Euthanasia in the Roman Catholic Church Faith and Tradition - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2457 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2019/02/06 Category Medicine Essay Level High school Topics: Euthanasia Essay Did you like this example? Brittany Maynard found out she was dying when she was twenty-nine years old. Newly married and full of life, Maynard learned that she had terminal brain cancer in January of 2014. In April, after multiple unsuccessful surgeries, she was given six months to live. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Euthanasia in the Roman Catholic Church Faith and Tradition" essay for you Create order She considered dying in hospice care, but balked at the image of her family surrounding her bedside, watching her die an agonizingly slow and painful death. Instead, Maynard and her husband moved to Oregon, where physician-assisted suicide—a specific type of euthanasia—is legal. She chose to pass away in November of 2014 after taking the lethal prescription prescribed by her doctor (CNN 2014). This is the reality of euthanasia in the twenty-first century, although it has existed for thousands of years; throughout classical antiquity, euthanasia was a widely accepted practice. However, with the dawn of Christianity and Roman Catholicism, society’s view of euthanasia began to sour. While the Roman Catholic Church experienced the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and postmodernity, it remained steadfast in its condemnation of euthanasia. Only in recent years—notably the last two decades—has euthanasia again began to gain widespread traction. Nevertheless, from a strictly Roman Catholic perspective, euthanasia is morally unacceptable regardless of the circumstances; the intentional death of any human being is sinful due to the Christian belief of God’s sovereignty, the Church’s teaching on suicide and homicide, and the Catholic philosophy of suffering. These beliefs, however, do not fully align with the shared reality and experience—the sensus fidelium—of many church members, signalling a failure of reception. From an etymological standpoint, euthanasia has an extensive history. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word comes from the Greek eu-, meaning â€Å"well,† and thanatos, meaning â€Å"death.† The word first appeared in its anglicized form in 1646, and is currently defined as â€Å"a gentle and easy death† (OED n.1.). This definition, however, fails to acknowledge particular aspects of euthanasia that are essential in understanding its meaning today. The definition posed by the Euthanasia Society of America and set forth in The Morality of Mercy Killing, written by Reverend Joseph V. Sullivan and published in 1950, is more appropriately nuanced: â€Å"the termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of ending severe physical suffering† (3). This definition is preferred for two reasons. First, it emphasizes action; euthanasia is not just death itself, but the act that causes this death. The Roman Catholic Church does the same in its own definition of euthanasia: â€Å"mercy killing† (Sacred Congregation 6). Second, it clarifies the specific purpose of euthanasia, which is to end a patient’s pain and suffering. This comprehensive definition of euthanasia can be broken down further into various different subsets: voluntary, involuntary, passive, and active. An article from the database of the United States National Library of Medicine, titled Euthanasia: Right to Life vs. Right to Die, clearly defines these terms. The first two terms regard who consents to the procedure. Voluntary euthanasia is conducted with the patient’s consent, while involuntary euthanasia is conducted without. Involuntary euthanasia is only invoked when the patient—like someone in a coma—is completely and utterly incapable of making the decision themselves. The latter two terms, passive and active euthanasia, acknowledge how the procedure is actually accomplished. Passive euthanasia is carried out by withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment from the patient, while active euthanasia is carried out by intentionally introducing a lethal force to end the patient’s life (Chaturvedi and Math 1). Active euthanasia can be broken down even further, and this distinction rests on who ultimately administers the lethal force. If the patient administers it themselves, they are performing physician-assisted suicide; if the doctor administers it to the patient, they are performing active euthanasia (Dixon 3). The concept of euthanasia is as old as the word itself. In A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America, Ian Dowbiggin asserts that, in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, â€Å"there was widespread support for voluntary death as opposed to prolonged agony† (3). In Greece, philosophers such as Plutarch, Plato, and Aristotle condoned—if not outright encouraged—the practice of euthanasia (Sullivan 7). Reverend Sullivan observes that â€Å"these men condemn suicide and homicide, and yet they view euthanasia as not only permissible but under certain circumstances as the ideal† (7). Like its Grecian counterpart, the Roman Empire’s attitude towards euthanasia was both reflected in and influenced by the writings of its moral philosophers. One such man, Seneca the Younger, explicitly advocates for euthanasia in his piece Epistulae morales LXX: If one