Today I'm angry about.....

[thebish]

Two things today:

Firstly, another one to list to the travesties at the hands of the Catholic Church. Read today that it used to be dogma that the dying should not be given medication to ease the pain of dying as this pain was 'God's gift' to the dying that they could feel the pain of Jesus on the cross and so smooth their passage to repentance and heaven. Oh do f*ck off.

that's a new one on me.. where did you read that?

in my experience, catholics have been massively instrumental in the provision of hospice care with proper end-of-life pain relief - when hardly anyone else was interested...

[Beefheart]

Two things today:

Firstly, another one to list to the travesties at the hands of the Catholic Church. Read today that it used to be dogma that the dying should not be given medication to ease the pain of dying as this pain was 'God's gift' to the dying that they could feel the pain of Jesus on the cross and so smooth their passage to repentance and heaven. Oh do f*ck off.

that's a new one on me.. where did you read that?

in my experience, catholics have been massively instrumental in the provision of hospice care with proper end-of-life pain relief - when hardly anyone else was interested...

Also flies in the face of samaritans guidelines (particularly in the case of celebrities) for how to report on suicides.

[bobo the clown]

Two things today:

Firstly, another one to list to the travesties at the hands of the Catholic Church. Read today that it used to be dogma that the dying should not be given medication to ease the pain of dying as this pain was 'God's gift' to the dying that they could feel the pain of Jesus on the cross and so smooth their passage to repentance and heaven. Oh do f*ck off.

that's a new one on me.. where did you read that?

in my experience, catholics have been massively instrumental in the provision of hospice care with proper end-of-life pain relief - when hardly anyone else was interested...

Also flies in the face of samaritans guidelines (particularly in the case of celebrities) for how to report on suicides.

Never heard that ne Pru. Where's that come from ?

[Prufrock]

My bad, didn't read it properly . Not dogma, but the views of certain Catholic monks in books published as late as 1956. So one off the charge sheet of the Catholic Church, and onto the charge sheet of those Catholic monks, the pricks!

[William the White]

My bad, didn't read it properly . Not dogma, but the views of certain Catholic monks in books published as late as 1956. So one off the charge sheet of the Catholic Church, and onto the charge sheet of those Catholic monks, the pricks!

I wonder, Pru, if you were reading an article in London Review of Books that I also read yesterday?

I don't think you should feel bad - Catholics, like all others, are entitled to know about their history, and we are not talking about some barbarous land thousands of years ago, but our land just over 50 years ago.

In New Problems in Medical Ethics (1956) Peter Flood, a Benedictine, stated that Christians should accept pain as 'a privilege, in union with the redemptive sufferings of Christ'. This was, for him, especially important when dealing with lapsed Catholics, who should be denied even small doses of pain relief, because it might prevent them from returning to their faith at the end. Another article in this volume, this one by the Jesuit, Eugene Tesson, sanctioned doctors to administer pain relief only to the dying who had 'made an act of submission to the Divine' and those 'in danger of falling into despair and blaspheming the goodness of God'.

Tango was probably an altar boy in 1956. Bobo maybe waiting his baptism. The opposition to offering the right to die to those in intolerable pain right now is led by... ?

[Prufrock]

That is where I read it, Will.

It's still vile, but given I'm quick and happy to criticise the Catholic Church and the Vatican for its numerous faults, it only seems fair that I show contrition and say my Hail Marys when I slag them off for something that wasn't them.

Just the harbouring of paedophiles, collusion with the Nazis, causing the deaths of millions with batty pronouncements on condoms, demonisation of homosexuals, and institutional misogyny and obsession with controlling the sexual activity of women and subsequent responsibility for the ensuing poverty then. Though I may have missed a few.

[William the White]

That is where I read it, Will.

It's still vile, but given I'm quick and happy to criticise the Catholic Church and the Vatican for its numerous faults, it only seems fair that I show contrition and say my Hail Marys when I slag them off for something that wasn't them.

Just the harbouring of paedophiles, collusion with the Nazis, causing the deaths of millions with batty pronouncements on condoms, demonisation of homosexuals, and institutional misogyny and obsession with controlling the sexual activity of women and subsequent responsibility for the ensuing poverty then. Though I may have missed a few.

Excellent! Do you subscribe?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wonder, Pru, if you were reading an article in London Review of Books that I also read yesterday?

I don't think you should feel bad - Catholics, like all others, are entitled to know about their history, and we are not talking about some barbarous land thousands of years ago, but our land just over 50 years ago.

Yes, William, but even over 50 years ago the Catholic Church did not subscribe to the views of that Irish monk - it was the opinion of one or two people. If the vicar of Christ Church, Heaton says something daft it doesn't mean the Anglican Church is in agreement. However, before WW2 eugenics was strongly advocated by many (including Churchill) and laws enacted for enforced sterilization (before the Nazis made it unpopular). At least the Catholic Church opposed that dangerous philosophy.

