Abuse

[anatess2]

Help me out here... when Terri Shaivo became controversial back in 2005, I remembered that the Vatican and Salt Lake had opposing thoughts on it.  But I can't be sure if I understood that correctly.  I do know for sure that the Vatican determined that it is not right to withhold water and food from a patient even if it has to be administered artificially and even if the patient is vegetative.  I remembered Pres. Hinckley said to look at death as a blessing.  But I can't be sure if he meant to go ahead and let Terri die.

Anybody remember this event?

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Help me out here... when Terri Shaivo became controversial back in 2005, I remembered that the Vatican and Salt Lake had opposing thoughts on it.  But I can't be sure if I understood that correctly.  I do know for sure that the Vatican determined that it is not right to withhold water and food from a patient even if it has to be administered artificially and even if the patient is vegetative.  I remembered Pres. Hinckley said to look at death as a blessing.  But I can't be sure if he meant to go ahead and let Terri die.

Anybody remember this event?

I remember the Terri Schiavo situation, but not something from Hinckley specifically addressing it.  There is a quote from Hinckley that sounds like what you refer to, but from a funeral address in 1996.

Quote

Blessing of Death

“What a wonderful thing is death, really, when all is said and done. It is the great reliever. It is a majestic, quiet passing on from this life to another life, a better life. I’m satisfied of that. We go to a place where we will not suffer as we have suffered here, but where we will continue to grow, accumulating knowledge and developing and being useful under the plan of the Almighty made possible through the Atonement of the Son of God” (funeral services for Robert G. Wade, Salt Lake City, Utah, 3 Jan. 1996).

Other than that, I have nothing, sorry.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Priuswork I don't say this as a quick easy answer, but what I see as the best answer in this situation. The person who is incapacitated should receive a blessing. The Lord knows that person desires and what is truly best for them. The one giving the blessing might be inspired to 'release' them, heal them, or simply give words of comfort. 

As an aside, I would be careful of the one I chose to give the blessing. All worthy M. Priesthood holders have the authority to give such blessings, but not all have sufficient faith. I have seen examples of men who give priesthood prayers and those who truly give priesthood blessings. I'm fortunate that my husband is in the latter category. 

Edited March 31, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[Blueskye2]

On 3/29/2017 at 5:00 AM, Priuswork said:

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

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

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

What do you think?    

My dear parents are old. I mean very old. My mom paraphrases this, from Pres. Hinckley, often:

I am fully aware that I am not a young man as I shoulder the responsibilities of this sacred office. Sister Hinckley and I are learning that the so-called golden years are laced with lead.

 

...but her paraphrasing is "these aren't the golden years, these are the lead years". Her sister, essentially starved herself to death, to exit this life, and my mom thought that was alright. 

What I try to convey to her, without being preachy to my parents (which I just can't do) is that God sees them, loves them, views them as possessing a divine dignity that is MORE present in their suffering, not absent. As Jesus suffered and died, the act of our salvation, so we can join our suffering  and ultimately our death to his. For in dying He was raised and so we join Him in rising. 

She cant see this, her suffering is too great and it makes her feel that God has grown tired of her...or something like that. I would not be surprised if she prays for death, or even sadder, prays for the death of my dad. It saddens me, that they have lost hope.  

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Blueskye2 said:

It saddens me, that they have lost hope.  

I don't know; I take a different approach.  In human history it was the exception rather than the rule to live to a really old age. 80s was doable, but very rarely did people make it to 90s, etc. They were in better shape (having to work outside in the farm) and disease or the elements would take them if their bodies got too frail to endure the hardships.

I think in many ways, this is a more merciful approach.  None of us get out of here alive; we all die it's just a matter of when,where and how.

I'm reminded of a line from the Shawshank Redemption.  "You either get busy living, or you get busy dying." IMO when you get to the point that your body no longer functions properly and you're more or less an invalid, it's time to get busy dying.

I will have strict orders, I will never allow my children to put me in a nursing home-they will be written out of the will if they do that.  If I can't function on my own (or with the help of a spouse), I'd rather get busy dying.