death is accompanied by torture, and the other is simple and easy, why not snatch the latter? Just as I shall select my ship when I am about to go on a voyage so shall I choose my death when I am about to depart from life. Everyone ought to make his life acceptable to others besides himself, but his death to himself alone. (10) What Seneca and his Greek predecessors could not have predicted was the conception and subsequent domination of Christianity. This new religion believed in God’s absolute sovereignty over life and death. In the Old Testament, God declares, â€Å"It is I who put to death and I who give life† (Deut 32:39). Within this context, Seneca’s conviction that his death is â€Å"to himself alone† completely loses its accuracy; since God grants every man and woman the ability to live, it is only His to take away. This idea of God’s complete and utter sovereignty is reflected in the Statement on Euthanasia, issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in September of 1991. The document defines life as â€Å"a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion† (4). This distinction between stewardship and mastery is necessary. As stewards, humans act as attendants to their own bodies; they oversee the daily operations of life. Ho wever, God as master has the ultimate and final decision-making power. Thus, to kill someone is to blatantly â€Å"reject Gods sovereignty and loving plan† (Sacred Congregation 5). Through this understanding, euthanasia directly and blasphemously contradicts God’s will. Though Greek philosophers accepted euthanasia and denounced homicide and suicide, the Catholic Church makes no such distinction. Active euthanasia is immoral because it is considered suicide; passive euthanasia is immoral because it is considered homicide. In certain instances, the procedure could be considered both. Naturally, this contributes to the Church’s argument against euthanasia. Suicide in the Christian tradition dates back to the Old Testament, in which four people—Samson, Saul, Abimelech, and Achitephel—commit suicide without reprehension (16). Despite this neutral biblical background, the Church has a history of considering suicide to be one of the gravest sins an individual can commit. As Joseph Bayly explains, â€Å"at one time the church taught that suicide was the greatest sin, greater even than murder. The reason: there is no opportunity to repent afterward† (74). Repentance is a deeply fundamental aspect of Christianity; to die without i t is to risk the promise of eternal salvation. Homicide is far less complex than suicide. It is condemned outright in the Bible; to kill is to break one of the ten commandments, the most basic set of moral principles that humans must follow. The sole purpose of euthanasia, as previously determined, is to bring an end to a person’s intense physical suffering. The Church’s own definition of euthanasia—â€Å"mercy killing†Ã¢â‚¬â€implies a compassionate urge to release those suffering from their pain. However, the Catholic Church’s philosophy of suffering directly opposes this concept. Suffering is not meant to incite dread, and it should not be escaped; instead it symbolizes the devotion of an individual to God. As Pope John Paul II explains in Salvifici Doloris, to suffer is to share in Christ’s death and redemption (19). Jesus died a gruesome and painful death on the cross, and to suffer is to participate in this shared experience. As Reverend Sullivan explains, â€Å"we can never be like [God] in power or dignity. We can, however, become like him in our suffering. In other words, by suffering we become God-like† (75, 76). By participating in this practice of suffering, Ch ristians can understand the pain and sacrifice of our God. Ultimately, the church’s teaching is explicitly and unforgivingly clear in its condemnation of euthanasia as a â€Å"violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity† (Sacred Congregation 6). This teaching, however, fails to properly align with the lived experience of the laity. Movements to legalize euthanasia have been rapidly gaining momentum within the last twenty years, and this shift in perspective has manifested into approved ballot measures, court case victories, and effective state legislation. In 1994, Oregon became the first state to legalize some form of euthanasia—in this case, physician-assisted suicide—by passing the Death with Dignity Act. It was implemented in 1997 (Oregon Department of Education 2018). Since then, Washington D.C. and six other states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—have followed suit. In 2017, a Gallup poll found that 73% of Americans support euthanasia, supporting the recent trend of legalization. This rate rose to 87% when focusing on people who rarely, if ever, attend church; it dropped to 55% when focusing on weekly churchgoers (Gallup 2017). This third figure is alarmingly high: over half of churchgoers disagree with the Church on an issue that the hierarchy deems irrefutable. To the Roman Catholic Church, euthanasia is not a controversy at all. The Church’s argument, as outlined above, relies on ancient scripture, papal and curial documents, centuries of established Christian values, and a milenia of tradition. Yet there still exists this massive inconsistency between doctrine and the shared belief of the laity. This discrepancy signals a failure of the hierarchy. The Church has a responsibility to listen