Annie Lamott, accomplice

Can she really KNOW Jesus?


You're questioning her salvation because she chose compassion over enforced suffering.


Do *you* know Him?>

Actually, Crunchy here describes *exactly* why the rest of us are not comfortable with Christianity telling us when, how, and through what we should be forced to live or die:

The Christian understanding of humanity insists that we are not autonomous creatures that have the right to determine when we shall live and when we shall die.

Unfortunately, the *human* understanding of humanity, especially when someone sees another being kept alive artificially in the name of 'natural life,' comes into conflict with this.

To the contrary, our lives are in the disposition of the Creator,

Unless, of course, sentenced to death, I guess.

and human life is understood to posses inherent dignity from its natural beginning until its natural end. Any affirmation of assisted suicide or any form of euthanasia as a way of "releasing" persons by voluntary or involuntary intervention is a rejection of God's sovereign prerogative and a denial of His providence as gracious, merciful, and righteous.


Which brings us to the fact that attempting to use state power to block people from assisted suicide is based entirely on a specific religious belief, not the public interest.

In effect, using a specific interpretation of a specific religious authority to control the lives... and deaths... of others.

That's not OK.

My own religion *does* see a particular life as a school, of sorts, and that there's no point in keeping a body blowing air after the experience has ceased, for instance.

Who the Hel do you think you are?>

Rod, my sincere apologies. I intentionally asked a provocative question with the purpose of initiating a friendly discussion among "Crunchy Cons." Where ARE all the "Crunchy Cons"?

LOVED the book, by the way.

"Blessed are you when people insult you...because of Me."
Jesus (Matthew 5:11)>

A great deal of the practice of modern medicine is based on an implicit trust by patients in medical professionals, in their judgment and in their recommendations. In other words, there is an unspoken trust that if your doctor tells you to take this pill, get this shot, have this operation, undergo this treatment, it will not harm you -- or, at least, the long-term benefit outweights the short-term discomfort, and the risks are disclosed and discussed up front. If physicians get involved in the deliberate taking of life, for any reason, it completely overturns this implicit trust. This is why physicians don't get involved in administering the lethal injection death penalty. If you cannot trust that you doctor won't deliberately harm or kill you, then modern medicine as we have known it is over.

Beside, why should people be permitted to kill themselves, with or without help? Because their body and their life is their own? Then why don't we allow people to make the choice to sell themselves into slavery? Or prostitution?>

Because their body and their life is their own? Then why don't we allow people to make the choice to sell themselves into slavery?

We do - it's called earning a wage.


Or prostitution?


Arranged marriage?>

I've never seen anything "Jesusy" about Annie Lamott. She seems pretty Molochy to me.>

As far as medical professionals, the Hippocratic Oath is pretty clear on the issue.

"To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death."

The causative principle distinguishes giving a deadly dose of barbituates from, say, turning off a ventilator which is artificially prolonging life or discontinuing medications which are chemically elevating blood pressure after the body's own systems are failing.>

gitv,

president's oath doesn't need to be ignored. I would argue that, by vigorously prosecuting the war on terror, he is honoring his oath.

As to consistency, the NYT has its own problems with leaks. Those who leaked Plame's identity must be stopped, but those who leak about NSA data collection or SWIFT tracking are performing a public service. Kind of inconsistent, don't you think?>

"The NYT is merely reporting the news."

The supposed objectivity is undermined by the fact they published the original op-ed by Joe Wilson.

As to plugging the leak at the "hole, not at the drain," I think the "hole" needs to be plugged. However, Keller acknowledged a publisher has a role in making difficult decisions about what to publish & not publish. Officials, and Kean & Hamilton of the 9/11 commission, urged him not to. He had a choice, and in my opinion, chose poorly.>

Wait wait wait - you're gonna blame this on their publication of Wilson's Op-ed? So their breaking of their own law is acceptable becauser the husband of an operative voiced his opinion?

I'll let you think that over and re-post before I call that the way I see that.

The NYT is doing its job. I know you don't like its job, but it's still doing it. The administration is circumventing laws and abusing the trust of the overwhelming majority of the populace.

The NYT absolutely has the Constitutional right to tell the people that, and the SCOTUS will likely agree. See The Pentagon Papers (NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. UNITED STATES CASE, 1971).>

GITV: What I wrote libelous or hyperbole because I said that she killed her friend? Lamott says the very same thing in the lead of her essay. ("THE MAN I KILLED did not want to die, but he no longer felt he had much of a choice ...")>

Her article provided context. Your comment didn't.

Big difference, my friend. Your comment was made to incite and inflame, and it was out of line.>

Rod,
You are just as disrespectful, unethical and incoherent as your predecessor on beliefnet.