[bobo the clown]

That is where I read it, Will.

It's still vile, but given I'm quick and happy to criticise the Catholic Church and the Vatican for its numerous faults, it only seems fair that I show contrition and say my Hail Marys when I slag them off for something that wasn't them.

Just the harbouring of paedophiles, collusion with the Nazis, causing the deaths of millions with batty pronouncements on condoms, demonisation of homosexuals, and institutional misogyny and obsession with controlling the sexual activity of women and subsequent responsibility for the ensuing poverty then. Though I may have missed a few.

Christ Almighty. Have you sought help ?

That has a sense of a little boy the Priests ignored.

[William the White]

I wonder, Pru, if you were reading an article in London Review of Books that I also read yesterday?

I don't think you should feel bad - Catholics, like all others, are entitled to know about their history, and we are not talking about some barbarous land thousands of years ago, but our land just over 50 years ago.

Yes, William, but even over 50 years ago the Catholic Church did not subscribe to the views of that Irish monk - it was the opinion of one or two people. If the vicar of Christ Church, Heaton says something daft it doesn't mean the Anglican Church is in agreement. However, before WW2 eugenics was strongly advocated by many (including Churchill) and laws enacted for enforced sterilization (before the Nazis made it unpopular). At least the Catholic Church opposed that dangerous philosophy.

Ah, thank you. Source please? Those were the views of two Catholic 'thinkers' in that book as quoted in a review article in LRB of The Story of Pain by Joanna Bourke. I don't know if there were other articles in the book offering a different viewpoint. Were they at odds with orthodox thinking in their church?

[Prufrock]

That is where I read it, Will.

It's still vile, but given I'm quick and happy to criticise the Catholic Church and the Vatican for its numerous faults, it only seems fair that I show contrition and say my Hail Marys when I slag them off for something that wasn't them.

Just the harbouring of paedophiles, collusion with the Nazis, causing the deaths of millions with batty pronouncements on condoms, demonisation of homosexuals, and institutional misogyny and obsession with controlling the sexual activity of women and subsequent responsibility for the ensuing poverty then. Though I may have missed a few.

Excellent! Do you subscribe?

I do. Subscribed after watching some of that documentary on the NY Review of Books you recommended (which sort of reminds me, he says, popping over to the TV thread). Really enjoyed the few I've had so far, though they aren't helping me reduce that 'must read' list!

[William the White]

That is where I read it, Will.

It's still vile, but given I'm quick and happy to criticise the Catholic Church and the Vatican for its numerous faults, it only seems fair that I show contrition and say my Hail Marys when I slag them off for something that wasn't them.

Just the harbouring of paedophiles, collusion with the Nazis, causing the deaths of millions with batty pronouncements on condoms, demonisation of homosexuals, and institutional misogyny and obsession with controlling the sexual activity of women and subsequent responsibility for the ensuing poverty then. Though I may have missed a few.

Excellent! Do you subscribe?

I do. Subscribed after watching some of that documentary on the NY Review of Books you recommended (which sort of reminds me, he says, popping over to the TV thread). Really enjoyed the few I've had so far, though they aren't helping me reduce that 'must read' list!

I know - I sometimes arrive near a Portuguese beach with half a doz unread copies (and, indeed, the same number of novels).

[Prufrock]

And each copy seems to spawn about two more books for the list!

[William the White]

And each copy seems to spawn about two more books for the list!

You are so right!

And I make the mistake of buying some!

But, seriously, feeds ideas in a way I would really miss if it ceased publication. You should pass yours onto crayons - almost every copy has an article on London art.

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wonder, Pru, if you were reading an article in London Review of Books that I also read yesterday?

I don't think you should feel bad - Catholics, like all others, are entitled to know about their history, and we are not talking about some barbarous land thousands of years ago, but our land just over 50 years ago.

Yes, William, but even over 50 years ago the Catholic Church did not subscribe to the views of that Irish monk - it was the opinion of one or two people. If the vicar of Christ Church, Heaton says something daft it doesn't mean the Anglican Church is in agreement. However, before WW2 eugenics was strongly advocated by many (including Churchill) and laws enacted for enforced sterilization (before the Nazis made it unpopular). At least the Catholic Church opposed that dangerous philosophy.

Ah, thank you. Source please? Those were the views of two Catholic 'thinkers' in that book as quoted in a review article in LRB of The Story of Pain by Joanna Bourke. I don't know if there were other articles in the book offering a different viewpoint. Were they at odds with orthodox thinking in their church?