to its lay people and discern the sensus fidelium—Latin for â€Å"the sense of the faithful†Ã¢â‚¬â€which means the â€Å"universal consent in matters of faith and morals† (CCC 28). The congregation shares in the authority of church beliefs as a collective body, because each individual participates and shares in the gift of life and faith. If half of this body is in contention with the other, there is no â€Å"universal consent,† and the teaching may need to be reevaluated. This dissonance could also signal an issue with reception, which goes hand-in-hand with the sensus fidelium. The church is obligated to communicate its teachings with its laity; a teaching has only been fully received when the entire church body accepts it, based on a common experience of faith in the Holy Spirit. If this common experience of faith—the sensus fidelium—is not achieved, full reception is impossible. With 55% of churchgoers disagreeing with the Church on euthanasia, it is safe to argue that the Church either failed to properly discern the sensus fidelium or failed to properly communicate its teaching and demonstrate its beneficiality. In the last century, the Church has made one significant adjustment to its doctrine regarding end-of-life care. This attempt to—partially—realign church doctrine with the laity’s sensus fidelium appears in the Declaration on Euthanasia. The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declares: When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. (8) While this situation could easily fall under the umbrella of euthanasia, the document is careful to differentiate between the two. Passive euthanasia is the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, some forms of which the church considers â€Å"normal care.† The situation laid out in the document only allows for the discontinuation of what Pope Francis defines as â€Å"overzealous treatment† or â€Å"disproportionate measures† (5, 8). Passive euthanasia is also explicitly intended to cause death; this proposed scenario is not explicitly meant to cause death, but rather to allow God’s plan to take its natural course. Subtleties aside, this is a progressive example of the Church’s ability to reframe its argument to better suit its laity, while still remaining true to its core values and beliefs. Euthanasia is a complex and multidimensional issue with a long and rocky history. Today the Church continues its tradition of rejecting euthanasia based on its belief in the absolute sovereignty of God, its views on suicide and homicide, and its philosophy of suffering. However, modern medicine and technology continue to rapidly improve. With these advancements come longer life expectancies; with longer life expectancies come higher rates of terminal and chronic diseases. As the public need and support grows stronger for euthanasia, the Church may need to redefine and reframe its argument to align more properly with the sensus fidelium, or find a way to more effectively communicate its current teaching. Regardless of what the church does, the secular world will continue to change and adapt around it, as it has for centuries. Brittany Maynard was a beautiful person who perfectly represents the average non-churchgoers attitude towards euthanasia. This is why stories like hers are essen tial in any discussion of euthanasia; they can help the Church strengthen their arguments, while simultaneously reminding the Roman Catholic Church that these are real people with real families, pain, hopes, dreams, and beliefs, religious or otherwise. Works Cited Amundsen, Darrel W., and Edward J. Larson. A Different Death: Euthanasia the Christian Tradition. InterVarsity Press, 1998.. Bayly, Joseph. The Last Thing We Talk About. David C. Cook Publ. Co., 1978. Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church: An Access Guide for Adult Discussion Groups. United States Catholic Conference, 1995. Chaturvedi, Santosh K., and Suresh B. Math. â€Å"Euthanasia: Right to Life vs. Right to Die.† National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Dec. 2012. Dixon, Nicholas. â€Å"On the Difference between Physician-Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia.† The Hastings Center Report, vol. 28, no. 5, 1998, p. 25. Dowbiggin, Ian R. A Merciful End: the Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press, 2003. Euthanasia Statement. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, United States Catholic Conference, 1998. â€Å"Frequently Asked Questions.† Oregon Department of Education: 2018 Social Sciences Standards SBE First Reading Draft: Social Sciences: State of Oregon. Gallup, Inc. â€Å"Majority of Americans Remain Supportive of Euthanasia.† Gallup.com, 12 June 2017. Maynard, Brittany. â€Å"My Right to Death with Dignity at 29.† CNN, Cable News Network, 3 Nov. 2014. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press, 2009. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium Et Spes. Catholic Truth Society, 2012. Paul, John. On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering: Salvifici Doloris. Pauline Books and Media, 2014. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. â€Å"Declaration on Euthanasia.† Vatican, 5 May 1980. Sullivan, Joseph V. The Morality of Mercy Killing. The Newman Press, 1950. Print. The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments. American Bible Society, 2000.

Food Inc When The Food Industry Keeps Their Farmers Under...