It's the ultimate insult-to live 70+ years as a functional adult on your own and in your last years have to be taken care of like a baby-no thank you. I won't actively kill myself-but I sure will make sure it doesn't stay that way very long.

And it's possible to live in your 90s on your own.

Edited March 31, 2017 by yjacket

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

I will have strict orders

That reminds me. For those interested in preventing the OP's case in their own family, fill out a living will. My grandma's was quite detailed and we never had to use it, but if we did it would have prevented a lot of burden from falling on my mom and her siblings.

[Priuswork]

Have read the responses that give a lot of insight, but each situation is different.  The reminder to plan by putting our instructions for our care in a living will is certainly applicable, although the individual in the suffering situation in this topic was never able to do that.  For the rest of us who are in control, we better watch out for the time when we are not in control to be sure our suffering is not either ruled justified by law or sanctioned by the Church that must be protective of those who are unable to protect themselves.  The devil is relatively insidious and able to work the law and members of the Church if great diligence gives way to comfort or ignorance.  You don't want to find out the hard way that a family member who you didn't really understand becomes doggedly mad, acting like an entitled tyrant, for example, who when you are out of control, runs their own version of a loving concentration camp with you being unable to say or do anything about it, or goes the other way to get rid of you for the money!  

It is very interesting to hear the example of the woman who was able to communicate to the nurse and especially the nurse who was careful to watch and be aware.  If we then apply this same level of concern for those who suffer, and then the doctor-like people who keep telling us they are ok, when they absolutely are not, then we have a problem.  If you say that situation can't exist, then it will be interesting in the next life to talk to those who went through this to confirm if the suffering was justified or not.  It actually comes down to doing to others as we would have them do unto us.   

As usual it is a lot harder to do what is right than to just let nature take it's course.  The whole advent of mankind has been to deal with hardship and overcome it.  We have been warned that if we do not obey God's laws and qualify under the atonement that we will have to suffer as Jesus did.  If Jesus went through suffering for us to not have to suffer, then what part of suffering do we not understand?

We are told not to judge?  Well not to judge unrighteously does not mean we are released from making righteous judgment.  For sure, based on the discussion here, we are not going to agree on when to intervene and use painless means of terminating physical life unless realities are made clear to those who might understand when confronted with fact.  And could someone make a mistake in taking a life?  Of course.  And if so, does that mean that those who could be released from physical life have to stay because someone might make a mistake?  

The problem is people who abuse.  It is such a great problem that it is no wonder that there has to be law to deal with all that people can violate including abuse.  There is evidently a problem with every application of law as it has been mentioned that it is possible for the letter of the law to kill while the spirit of the law giveth life.  Therefore the taking of life is based on each situation and best handled by parents or family who prayerfully and through guidance by their Church leaders make the right decision in each case.  

Will submit that the real solution to this and all other problems is that it is not necessary that we be commanded in all things.  It took some 100 years to finally establish the Constitution of this nation.  From that process we glean a very crucial way of dealing with human beings.  A principle of reasonable agreement.  Final acceptance was not attained until they had allowed for disagreement and listened to the reasons and, where necessary, changed, or added enlightenment, until all agreed for the right reasons.  As long as there is disagreement, there may be a condition that does not come to light unless you are willing to be humble enough and listen to information, that if known, would likely change the way another understands.  The ability to understand in this way is called empathy.  Deliberate lack of empathy is typically displayed as narcism or abuse of power.  And we all know about the amen involved with that.

It is a shame that the devils out there make it necessary for others to suffer how ever they are able to do it.  At least in this world we have forensic files operations that deal with those devils.  All life is sacred despite any who want to misconstrue what is written here to mean something else. 

Do I agree with the position of the Church regarding life and death?  Yes.  Could there be exceptions?  Only for the right reasons and with agreement of Church leaders.      

 

 

 

Carborendum,

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

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

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

[eddified]

On 3/31/2017 at 5:34 PM, yjacket said:

I will have strict orders, I will never allow my children to put me in a nursing home-they will be written out of the will if they do that.

I've said this to my wife. I'm serious, too. *None* of my kids will get a thing from my estate if I'm *ever* placed in a nursing home. But for me it's not about being treated like a baby. It's about the loneliness.