New Problems in Medical Ethics was an entire series of books put out by Peter Flood. The first he translated from the French Cahiers Laënnec and he wrote or edited the others. The one quoted by Bourke is the third in the series. Catholic thinkers are allowed to express opinions which may run contrary to the dogma of the church or be on issues no opinion was expressed. Many Catholic thinkers advocated the heliocentric theory for centuries after Copernicus's death before the official position changed. I cannot give you a source for the non-existence of something. I would be very surprised if the Vatican officially instructed priests to withhold painkilling medicine from the terminally at any time in the twentieth century even if some catholic thinkers thought it would be a good idea. If you show me a Papal Bull or other piece of official Roman Catholic dogma that issues these instructions I will apologize unreservedly and join Pru in throwing brickbats.

[thebish]

The opposition to offering the right to die to those in intolerable pain right now is led by... ?

I'm not sure that this is a fair characterisation of what the debate is about or who is against the Bill you are presumably referring to - but, then, maybe it wasn't meant to be?

the Bill isn't just about the right to die for those in intolerable pain - it's much bigger than that. In countries where similar laws have already passed there is (I believe) research to suggest that intolerable pain makes up only a small percentage of those who opt for assisted dying in some form...

personally I swing from yes to no to yes to no to maybe on the issue because I think it is very complex. I worry about lots of possible unintended consequences such as pressure on the elderly not to be a "burden" and the devaluing of disabled people...

on the other hand, I am often in hospices and have seen with my own eyes many "good" and "bad" deaths and have a gut-instinct (like many people do) of trying to imagine myself in someone else's shoes and thinking I can accurately predict what i'd want in those circumstances... except i am probably deluding myself - because i simply don't know..

I have sat by the bed of several people - occasionally all night - people who have no relatives and no obvious "reason" to live or (from an outsider's perspective) no obvious quality of life (how dare I judge something like that?) - and willed them to die - and listened to a whole night's worth - hour after hour of stuttering death-rattle breathing - thinking that each breath might have been the last - but it isn't...

whatever you think either way - and principled people have well thought out positions on both sides - religious and non-religious - it's far too complex and important a discussion to be so casually thrown into a ranty swipe at the catholic church (in my opinion).

[William the White]

I wonder, Pru, if you were reading an article in London Review of Books that I also read yesterday?

I don't think you should feel bad - Catholics, like all others, are entitled to know about their history, and we are not talking about some barbarous land thousands of years ago, but our land just over 50 years ago.

Yes, William, but even over 50 years ago the Catholic Church did not subscribe to the views of that Irish monk - it was the opinion of one or two people. If the vicar of Christ Church, Heaton says something daft it doesn't mean the Anglican Church is in agreement. However, before WW2 eugenics was strongly advocated by many (including Churchill) and laws enacted for enforced sterilization (before the Nazis made it unpopular). At least the Catholic Church opposed that dangerous philosophy.

Ah, thank you. Source please? Those were the views of two Catholic 'thinkers' in that book as quoted in a review article in LRB of The Story of Pain by Joanna Bourke. I don't know if there were other articles in the book offering a different viewpoint. Were they at odds with orthodox thinking in their church?

New Problems in Medical Ethics was an entire series of books put out by Peter Flood. The first he translated from the French Cahiers Laënnec and he wrote or edited the others. The one quoted by Bourke is the third in the series. Catholic thinkers are allowed to express opinions which may run contrary to the dogma of the church or be on issues no opinion was expressed. Many Catholic thinkers advocated the heliocentric theory for centuries after Copernicus's death before the official position changed. I cannot give you a source for the non-existence of something. I would be very surprised if the Vatican officially instructed priests to withhold painkilling medicine from the terminally at any time in the twentieth century even if some catholic thinkers thought it would be a good idea. If you show me a Papal Bull or other piece of official Roman Catholic dogma that issues these instructions I will apologize unreservedly and join Pru in throwing brickbats.

Of course not.

But... From your assertion I thought you had evidence to the contrary. So, while you 'would be surprised' you don't have any source that the Catholic church or catholic thinkers were advocates of offeringing pain relief for the dying? I know you phrased your initial response carefully so what is the evidence that the church 'did not subscribe' to those views? That they remained silent - is that it? There was no polemic? Surely...

[William the White]

The opposition to offering the right to die to those in intolerable pain right now is led by... ?

I'm not sure that this is a fair characterisation of what the debate is about or who is against the Bill you are presumably referring to - but, then, maybe it wasn't meant to be?

the Bill isn't just about the right to die for those in intolerable pain - it's much bigger than that. In countries where similar laws have already passed there is (I believe) research to suggest that intolerable pain makes up only a small percentage of those who opt for assisted dying in some form...

personally I swing from yes to no to yes to no to maybe on the issue because I think it is very complex. I worry about lots of possible unintended consequences such as pressure on the elderly not to be a "burden" and the devaluing of disabled people...

on the other hand, I am often in hospices and have seen with my own eyes many "good" and "bad" deaths and have a gut-instinct (like many people do) of trying to imagine myself in someone else's shoes and thinking I can accurately predict what i'd want in those circumstances... except i am probably deluding myself - because i simply don't know..