In the movie â€Å"Food Inc† we saw how the food industry keeps their farmers under their control. Food incorporation sets new protocols that require the farmers to keep purchasing more on dept. As a result of loans and only $18,000 annually (Kenner) they are stuck in a hole that they can’t get out of. I find many things disturbing about this. First off, I find it disturbing that he picked a poorly educated farming area. It seems obvious that the farmers don’t know what they got into and don’t have any knownldge of how to get out. I find it an example of poor unionization within the small farmers that are to be blamed not the ones that find out how to exploit it (Kenner). The movie went even deeper into the pocket of these corporations. We got to see who is really in the FDA. We soon found out previous CEO’s of food incorporation such as Tyson has taken control of the FDA board (Kenner). As a result, there wasn’t only a question of conflict o f interest. Further towards the end of the movie we see how a natural farm works. During which, we are told by the owner of the farm that the FDA attempted to shut them down due to the threat of possible contamination during the gutting process in the farm. Though the farm took action and made an independent study that showed their food was cleaner than the food industry. This is a great example of independence; just because we have one huge company that can do anything it doesn’t mean it more efficient or safer. Further into the movie weShow MoreRelatedMovie Review : Food, Inc.1655 Words   |  7 PagesDecember 2014 Film Guide Review Introduction 1. Give the name of film, producer and the year. The film I chose is titled Food, Inc. It was directed by Robert Kenner, and produced by Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein in 2008. 2. Why did you select this film for your review? I chose Food, Inc. for my film review because it was on Netflix, and because I have always been interested in food production documentaries. 3. Had you seen it before? If so, how did a second viewing help in your understanding orRead MoreHidden Truths of the Food Industry2363 Words   |  10 PagesThe hidden truths of the Food Industry It was our normal routine during the week, driving through the drive thru to get the kids a bite to eat. One day it could be Jack n the Box, another day it could be Mc Donald’s or Carl’s Jr, which ever fast food was voted on amongst my daughters is where we went. This past summer what seemed to be just another trip through the drive thru became a nightmare after eating hamburgers at our usual Carl’s Jr. Not so long after we ate, my older daughter began withRead MoreNestle Marketing Plan1453 Words   |  6 PagesMarketing Plan - Nescafà © Dictado, Louise Lejano, Mark Albert Basa, Carol Belle Magnaye, Angelica Current Marketing Situation Analysis A. Industry Study Nearly a hundred years after it first started operations in the country, Nestlà © Philippines, Inc. (NPI) today is a robust and stable organization, proud of its role in bringing the best food and beverage throughout the stages of the Filipino consumers’ lives. The Company employs more than 3,200 men and women all over the country. It is now amongRead MoreProblems of the Food System Essay2113 Words   |  9 Pagesdiscretion. Even though it is great that food is now readily available at all times, this convenience comes at a price, for both the producer and the consumer. Farmers are cheated out of money and are slaves to big business, workers and animals are mistreated. And, because food now comes at a low cost, it has become cheaper quality and therefore potentially dangerous to the consumer’s health. These problems surrounding the ethics and the procedures of the instantaneous food system are left unchanged due toRead MoreOppresion From Processed Food Chains Essay21 07 Words   |  9 PagesThe availability and efficiency of food in America latterly is great enough to be valued. It is a norm in the America culture to get subsistence quick, abundant of quantity, and have no notion of the origin nor be able recognize the chief source. In Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, the author Michael Pollan, goes on an expedition to trace the sources of the foods that feeds the nation, he explores the industrial food chain, which develops food so multifaceted that only with anRead MoreThe Grocery Market And Natural Food Retail Chain Essay1518 Words   |  7 PagesConclusion The grocery market and natural-food retail chain that is being represented can be explained though the Porter’s 5 Forces Model because it has categories that are important when describing any industry. Porter’s 5 Forces include supplier power, buyer power, established rivals, new entrants, and substitutes and these can all be used to describe how profitable a firm will be in the industry. Supplier power in this market is high because of the uniqueness of goods. Buyer power in the marketRead MoreWe Must Stop The Meat And Poultry2069 Words   |  9 PagesConsuming food throughout the years, many people have enjoyed the savory flavor and tenderness of raw food such as meat and poultry. Although, many people do not know where their food is coming from and on top of that, the industries are keeping their mouths shut from explaining where and how our food is being processed. As consumers, we all deserve to know what we are putting in our bodies to prevent major casualties, though the only reason why industries are keeping shut is because none of themRead MoreMonsanto Balances Environmental Ethical Factors Case Study2446 Words   |  10 Pagesexisting genes within plant seeds, to meet certain aims; for example, higher crop yields or insect resistance. Their seeds have increased quantity and availability of crops, and help all farmers worldwide increase food production and revenues. Monsanto was started in 1901 by John