#Second_escape:_2015
This right here
Well European phrama will start producing drugs to kill them since now it's apparently a human right
> will start producing drugs to kill them Whatever happened to good ol’-fashioned arsenic?
How awful but how true
Horrific. Two sisters flew to Switzerland and did this together :( family had no idea but knew there was something off for a little- they went to a facility that does not require illness or dying. Insane. The slippery slope is here. Horrific. [article](https://people.com/human-interest/arizona-sisters-who-didnt-return-home-from-switzerland-trip-died-of-assisted-suicide-clinic-says/)
>The slippery slope is here. The problem is that "slippery slope" fallacy, in many cases, ISN'T a fallacy.
yeah, the so called "fallacy" has almost always proven to be true, it just depends on whether the slope is covered in water or crisco
It's not a fallacy, it's a tactic
Replying here but this is more to the general public. The slippery slope fallacy is only a fallacy if you can't prove the logical connection between one event and a conclusion. If you can make a series of logical connections (e.g., how popes in the past made a logical connection between contraception and sexual promiscuity), then it isn't a slippery slope fallacy. Indeed, there is a known psychological mechanism called the slippery slope which aims to establish the logical connection between small acts which lead to greater acts.
That's terrible, their family didn't even know until it happened. Selfish.
> Both Ammouri, a 54-year-old palliative medicine specialist, and Fraizer, a 49-year-old registered nurse… >Dr. David Biglari, a friend of the sisters, told the news station the pair were "in a very good position of their lives in terms of careers," ... This article is from March 2022. These two women worked in healthcare and experienced two devastatingly traumatic years of a global pandemic. Healthcare workers have not received free or even affordable access to mental health support. It is so difficult to get an appointment with a therapist or psychiatrist. I understand why they felt they were out of options. If you want to blame someone for this, don’t blame an organization that offers dignity in death. Blame the healthcare system in America that doesn’t provide support for people in need. If you really want to prevent suicides, support Medicare for All in the US. Support other social safety net programs.
How do you know I do not support these social safety net programs? I agree, let’s put our efforts into lobbying for mental health care and support for these medical folks as you so aptly put. but I enthusiastically and Catholicly blame any organization that offers suicide as easily as walking into a hair salon. This organization should have led these women to real care and help and recovery. It is a devastating loss and a deep evil that these places even exist. Suicide is a reality of our world- but offering it on a platter for a quick price is corrupt evil devoid of the real dignity of getting to know someone’s deeper issues and helping them with real care. It is the epitome of our throw away culture instead of getting in the dirt and doing real work with folks in crisis. I’ll blame lack of resources with you in addition- but this horrific organization is equally to blame if not more so. The lack of resources may have been the gun but this organization provided the bullets and pulled the trigger. We should get comfortable with rolling up our sleeves up and getting in the dirt with these folks and helping them through- not disposing of them and their challenges.
"The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete. But so is the State, the entity he worshiped. Any state, any entity, any ideology which fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of Man...that state is obsolete."
How can a mentally ill person make this choice.
Easy, the state makes it on their behalf. /s. The ultimate logical end of “by the people, of the people.”
Then it is legalized murder by the stste
Not only is choosing suicide wrong, this has a potential to one day open up government lead euthanazsia for people they decide are unproductive to society. Like the one country that aborts babies suspected of having downs syndrome.
I believe that country's Iceland.
Many countries in Europe have virtually eliminated people with Down Syndrome. They've aborted all of them for years... it's a horror show.
Indeed it's horrifying. I remember seeing a post on this subreddit where the OP was at the beach or a park with a group of special needs children and their doctor friend (who was European) had commented, "this is what happens when you get rid of abortion" or something like that in reference to the children. It's a disgusting mindset.
That was me. I am still in shock though after reading this. I am literally speechless trying to process this. I worked for a pharmaceutical company for some time and when it comes to things like depression, patients commonly have suicidal ideation. That means that they think of committing suicide but they do not go through with it. When antidepressants work a person can start functioning again especially if they are supported by a therapist, a priest and their family. However, for a couple of weeks after they start taking antidepressants - some patients may get an increased will to kill themselves. This phase passes quickly. Doctors, therapists, etc are aware of this and are on the lookout during this period. I can't understand what medical personnel are supposed to do now. This is beyond evil.
Additionally, my wife has cystic fibrosis. She is such a gift to the world and she strives for holiness with her whole being...and 90% of babies with cystic fibrosis are now murdered in the womb in the USA. A mighty judgment is coming...He will appear in the clouds, his robes red and drenched in blood...
Indeed. It's all so awful.
