Woman, 29, Will End Her Life In Nov. 1

[Guest]

I have always came to phatmass with an open mind and to attempt to grow in the faith. I continue to do that right now. I thought the article made a great comparison but you dont. How is terminal brain cancer and the ugly ugly ugly stuff it was about to put her through in the next few months considered a "natural death" ?

Edited November 5, 2014 by Guest

[Credo in Deum]

I have always came to phatmass with an open mind and to attempt to grow in the faith. I continue to do that right now. I thought the article made a great comparison but you dont. How is terminal brain cancer and the ugly ugly stuff that it was going to put her through in the next few months considered a "natural death" ?

Cancer is a natural death because cancer is a natural disease. Burning jet fuel from a huge passenger plane which was piloted by terrorists is an unnatural death. What this is doing is blaming cancer for Brittany's actions and not holding her accountable for introducing the option of suicide. An option which cancer did not force upon her.

[Guest]

So cancers not a terrorist? In my mind both are bastards of the hugest kind and deserve to never be remembered or heard of again.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Guest

[BarbTherese]

Wow the logical loops one has to go through to have the audacity to compare these two events is insane. Brittany was not put in a situation which forced her to choose between two types of deaths. She introduced the option of suicide as opposed to dying a natural death. Those in 911 did not choose between a natural death and an unnatural death, but rather an unnatural death was forced upon them by the terrorists which is why they were guilty of homocide. Cancer didn't force Brittany to commit suicied.

.

 

"Cancer didn't force Brittany to commit suicide".  Surely you cannot mean she would have committed suicide even if she did not have cancer. Cancer indeed played a part in her choice.  It was not cancer that FORCED her to make the choice, just as it was not the collapse of The Towers in fire that FORCED those involved to choose suicide.   There is ALWAYS a choice.  ALWAYS.

 

Brittany indeed had two choices.  She could either die of cancer quite naturally but in serious pain.  (Although I do wonder what palliative care for the terminally ill  might apply in the USA?  Here in Australia it is said to be excellent)

Brittany's other presenting choice was to choose how she died (suicide) and relatively free of pain it seems.

 

It seems to me to be semantics to state that those involved in the 9/11 crime were forced to choose between death in the 9/11 crime or suicide and a hopefully quick death, while Brittany was in another moral category entirely.  The only difference is that with 9/11 it was crime, although those involved in 9/11 at the time would not have known this.  Why is there some sort of moral difference because Brittany's impending death was not by crime?

 

I could never condone suicide.  It is always seriously morally wrong and grave matter, but I can indeed feel deeply, even empathise, for some that do make this choice.

Edited November 5, 2014 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

How did it not force it upon her ? She had a few months before she would be put through a literal hell that not a single person deserves to be put through.

[Credo in Deum]

So cancers the good guy now not the terrorists. Hmmm. In my mind both are bast arms of the hugest kind and deserved

Where did I say cancer is a good guy? What are you even talking about? Dare I ask when or if your mother gets to a stage of painful suffering will you opt to end her life? If not why not?

[Guest]

I edited my post.

[Guest]

Sorry.

[Guest]

On a phone.

[Credo in Deum]

How did it not force it upon her ? She had a few months before she would be put through a literal hell that not a single person deserves to be put through.

It did not force it upon her because cancer did not by its nature force two options for death. Cancer only forced one option which was a death that would naturally occur by cancer. Cancer never presented suicide. Brittany introduced suicide as an option. No dr in the history of medical research will list suicide as one of the effects of cancer on a cancer patient..

[Guest]

Alright respect your thoughts and thank you for your side. Prayers and Godbless.

[Guest]

I will say God expects a lot from people. If he really is let down by what Brittany did it's something I will never be able to grasp. Just like I will never be able to grasp why he would allow cancer to ever exist in the first place. You would think free will and all that good stuff could be accomplished without it. I don't say this to question the goodness of God. I know he's good I just will never be able to understand his ways. At least not in this life.

[BarbTherese]

Cancer is a natural death because cancer is a natural disease. Burning jet fuel from a huge passenger plane which was piloted by terrorists is an unnatural death. What this is doing is blaming cancer for Brittany's actions and not holding her accountable for introducing the option of suicide. An option which cancer did not force upon her.

 

 So if my house catches on fire through arson (but I don't know this) and I am unable to escape, then it would not be morally wrong to shoot myself to escape an unnatural death?????

I am faced with an unnatural death and a cruel one and introduce an option i.e. suicide.

 

Semantics

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

"Cancer didn't force Brittany to commit suicide". Surely you cannot mean she would have committed suicide even if she did not have cancer. Cancer indeed played a part in her choice. It was not cancer that FORCED her to make the choice, just as it was not the collapse of The Towers in fire that FORCED those involved to choose suicide. There is ALWAYS a choice. ALWAYS.

Brittany indeed had two choices. She could either die of cancer quite naturally but in serious pain. (Although I do wonder what palliative care for the terminally ill might apply in the USA? Here in Australia it is said to be excellent)
Brittany's other presenting choice was to choose how she died (suicide) and relatively free of pain it seems.

It seems to me to be semantics to state that those involved in the 9/11 crime were forced to choose between death in the 9/11 crime or suicide and a hopefully quick death, while Brittany was in another moral category entirely. The only difference is that with 9/11 it was crime, although those involved in 9/11 at the time would not have known this. Why is there some sort of moral difference because Brittany's impending death was not by crime?

I could never condone suicide. It is always seriously morally wrong and grave matter, but I can indeed feel deeply, even empathise, for some that do make this choice.

For someone who says they could never condone suicide you sure are doing your best to condone it. The temperature inside the buildings when the jet fuel was burning was hot enough to melt steel and so this would force people to try to avoid the heat. Even to the point of going near the edge of the building. No one is going to call those who fell out of the buidlings suicides because no one knows if they jumped out of the window of their own choice or if it was because the heat literally pushed them out of the buildig. Yet with Brittany the opposite is the case . No one can say logicalyl that cancer forced Brittany to commit suicide. Suicide was an unnatural end which Brittany introduced to escape cancer. Suicide was never and would have never been in the equation unless she introduced it.

[Credo in Deum]

So if my house catches on fire through arson (but I don't know this) and I am unable to escape, then it would not be morally wrong to shoot myself to escape an unnatural death?????
I am faced with an unnatural death and a cruel one and introduce an option i.e. suicide.

Semantics

Not even the same situation as those in 9/11.