Why can't beliefnet find a conservative voice who also has some sense of fairness?>

Against my better judgment (after reading the tone of comments on this and the previous post), I'll de-lurk and say this:

As a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I've lately found myself demanding of my conservative friends when we arrive at the point where, regardless of left/right affiliations, rational persons agree that a thing is simply objectively wrong. This is a time where I've got to do what I demand of others and say: this is wrong.

I would find Lamott's article horrifying enough if it were written from a secular standpoint, but Lamott presents it as representative of a Christian worldview.

The worldview contained in this article is not gnostic, not Christian--Christian anthropology tells us that one's "self" is not simply one's "mind" or "ideas" but the composite person made up of mind and body. This life isn't a course which we might leave and still be ourselves--the belief in the eventual resurrection of the body means that we do NOT ultimately see this life as "an Earth school," but rather a fallen version of what we are meant to be: mind/body, fleshy souls.

The Christian thing to do here--and I do not here use "Christian" as an adjective for 'loving' or 'merciful,' I use it to mean 'indicative of a Christian worldview'--would have been to encourage her friend to explore palliative care, to help him overcome his terror at the idea of his mind being compromised... not to encourage the belief that our thoughts are our true selves, and our bodies simply some temporary school uniform.

Lamott's actions are not even presented as a last resort. Her friend did not try hospice care and find it lacking, but--at least this is what one gathers from the article--dismissed it out of hand. Lamott seemingly made no attempt to dissuade him from this. Do we not at the VERY minimum have an obligation to exhaust ALL other options before death?

It's a question to which I firmly believe both liberals and conservatives--particularly liberal and conservative Christians--must answer yes.

Apologies for the length of the response.>

Lamontt is a great example of why theology matters. Great writer, weak theology. The church for the most part contributes to this. I would advice her to write about other things for a while and start reading solid theology. Christanity believes the embodied life is sacred.>

Hooray for GITV. How about a little bit of agreeing to disagree wirhout insults. It struck me as I read these posts of people so convinced that their doctrine is right that there are other religions and beliefs in the world that believe with equal fervor that we in the US, all of us, are heathens and wrongdoers. There is no convincing them otherwise, no matter what argument is made, what doctrine is preached, what book is studied. My two cents: For all you folks who throw your religion at me, I say put your money where your mouth is. How many of you have actually spent a lot of time with the dying? How many have spent years watching what can happen to a human body with end stage AIDS, cancer,etc... If you say keep people alive because our lives are sacred, well good. Now get out there today and volunteer to make those lives bearable until the end. Quit preaching and start loving. Leave your judgements at the door too please. We each have lessons to learn on this earth with divine guidance. I love Anne Lamott. I do not know her life or beliefs either. She may make different choices from me, but it is not my place to condemn anyone. You don't like her? Well, don't read her stuff. In some cases, I think the horror of staying alive in a disease riddled body, with a terminal prognosis is the worst form of torture. The people I cared for had almost no one at their bedside to help them through those last days. Where are all you do gooders? Go help, go hold the hand of agony, and see what you conclude at the end. My personal experience was that God was in all the rooms of my patients. You could feel the spirit. I never once thought that God had a clipboard telling him which patient was more deserving, more christian, more holy. Perhaps Anne Lamott has a better understanding of grace than those here, perhaps not. Either way, go help and quit typing on the internet. Blessings and love.>

Crunchy, I'll have to read all of Lamott's essay before I critique her. However I do get tired of this notion that CC submitted that God has this time line where we are born and die. I'm working with a patient at this moment who has advanced lung cancer. He refuses to die peacefully. He has requested to be placed on artifical life support and we will oblige, by law and respecting his choice. He will suffer greatly by making this choice. He will 'live' for a long time b/c the rest of him is healthy. What a time line! If we were to withhold artifical therapy he would get dizzy and die. Now, In God's name he will suffer with bed sores and infections. Lamott's doesn't seem so off to me when looking at this patient.>

Several years ago, I watched my father, a man I greatly respect, choose to stop taking chemo that wasn't working. He then spent time at home, with family & hospice care, until his death. He died with mom by his bed, when the cancer had completed its course.

My opinion is informed by personal opinion, professional experience and my Christian worldview. Life and death are part of human experience, and are (in my opinion) part of a sacred cycle. Most religious groups oppose assisted suicide. Most states bar the practice. And, medical ethics (based upon the Hippocratic oath) preclude a physician from participating.

Some answers to the difficulties posed here are provided by pain management and hospice care. However, death is still a difficult topic for most of us to address with those we love.>