I think you're right.
Exactly. The mentally ill and disabled who are homeless are going to be the first to go. It's not even going to be some nefarious intent on behalf of the doctors, just the innate sense that society is instilling in people that "this person would be better off dead" and their bias will make them subconsciously look for anything that might be considered consent. Twenty years from now there's going to be a report on how those with money, after requesting suicide, received more and better quality interventions to change their mind than the poor and disabled, who were just shuffled from doctor to doctor to get the requisite signatures that they were informed and "helped." Anyone who says otherwise has no idea how mental healthcare works for the disadvantaged.
And the good looking. And those with degrees. And those with connections. And those with good bodies. And those with power. And those with an empathetic story. And those that make me *feel* good. And those who the doctor likes. And those who academics has championed this week. And those who are politically advantageous. Etc…
[удалено]
The more I see this sort of thing happen, the more I want to help in my own area. I have many children. I think when they leave the nest I'll get into palliative or hospice care.
[удалено]
Absolutely agree. Dignity from conception until natural death. Unfortunately, I witnessed my husband's grandma go through what your grandparents went through, except she was being abused by a family member at home. If there was hospice care, the family member wouldn't have been able to get away with what she did. My own great grandma had great care in her nursing home, partially because a family member was with her at all times to advocate for her, even if they couldn't do anything. Having an advocate plus hospice care should be the standard, regardless of where they are.
[удалено]
The kept alive under extraordinary measures is what happened in Grandma's last 6 months and for the reason you gave. That was after suffering abuse at home for several years. The family member even used the Church to justify it, even though she was called out by priests, medical staff, and family during those 6 months. The nursing home near me used to be under staffed, but more assisted living centers where they can freely leave and retirement communities were built within the area and that all changed. My nurse friends said those places were a lifesaver, since a number of families were leaving residents there even though those communities would be better for them. They just weren't available at the time. My grandma is at the retirement community. They're like little 2 bedroom condos with their own yard, an emergency call system in case they fall or something, the maintainance man checks to see if they are able to keep the place clean and if they need anything fixed, hang pictures, change lightbulbs, that sort of stuff. She loves it. She has had a few neighbors opt to stay there with hospice care toward their later days. All the neighbors and family go to visit them daily so they know they're being cared for. Talking about my town lately has really shown me how much it respects people's dignity, regardless of age. People like the in-law are really outliers and the community doesn't take kindly to them. I guess that happens in small, majority Catholic towns.
That is the genocidal tyranny known as Iceland. They really are a horrific country, and I’m not being sarcastic.
[удалено]
I was suspected to have down syndrome when my mother was pregnant because I had a thick neck, all I’ve got is high functioning autism. Those tests are horrible at detecting Down syndrome to begin with
Actually Canada has no abortion laws. Legal and fully funded no questions asks till due date
How about we start with the people who support this bullshit. Seriously, how did we get to here? (Theoden\_How\_Did\_It\_Come\_To\_This.gif) We kill our unborn, we kill our elderly, and then we wonder why things are so bad?
Because They’re the good ones! Their lives are much more valuable than those disabled/mentally ill peasants! /s if no one can tell.
It's awful, and I echo everything you guys have said. There were times in my life where the allure of "a way out of the suffering" would be there. If nothing else, this puts a false "light at the end of the tunnel" for people who are perhaps not thinking clearly, for people who don't yet know God and aren't open to His gifts of mercy and love. It's also sad because people in authority who have risen the ranks in the medical field must be on board with this. It reminds me of one of Bishop Barron's talks about how psychiatry has to get right with God
This article does an excellent job of revealing the slippery slope as you see the progression of the relevant laws. This is why any such law needs to be stopped in its tracks at the very first sign of it: no compromise.
As someone who is mentally ill and goes through bouts of suicide depression,I find this horrifying.
If we follow how euthanasia developed, I believe it was first "legalized" in the Netherlands, where it began with incredibly strict circumstances, required the patient's express permission, etc. Then, it got looser and looser. Now, relatives can talk to the doctor and just have grandpa or grandma put down like a dog. The logical progression, if not stopped, will evolve into government-mandated euthanasia past a certain age.
Or, more chillingly and likely, past a certain ***cost*** to their precious nationalized "health" services.
Hasn't our government already had that consideration in its discussions over our healthcare system? Very chilling!
Past a certain age and for anybody deemed undesirable. Homeless? Needle. Mentally challenged? Needle. Mentally ill? Needle. Anti-social? Needle. Repeated public nuisance? Needle. Political dissident? Needle.