F. Queeny, selling food additives, food extracts, and artificial sweeteners to different companies. Times changed and in the seventies, Monsanto marketed its first roundup herbicide that would propel the company even moreRead MoreTyson Foods5607 Words   |  23 PagesBACKGROUND During the Great Depression, Arkansas poultry farmer John Tyson supported his family by selling vegetables and poultry. In 1935, after developing a method for transporting live poultry (he installed a food-and-water trough and nailed small feed cups on a trailer), he bought 500 chickens in Arkansas and sold them in Chicago (Hoovers, 2011). For the next decade Tyson bought, sold, and transported chickens. By 1947, the year he incorporated the company as Tyson Feed HatcheryRead MoreMovie Analysis : Food Inc1897 Words   |  8 PagesFilm Analysis Paper- Food Inc Food Inc is a documentary directed and written by Robert Kenner along with co-writers Elise Pearlstein and Kim Roberts in 2008 to discuss the current origin of food production in the United States. This film takes viewers inside the slaughter houses, farms and factories that produce American food to show how food in the 21st century is no longer organically grown and raised for healthy eating. Instead it is now controlled, mutilated, and produced in large quantities

In-N-Out Business Model and History Essay Sample free essay sample

In fast-food corporate America In-N-Out Burger has ever remained family-owned. It had no shareholders to react to and was able to put in keeping high criterions of quality. Unlike its rivals the concatenation. with 258 shops soon. is able to retain its changeless growing in gross revenues. even in times of recession. The company strongly believes in the importance of extremely motivated staff that identifies with the chain’s values and gives them the chance to progress. By supplying above-average rewards. societal benefits and other fringe benefits In-N-Out wages testimonial to the importance of their associates. The foundation of a company-owned university warrants extraordinarily-trained forces that internalizes the „customer is everythingâ€Å"-philosophy. The ain distribution system with private meatmans and warehouses ensures the alone quality and freshness of all merchandises. They are entirely delivered to shops in a 500 stat mis range to avoid the demand of stop deading the nutrient. All In-N-Out providers are chosen in a long-run process. We will write a custom essay sample on In-N-Out Business Model and History Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Shops are screaky clean. equipped with unfastened kitchens. where everything is made to order. In-N-Out‘s highly loyal client base appreciates the chain’s transparence. the menu‘s simpleness. the just monetary values and the employee’s friendliness. They spread their satisfaction via word-of-mouth. which saves particular selling schemes. An chance for the concatenation is the turning quality consciousness among the society. Peoples are willing to pay more for higher nutrient criterions. Since there is such a high demand for In-N-Out and the company’s net income is invariably increasing. the concatenation is in a perfect place to spread out. Although In-N-Out has a great market place. there however are certain shortages like the long waiting times and the deficiency of assortment in the bill of fare. Furthermore the chain’s rivals started to accommodate to the new criterion of quality. which is a large menace for In-N-Out. History:In-N-Out Burger was founded in 1948 by Harry and Esther Snyder. What started out as a bantam Burger hovel in the L. A. territory was turning to be a cultural establishment of Southern California. Harry Snyder was the first individual to come up with the thought of a drive-thru. where clients could order from a two manner talker box. In fast developing auto centered Southern California. it was the perfect clip and topographic point for a alone concern thought like that and Snyder’s thought caught on rapidly. From the really get downing the Snyders‘ doctrine „Do one thing A ; Make it the best you canâ€Å" proved to be the right scheme for them. Alternatively of concentrating on a assortment of Burgers. alterations in bill of fare and selling schemes. they put the accent on quality in every facet. It was neer the thought of Harry and Esther to spread out. but in order to give their loyal associates a opportunity to mount the calling ladder. they easy expand ed one shop after another. Franchising was neer a inquiry for the Snyders. since they were truly specific about remaining family-owned and command the quality of merchandises and service personally. The quality accent was so high that Harry hired the first private In-N-Out meatman in 1963. Whereas about every other fast-food concatenation has been passing every bit small money as possible on their merchandises in order to hold a higher income. which largely meant seting inexpensive nutrient additives to the ingredients. the Snyders didn’t follow the tendency but remained true to their values. By the clip of Harry Snyder‘s decease in 1976 there were merely 18 drive-thru locations. The company was able to stay family-owned due to the fact that the Snyders‘ boies learned the concern from their early childhood yearss. Rich. the youngest boy. took over the company after his pa had died. He stayed true to the family‘s values. but he started spread outing at a higher rate. Rich was the one to get down the In-N-Out â€Å"Universityâ€Å" as good. During his leading the company grew from 18 locations to 93 locations until he died in 1993. Guy Snyder. his older brother. was at that place go oning as the new Chairman of the Board. During his leading In-N-Out grew from 93 locations to 140. After his decease in 1999. his girl Linsey was able to take over the company and to prosecute the way taken by Harry many old ages ago.