Also featured a religious issue when the vicar, Alex, was attracted to Kathy Beale and began an affair with her. The programme explored the issue of how a vicar can become too closely involved when helping women with problems.
And featured a moral issue when Ian and Cindy Beales marriage broke up and they fought over the custody of the children, involving kidnappings, flight to Italy and shooting by hired killers. All of this explored the issues of adultery, divorce and the way in which children can be used as pawns in battles between parents in the name of love.
Euthanasia
1. WHAT IS VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA?
When we hear the phrase voluntary euthanasia people generally think of one of two things: the active termination of life at the patient's request as it occurs in the Netherlands (or similar proposals in other countries); or the Nazi extermination program of murder. Many people have beliefs about whether euthanasia is right or wrong, often without being able to define it clearly. Some people take an extreme view, while many falls somewhere between the two camps. Dictionary definitions avail us little, as there will always be large groups of people that claim it means something else. The apparent derivation a gentle and easy death (from the Greek, eu - thanatos) hardly describes what we mean. Even extending the definition to include bringing about of this, especially in the case of incurable and painful disease (Oxford English Dictionary) hardly covers it - hospices often succeed in bringing about a peaceful death, but they don't perform euthanasia!
In the Netherlands, the only country where euthanasia is openly practised, another at the explicit request of the person who dies defines euthanasia" (Netherlands State Commission on Euthanasia). The argument then often centres on the voluntaries of the request. How can one be sure that it is voluntary? Supporters of the voluntary euthanasia movement generally believe that it would be possible to devise sufficient safeguards to ensure that the request was voluntary and that people could never feel pressured.
The Dutch are critical of their own system and are continually refining and testing it - though generally they feel that it respects human rights and is part of good medicine. They get rid of the word voluntary since the explicit request is part of their definition of euthanasia. An explicit request is objectively observable, whereas voluntaries depends somewhat on interpretation. (Some opponents of euthanasia suggest that the true will is impaired if one is asking to die and that therefore there is no voluntaries. Most people would agree if the person was emotionally distraught over, say, being jilted by a lover, or if the person was psychiatrically of unsound mind, but most of us view more considered statements as voluntary, especially if we are unable to find any evidence to the contrary.
Obviously the Dutch definition needs careful implementation to ensure voluntaries, and the Dutch attempt to do this by a series of safeguards within a close doctor-patient relationship, a high standard and availability of palliative care, and general public support. There is much debate over whether we could have a similar system in, say, Britain, but we feel that the present system is unsatisfactory and so we press for reform.
One of the few certainties of life is death, but in the twentieth century it is still a taboo subject. The "forbidden" nature of death adds to the unnamed fears and worries that most people feel when asked to confront the idea of their own death. Yet once people can overcome their reluctance to discuss the subject, most often what is revealed is not the fear of death itself, but the manner of dying. The difficulty of thinking about "death with dignity" is that it implies that one day you, or someone you love, may be in a position to want that choice.
No one can prevent death finally, but we can and should ensure that the dying process is a gentle and peaceful one. When life consists of a few agonising, drugged weeks, many patients beg their doctors to help them die, and many doctors, mindful of the ethics of their profession, feel forced to refuse. Those who, out of compassion, accede to such a request know they are breaking the law and putting their careers at risk.
This is the dilemma, which faces all of us now. Should we, as potential patients, have the legal right to ask our doctors to help us die when the end of life is in sight and our suffering severe?
Many of the arguments made against assisted dying come from a religious basis. The main source of this religious opposition comes from the Jewish-Christian religions. Out of these, the Roman Catholic Church is the strongest opponent. Islamic and Buddhist faiths also do not agree with euthanasia. The Sikh Dharma and Hindu faiths have not taken an official position, and may leave it up to the individual. However, there are individuals within these religions, including ordinary believers and priests, who fully support voluntary euthanasia.
In a 1993 opinion poll carried out for the VES by NOP, most religious people who were surveyed were in favour of medical aid in dying. Whilst 93% of people
Euthanasia is arranging for a person who is dying from an agonising incurable disease to die as quickly and as painlessly as possible. We are all afraid of a long and lingering death with all the pain that that may include. We would all like to die peacefully in our sleep from old age. However this does not always happen and we must face up to the fact that we, or one of our families may be in the position of facing a painful death. Some people think that we should have the right to make our own choices about when we die, and we should be able to die with dignity.
It is illegal in the UK for a doctor to deliberately give a patient a dose of medicine that will kill them. They must be careful that they control the pain without killing the patient. There has been much debate recently about this (Doctor Death), and some countries have made it legal for a person to ask to be "killed" by their doctor (Holland and Australia). The voluntary Euthanasia society was formed in 1935 to campaign for a person's right to seek an "easy" death. In 1985 a poll showed that 72% of the population agreed that a person should have the right to ask for their own death.