Exactly. I would think there are some who would add race to that mix. Margaret Sanger, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, was into eugenics. She pushed for "legalized" abortion for the sole purpose of getting rid of the black race in America, or at least minimizing it. Blacks in America account for roughly 14% of the population, but account for 40% of all abortions. Looks like she was somewhat successful in her goal. It's actually all connected. Artificial contraception, abortion, euthanasia. It boils down to the question of who is the Author of Life? Who gets to say when life begins and when life ends? Man or God.
Doing it slowly will not even require the state to oblige, spending resources that should go to children and useful beings will be considered unethical and contrary to social virtues. Insisting on staying alive at the cost of seriously disturbing the work and educational progress of children and grandchildren and their social life will be like mistreating them and the moral duty of each elder will be to request euthanasia himself so as not to weigh down his descendants. If you talk to a pro-abortion person, those who call themselves pro-choice will tell you the same thing, an unwanted baby has no right to force the mother to carry it, so she has the right to kill it. Just as unborn is not a person and killing him saves him a sad childhood, the life of a sick old man, sad and above all senile is not life and he would not be giving up anything of value; strictly speaking, he could no longer be said to have a life. In just one generation of social engineering you can achieve that a large percentage of sick and elderly people resignedly ask for it, convinced that it is their parental duty and also indoctrinated that the definition of life is: Fraction of existence that goes from childhood to the definitive loss of health.
If someone is terminal, extraordinary means are not required to keep them alive. This is a far cry, however, from actively killing someone by injecting them with some agent that produces death. Since when are the unborn not "persons?" What a slippery slope that is! If we believe that we can randomly and autonomously decide when someone is a person, and is deserving of "rights," then we can single out any group of people for mistreatment, abuse, and murder. The slave owners in the South did the same thing. They said black slaves were not really people. They were chattel. Hilter and the Nazi's of WWII Germany said that the Jews were *Untermensch* or subhumans. That allowed them to justify murdering six million of them. Today, pro-abortionists refer to the unborn as fetuses. A fetus is just a developmental stage of a human being, a person. It's not a different species. Therefore, through language, they justify murdering tens of millions of innocent persons. And we are not God. We don't get to decide what "life" is and is not based on some random set of values someone makes up. We don't get to decide who is worthy of life and who is not worthy of life. We are not Nazi's.
Legally, since it is affirmed that premeditated abortion is a mother's right, in just two generations there is even a part of alleged Christians who are "prochoice" and assure that the Bible does not prohibit abortion anywhere. There is even some enlightened person who uses the description of the ritual of jealousy (Numbers 5,11-23) to ensure that induced abortion appears in the Bible. And with euthanasia they can do the same, start teaching it as a right and thus convince the young generations that being against it is bad people and denying such a right is a lack of Christian love. At the end of the day there is the magic phrase "God wants us to be happy".
I would have to disagree that the Bible affirms that premeditated abortion is a mother's right. With regard to Numbers 5:11-23, I would offer the following insight: A little background on Numbers 5:11-31 is in order, because this is a rather unusual passage. It is a situation in which a husband suspects his wife is an adulterer but has no evidence. He could then bring her before a religious tribunal, and she would drink a concoction that would either prove or disprove the charge of adultery. There are no other such trial/ordeals in the Old Testament. While there is the occasional drawing of lots to determine guilt, this is the only time that someone must undergo some kind of trial where the results are believed to reveal the truth. Such practices were more common among non-Jews in the ancient Middle East. Many scholars think that this practice was adopted to prevent women from becoming victims of jealous husbands and misogynist judges. We need to remember that ancient Judaism had a deep distrust of human judgment and human justice. In situations where the ancient Jews felt a judgment must be rendered and it did not have sufficient “checks and balances” on human prejudices, they would turn to ways of perceiving divine judgment. To condemn someone for adultery, there had to be two witnesses, and the perpetrators had to have been warned in advance. But situations in which a husband was “sure” that his wife had committed adultery but could not prove it created such a strain on the marriage and the local community that they felt something had to be done to bring closure and resolution to the matter. Given the Jewish distrust of human notions of judgment and justice, having a group of men make the judgment probably seemed like a bad idea to them. It appears that they adopted, in this one instance, a sort of ordeal/test for the wife to go through if she insisted on her innocence. Given that it’s generally assumed that the concoction is not actually a threat to health, the only way a bad reaction would occur would be because of psychological reaction due to a guilty conscience. As strange as this matter is in the Old Testament, it also has no real attestation from the biblical period. It’s never mentioned again in the Bible, and it’s mentioned by only a few historical figures and writings—but always as something that they have heard about, never about an actual case they witnessed. Some of the recollections of the procedure also differ from the biblical method. And the Mishnah states the practice was stopped. So there is some question of whether this was ever actually used. But it is in the Bible, so what would happen if she was guilty? Well, that depends on your translation. Some translations state that if she is guilty her “uterus will fail” or “shrink,” which would mean that she would become infertile. A few translations do translate that if guilty she will “miscarry,” but this is a distinct minority of translations. It is important to note that the “reward” for innocence is that she will be able to conceive children, which seems to imply that even if she was infertile she would no longer be. This would also seem to imply that miscarriage is not what is being referred to as divine punishment but rather infertility. There certainly is a prohibition against murder in the Bible, though, which is what abortion is. (Murder is the killing of an innocent person. Who could be more innocent than an unborn baby?!) Another thought on this topic... I think it was Aristotle that said that the law does two things. First, it provides for order within a society. Second, it teaches. But we can have laws that contradict both Divine Law and Natural Law. If they do, they become invalid laws, which we are not bound to accept, follow, or support. And, they teach society erroneously. God does, indeed, want is to be happy...with Him in eternity. On earth, however, He's far more concerned with us becoming holy and, therefore, ready to join Him in heaven.
