Opposition is not uniform. A few denominations, like the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, with about 22,000 members in Massachusetts, officially support the concept. The Unitarians and other mainline Protestant denominations typically do not take positions on specific state proposals.
And, in an age when many ecclesiastical hierarchies are weakening, in a country where many people are used to filtering religious beliefs through personal and secular lenses, Âindividual clergy and congregants do not necessarily follow the lead of church officials.
The national Episcopal Church, for example, officially opposes physician-assisted suicide. But the Rev. Daphne B. Noyes, a deacon at the Church of the Advent in Boston and a hospital chaplain, said her work with dying people and their families has led her to Âbelieve the option should be available under rigorously limited circumstances that ensure that participation by all parties is voluntary and deliberate.
I would like to point out that the Church of the Advent, where Daphne Noyles has been appointed as a deacon, should not be associated with her comments here. The Rector and Assistant to the Rector are staunchly orthodox churchmen of the highest caliber. The church is full of orthodox Christian believers. It’s sad that the Advent is being put in the public spotlight by these comments from the deacon.
Sad to see they have a woman in holy orders.
In our legislature, a lot of this “physician assisted suicide” stuff is pushed by the same anti-Catholic activists who also are for unlimited abortion, forcing the Church to recognize same-sex marriage, forcing Catholic hospitals to dispose contraception and abortifacients, taking away the Church’s tax exemption, and changing the laws to abolish statutes of limitation and allow assertion of clergy abuse claims even though there is no evidence other than the accuser’s statement. So this is as much an anti-Catholic thing as being supposedly being pro-patient.
[blockquote] [T]he Rev. Daphne B. Noyes, a deacon at the Church of the Advent in Boston and a hospital chaplain, said her work with dying people and their families has led her to Âbelieve the option should be available under rigorously limited circumstances that ensure that participation by all parties is voluntary and deliberate. [/blockquote]
But, what does her work with Holy Scripture tell her? Silly question I suppose.
My largest concern is that a “right” to die would shortly become a “duty” to die. With the justification of overconsumption of expensive resources. Certainly, in terms of years of “productive” life, $100K spent on a 25 year old accident victim is a far better value than $100K spent on care for a bed-ridden 90 year old. The only things that keep than calculus from ruling is the moral belief that it is wrong to terminate the life of the 90 y.o. in order to preserve resources, to preserve a family from debt, to preserve society from medical costs, to preserve insurance companies from large payments.
If the moral line is broken, for the compassionate reasons that I understand, it will become an acceptable choice. Then an expected choice. Then a selfless choice. Then preserving life will become a selfish choice. Then one which an individual may pay for, but not insurance or society (like cosmetic surgery is not covered).
On a much lower level, remember how cell phones originally gave us the power to be in touch, even when not in the office. Now, they give us the expectation, the duty of being in touch 24/7. The right has become a duty.
I see no reason that assisted, chosen death would not do the same.