I have sat by the bed of several people - occasionally all night - people who have no relatives and no obvious "reason" to live or (from an outsider's perspective) no obvious quality of life (how dare I judge something like that?) - and willed them to die - and listened to a whole night's worth - hour after hour of stuttering death-rattle breathing - thinking that each breath might have been the last - but it isn't...

whatever you think either way - and principled people have well thought out positions on both sides - religious and non-religious - it's far too complex and important a discussion to be so casually thrown into a ranty swipe at the catholic church (in my opinion).

Nothing casual or ranty about it. Really.

It's a fact that the Catholic Church opposes assisted dying under any circumstances. Doesn't it?

Your waverings are shared by me, though possibly I am more of a supporter of the right to die than you, I don't know. But I'd be interested to read the research you have in mind - could you send me a link?

[Montreal Wanderer]

I wonder, Pru, if you were reading an article in London Review of Books that I also read yesterday?

I don't think you should feel bad - Catholics, like all others, are entitled to know about their history, and we are not talking about some barbarous land thousands of years ago, but our land just over 50 years ago.

Yes, William, but even over 50 years ago the Catholic Church did not subscribe to the views of that Irish monk - it was the opinion of one or two people. If the vicar of Christ Church, Heaton says something daft it doesn't mean the Anglican Church is in agreement. However, before WW2 eugenics was strongly advocated by many (including Churchill) and laws enacted for enforced sterilization (before the Nazis made it unpopular). At least the Catholic Church opposed that dangerous philosophy.

Ah, thank you. Source please? Those were the views of two Catholic 'thinkers' in that book as quoted in a review article in LRB of The Story of Pain by Joanna Bourke. I don't know if there were other articles in the book offering a different viewpoint. Were they at odds with orthodox thinking in their church?

New Problems in Medical Ethics was an entire series of books put out by Peter Flood. The first he translated from the French Cahiers Laënnec and he wrote or edited the others. The one quoted by Bourke is the third in the series. Catholic thinkers are allowed to express opinions which may run contrary to the dogma of the church or be on issues no opinion was expressed. Many Catholic thinkers advocated the heliocentric theory for centuries after Copernicus's death before the official position changed. I cannot give you a source for the non-existence of something. I would be very surprised if the Vatican officially instructed priests to withhold painkilling medicine from the terminally at any time in the twentieth century even if some catholic thinkers thought it would be a good idea. If you show me a Papal Bull or other piece of official Roman Catholic dogma that issues these instructions I will apologize unreservedly and join Pru in throwing brickbats.

Of course not.

But... From your assertion I thought you had evidence to the contrary. So, while you 'would be surprised' you don't have any source that the Catholic church or catholic thinkers were advocates of offeringing pain relief for the dying? I know you phrased your initial response carefully so what is the evidence that the church 'did not subscribe' to those views? That they remained silent - is that it? There was no polemic? Surely...

I don't assert they have been silent. The Catholic Church is, unlike you, emphatically opposed to euthanasia. In discussing this question the Bishop of Calgary was at strenuous pains to point out the Church is not opposed to pain-killers even if these shorten life.

The provision of adequate medicines to control pain is NOT euthanasia. The administration of high doses of pain-killers and sedatives to terminally ill patients may lead to a shortening of their lives. It is, however, morally acceptable to administer such drugs in doses which are linked to their painkilling or sedative effects, and not to the termination of life. It is not correct to call this “euthanasia” because there is no intention to shorten the patient’s life.

It is also made clear in the US National Conference of Catholic Bishops that pain-killers can be used even if they shorten life provided that is not the intent (see item 4). They would be opposed to a physician administering a massive overdose of morphine with the intent to kill. This is the distinction which seems clear to me (whether or not I agree with them).

[Montreal Wanderer]

Okay, Will, I've gone a little further to get the official Vatican position. This is from the 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia.

Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way [i.e. suffering without medicine because Christ suffered - Monty] of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor's advice. But the intensive use of painkillers is not without difficulties, because the phenomenon of habituation generally makes it necessary to increase their dosage in order to maintain their efficacy. At this point it is fitting to recall a declaration by Pius XII, which retains its full force; in answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: "Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics ... permitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?" the Pope said: "If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes." In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine.

Pius XII died in 1956 before Flood started spouting his views. Does this satisfy, Will?