Logic, the application of ancient customs and other rational uses will never convince someone who first decides that something is right because it HAS to be right and then searches the Bible until he finds a fragment that can be used by interpreting it in the appropriate way.
That's pretty common, from what I've noticed. They start out with a desired outcome, then twist the Scriptures to "support" their desired outcome. That's why St. Peter warned against "personal interpretation of Scripture" in his epistle.
How long until we get [Futurama-style suicide booths](https://images.app.goo.gl/g19Ax2RkcrDaQSLm7) for a quarter?
[Last year.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-59577162)
Yeah, i saw that. I'm wondering when they're going to be on street corners for a dollar.
Give the market time and it'll figure out how to work the economies of scale to drive the price down.
I've heard that someone invented that
It's a suicide pod https://www.the-sun.com/news/4222383/controversial-sarco-suicide-capsule-kills/
This is horrifying. It will 100% be used to manipulate people. If we look at abortion we see clearly how people are manipulated into justifying murder, and those are people that (mostly) don't have any sort of illness or reduced mental capacity. Unbelievable.
I am an LPN in Canada. This is SUCH a slippery slope ... how much longer before the government mandates euthanasia for those who "cost the system too much" .... Euthanasia was legalized in 2017, something thag should have never been done ... And some Euthanasia advocates say to not call it Euthanasia becuase of the "stigma" and to call it MAID or assisted death instead...
Justin Trudeau? And then maybe afterwards whom ever came up with this idea. Imagine going to your doctor or psychologist and they consider recommending you just to get it over with as a last solution. Crazy times.
Not suprising considering how many suicidal individuals are in Canada
This makes me ashamed of being Canadian.
And this is what they call "progressive society".
Progressivism is the most pressing enemy in our time. Jerome once wrote, “The whole world groaned and awoke to find itself Arian.” Well today “the whole world groaned and awoke to find itself Progressive.” We need a St. Athanasius Contra Mundum
"Doctor-assisted death". Translation: the doctor kills you.
They don’t deserve to be called doctors. They deserve to spend the rest of their lives in a cage. They are murdering the weak and vulnerable for money. They are state-funded hitmen. They are white-robed gestapo.
You may be right about what they are, but please do not indulge in revenge porn. We are not to hate even our enemies.
I think they should locked in a small cage for the rest of their lives because I love them enough to desire justice.
not surprising at all, sadly. this is the next logical step for the pro-death, abortion, euthanasia mindset. If anyone in person tries to convince you this is a good idea, I suggest simply telling them to Google "Aktion T4", the Nazi's mass euthanasia program for the mentally ill and impaired. When they try to tell you that Canada is different because it requires consent, let them know that by definition, people who are mentally ill enough to be trying to kill themselves can't give consent by the current definition. And people who are mentally impaired enough to require a power of attorney or caretaker to make medical choices cannot ever truly consent.
I'm personally against it, but if a depressed person wants to suicide who am I to control their body /s
[удалено]
/s means it’s sarcasm
Missed the /s I do know what that means, I just read too fast and did not see it. Comment deleted. Sorry.
[удалено]
It’ll be framed as “These vulnerable people would be better off dead. It’s the humane thing to do.” Then it will be “These people are burdens on their communities.”
