I am a member of parliament. I am also a Roman Catholic. One is my professional role, which I am proud to uphold so long as my constituents support me at...
2277 seems to be directly contradicted by 2278 and 2279.
The takeaway seems to be that it’s immoral to end someone’s life, although you can stop care if the care is more burdensome than letting nature take its cause. Which would seem to say that they’re alright with people dying on their own, but not actually someone else taking action. But then 2278 also says that it should be the patient’s decision, so presumably the patient can choose to end medical care that is continuing their life which, if you concede to their wishes, would be euthanasia.
Surely if the patient wishes is it and expresses that wish, then it is acceptable. It would only be a problem if the patient was unable to make a decision and someone else decided to end their life. Even if done in good faith.
But that’s hardly a radical viewpoint.
It all seems sort of woolly and not very well thought out.
2277 seems to be directly contradicted by 2278 and 2279.
The takeaway seems to be that it’s immoral to end someone’s life, although you can stop care if the care is more burdensome than letting nature take its cause. Which would seem to say that they’re alright with people dying on their own, but not actually someone else taking action. But then 2278 also says that it should be the patient’s decision, so presumably the patient can choose to end medical care that is continuing their life which, if you concede to their wishes, would be euthanasia.
Surely if the patient wishes is it and expresses that wish, then it is acceptable. It would only be a problem if the patient was unable to make a decision and someone else decided to end their life. Even if done in good faith.
But that’s hardly a radical viewpoint.
It all seems sort of woolly and not very well thought out.