"I sincerely believe that those who come after us will wonder why on earth we kept a human being alive against his (sic) will. When all the dignity, beauty and meaning of life had vanished; when any gain to anyone was clearly impossible and when we should have been punished by the state if we had kept an animal in similar conditions"
Public opinion
#Progress in hygiene and medical techniques over the last 100 years has brought about a remarkable extension of life. At the same time such advances have often led to a drawing out of the dying process. The public response to this has been to question their lack of control over the end of their lives. Individuals who have been able to live where they want to live, work where they wish to work and love that they wish to love do not think that they should be denied choice and dignity once they become terminally ill.
UNITED KINGDOM
The 1996 British Social Attitudes Report reported that 82% of the British population said that an individual should have the right to ask a doctor to end their life if they are suffering from an incurable and painful disease. This was an increase from the 75% reported in 1984, and the 79% reported in 1989.
Since 1996 support appears to have risen. Here are a series of media polls from August 2001, at the beginning of Diane Pretty's legal case:
The Times newspaper asked, "Should euthanasia be legal in Britain?" 80% responded that it should be.
The Independent on Sunday newspaper: 85% of people said that people have the right to die when they choose.
Teletext reported 90% support for voluntary euthanasia.
Sky News' poll found 85% of people in support.
Genie.co.uk showed 97% in favour of legalising voluntary euthanasia. Without religious belief supported this, 83% of Protestants, 73% of Roman Catholics and 60% of Jews were also in favour.
There are three basic arguments Jewish and Christian authorities make against helping a person to die.
Dr. Leslie Weather head (leader of the Methodist church)
There are things to consider if we made Euthanasia legal;
Would this give the doctors too much power and responsibility?
Would sick people be pressurised by relatives?
Would it lead to involuntary euthanasia for the old or handicapped?
Is it not our duty to care for those in our society who are ill?
Isn’t life always precious no matter what sort of life it is?
Can we really tell when it is hopeless as new cures are being discovered all the time?
It is difficult to change your mind
Could voluntary euthanasia help those who have lost their mental faculties? Or are senile?
STIGMATA
Most Christians would argue that since God gives life it is only God who has the right to take life away. However many Christians would argue that since it is possible for modern medicine to keep a person artificially alive there should be the possibility to "turn the machines off" if a person is clinically or brain dead. Euthanasia questions the role that the elderly, infirm and handicapped have in our society. Because the care of the elderly is an important part of this, is a euthanasia-helping person to "die with dignity"?
Some Christians who disagree with euthanasia but support the idea of dying with dignity have been involved with the setting up of the Hospice movement (of section on Hospice). Many of the Hospices have a Christian foundation (One of the first Helen House is in the grounds of a convent in Oxford) Dame Cicely Saunders founded the first modern hospice in London in 1967. (St Christopher's hospice, Sydenham, Beckenham, KENT)
All Christians also believe in life after death and so would not consider death as the end of life but as a stage on the road. This idea could be applied to both sides of the argument.
Stigmata
Stigmata are the development of wounds on the bodies of people similar to the wounds of Christ when he was crucified on the cross. The people involved are usually nuns, priests or people with a strong religious belief. The wounds these people suffer are identical to the wounds on the statue of Jesus that they actually prey too on a daily basis. Therefore if the statue has nails in the palms then the blood will flow from the palms. If the statue is nailed through the wrist, then blood will flow freely from the wrist.
It has also been reported for stigmatic to bleed from the forehead, as Jesus would have, wearing the Crown of Thorns. Most strange however are a few Stigmatic who bleed from the ears and eyes.
The most common theory about stigmata is that the sufferers have caused it themselves by the power of their own mind and beliefs. Science has yet to explain the phenomena. Religious points of view argue that this is the power of Faith.
I. FACTS
at first had visible stigmata but through humility she asked that they might be made invisible, and her prayer was heard. This was also the case with , a Florentine Dominican of the sixteenth century, and with several other stigmatic. The sufferings may be considered the essential part of visible stigmata; the substance of this grace consists of pity for Christ, participation in His sufferings, sorrows, and for the same end--the expiation of the sins unceasingly committed in the world. If the sufferings were absent, the wounds would be but an empty symbol, theatrical representation, conducing to pride. If the stigmata really come from , it would be unworthy of His wisdom to participate in such futility, and to do so by a miracle.
Dr. Imbert has attempted to count the number of stigmatic, with the following results:
None are known prior to the thirteenth century. The first mentioned is , in whom the stigmata were of a character never seen subsequently; in the wounds of feet and hands were excrescences of flesh representing nails, those on one side having round back heads, those on the other having rather long points, which bent back and grasped the skin.
Evaluation on the ways in which Religion and religious issues are dealt with on British television
Religion and religious issues could be made to look a lot better and a lot more interesting if more effort would be put into them. Many religious programmes are comedies that take religious light heartedly and often make a mockery of it. The programmes are aimed at an older generation, which therefore means there is no entertainment for children. If British T.V was to include famous singers or broaden their ideas by having different type of music on ‘songs of praise’, then more people might tune in. Gospel music more associated with god, (has a lot of expression) but often ignored.
Conclusion
Religion is looked open in different ways. I do not believe that anyone can stereotype the media by saying that it only has bad views on it- or just good ones.