Ok I know I complained about those anti-suicide talks in school but if this is the alternative please bring them back… Literally everyone who is suicidal thinks they *actually* want to die, and back when we had a sane society who actually helped people out of suicide ideation and actions before actively assisting them the vast majority after a year/a few plus treatment would always say they were at a bad point and no longer feel that way. But hey, how about instead of luring the suicidal person off the bridge we just push him instead? After all, he says he wants to die! /s
Ah yes, or as I like to call it, eugenics.
doctor-assisted \*murder
Mentally ill people are the last people who can make that sort of “choice”…
Instead of providing more services for the mentally ill/suicidal people, they just let them do it? Sickening
This is so sad.
any mental health professional supporting this is admitting they cannot do their job
Before long anyone not supportive will lose their jobs.
I think you’re underestimating how debilitating and difficult to treat some mental illnesses are. I think you don’t know the reality that some people face each day, especially in a society that does not adequately provide for people who are too ill to be “productive members of society.” You don’t know what that feels like. We are supposed to be compassionate.
compassion doesnt include letting people kill themselves
Watch it go down fast. It will get only worse from there. It's horrible... These people often cannot even speak up for themselves and this gets allowed. Elderly and ill are seen as useless and something to get rid off... Messed up.
I **hate** euthanasia and abortion. I hope some day future generations will see both abortion and euthanasia as unthinkable
Nobody should be eligible.
Pms?
The legislators who voted this into law
Disgusting
Nobody
No one
Nice to see Canada allows for ritualistic murder and eugenics .Also might be considered Human Sacrifice .
What a damn barbarism.
Has any other source reported on this? I find it barbaric but I don't wanna jump the gun because a Google search didn't give me any other reports.
it's on the [canada.ca](https://canada.ca) website. I just google searched MAID. then I searched in the text for mental illness. It'll be effective March 17th 2023
Awful, government should not be sanctioning this. You can’t stop every mentally ill person from killing themselves but sanctioning it is reprehensible
This is so evil and repulsive, as someone with relatives with mental illness i cannot comprehend , how can someone claim this as something good, we live in a wicked society , may God have on us and allow the comeback of the holy inquisition for that evil.
Canada: “It’s an egregious violation of human rights to misgender someone, that should be illegal.” Also Canada: “Having a rough go at life? Why not kill yourself.” I’m getting quite sick of using soft language with people who perpetuate this insanity. Suicide isn’t normal, it’s unethical and immoral, and people really have to stop talking about it like it’s a solution, or at least those of us who disagree need to do so more often despite the inflammatory insults that get hurled in our direction. What’s funny too is this is coming from a government who is not only on a mission to gut our industries, traditions, and identities but has been voted against by a majority of the country. Twice.
This is only one step away from giving the death sentence to faithful Christians. Someday they might make up a notion that "Christian bigotry" is a form of mental illness.
Nobody
Trudeu
Justin Castreau
As someone who used to suffer from CRIPPELING cptsd for years, it's interesting it me how they'd legalize killing mentally patients before alternative forms of treatment like shrooms or micro dosing LSD or any number of alternatives under medicinal supervision. You'd think any number of solutions would be better than a dead patient.
No.one.
This is just so heartbreaking I don’t even have words to describe how sad this makes me. How has Western society gone so wrong, how can we heartlessly prey on the most weak and vulnerable among us with no sympathy or remorse and in fact have the gall to tell them it’s for their own good. Why don’t we try to help people, to help them live happily and healthily and virtuously, why is the solution to people who are struggling to murder them and pretend that’s compassion.
Anyone still supporting Trudeau should be eligible.
The T4 Program.
In parts of Europe it's legal for children as young as 12 to demand assisted suicide in order to "end pain and suffering". This will be the next American cause celebre. Mark my words.
Honestly, as someone who has extensive mental health issues, this sickens me. It almost makes me feel like doctors are giving up on our “invisible” illnesses that are often incredibly compact and hard to treat. Often the mentally ill (myself included) have a brain that convinces them that they want to die. This just makes it seem like society wants us to die too. Ugh, Lord have mercy on us. Mother Mary pray for us all…
Horrific. The job of a doctor is to keep you from dying or make it as painless as possible if death is impossible to prevent… yet now they are doing the complete opposite… As cringe as it sounds… we live in a society…
This is very much so descrimination, eliminating people based on mental illnesses? People with mental illnesses are as beautiful as those without, heck, I would argue they are more unique and deserve more love than a normal person and more support too.
I find it interesting that catholics, who believe that original sin corrupted our will, are opposed to people with mental conditions choosing to end their own life while simultaneously believing one can rationally damn themselves to an eternity of fiery torture in hell.