Menu

100 Sermon Illustrations on Euthanasia

100 illustrations Page 2 of 2

Euthanasia in Christian preaching challenges the sanctity of life, emphasizing that life is a sacred gift from God that should not be prematurely ended by human hands (Deuteronomy 30:19). Illustrations often use stark images of comas, ethical controversies, and cultural shifts toward death to highlight the dangers of embracing a 'culture of death' over divine sovereignty (Psalm 139:13-16).

Life's Value Evident Even To Unbelievers

Even unbelievers have the law of God written on their hearts and can perceive the value of a human life -- even if they can’t identify the source of such value, according to an Oxford bioethicist.

“Conscience is there and we can use that conscience, we can appeal to that conscience,” E. David Cook, director of Oxford’s Whitefield Institute, said during the “Cutting-Edge Bioethics: Human Life on the Line” conference at Criswell College.

“We can work with people who do not share our God, do not share our faith, do not share all that we hold dear but have God’s law written on their hearts. Now maybe [their understanding] is twisted. It may be fallen, but it’s there. And we can use that and build on it.”

Cook’s lecture, “Who Lives, Who Dies? Allocating Healthcare Resource,” covered various factors healthcare professionals use in deciding who gets care and how far care should be extended.

Every country in the world, from second- and third-world nations to technologically advanced countries, has some level of healthcare crisis, Cook said. How they deal with it depends on the worldview of the decision-makers, he said.

Improved medical technology has expanded physicians’ ability to sustain life, creating an allocation-of-resources dilemma compounded by patients who are surviving longer, Cook said.

“It’s a problem today because of the very success of medical science.”

In a nationalized healthcare system such as Britain’s, economists have entered the debate, providing formulas for determining healthcare allocation.

“Healthcare economics has become a major opportunity for our failed economics professors,” Cook quipped.

During a healthcare conference that included leading British economists, healthcare professionals and politicians, and at which Cook was the lone ethicist, the term “quality-adjusted life years” was discussed to describe a formula for determining a numerical value for patients. Cook said the economists considered it an objective factor in making allocation decisions.

“You’ll discover if you are very young you will do very well under a quota system. If you are old, you won’t do so well. If you are well, you will do very well under a quota system. If you are sick, you will not do very well under a quota system.”

Various factors can affect one’s healthcare, including the perception that a patient has family members who monitor his care. Other factors include a perceived value to society, the ability to pay, age and gender bias and the worldview of healthcare providers.

“I tell elderly people, If you go to the hospital, tell them, ‘I’ve got lots of relatives and they’ll create lots of trouble if you don’t look after me well,’” Cook said. “because the single, elderly person is very vulnerable in a hospital setting.”

He told of one teaching hospital where a heart patient was removed from a machine to make room for a college history professor who suffered a heart attack. “Is the professor of European history worth more than someone who works in garbage disposal, who drives a bus, who’s at home looking after the family? We can have bias or we can have merit. He deserves or she doesn’t deserve. How do you decide who is worthy of treatment?”

In reality, rationed healthcare works on a first-come, first-served basis, Cook said.

“I know if I go on the first, second or third of the month, I am likely to get my flu vaccine. But if I go on the 25th, 26th, 27th of the month, ‘Sorry, no vaccine left.’ Because that’s the way they allocate -- first come, first served.”

Several European countries are pushing equal healthcare allocation as a human rights issue, and Christians can use this trend to appeal to the inherent value all people recognize in human beings, Cook said.

Regardless of what people claim, everyone has a worldview -- a lens through which they make value judgments, Cook said. “People will tell you they don’t have a worldview. They’re telling lies. Everybody has a point to see the world. Everybody has a regulative principle. It’s hard to find, but it is there.”

>From a Christian context, Cook said he has identified three dangers in allocating healthcare: reductionism, materialism and determinism:

• Reductionism, he explained, treats people as subjects of disease or illness and often overlooks the person for the symptoms. “The danger is that we depersonalize people.”

• Materialism views the person mechanically and not holistically. The trailblazing work in genetics, for example, has begun to thrive on competition over new breakthroughs without regard to moral boundaries -- contrary to early genetics work done to combat diseases, Cook noted. “We need holistic medicine ... seeing the whole person ... and we need to be concerned with spiritual well-being.”

• Determinism despiritualizes and dehumanizes people by identifying genetic risk factors and forecasting their health status.

Cook said Christians must contend for a biblical ethic in the marketplace of ideas, appealing to humans’ innate sense of morality.

“Genesis begins at the beginning,” he said. “When Jesus is asked moral questions, He goes back to the beginning. And we need to start at the beginning. But the beginning is not about us; the beginning is about God. It’s about who takes the initiative. It’s about God who reveals Himself ... He is the one who gives us that moral basis.”

Cook said he’s a regular guest on a television debate program called “The Moral Maze” with a conservative, a liberal and a gay activist. Often, one of them will apologize for using foul language.

“You see, conscience still makes them aware that there are things you should say and some things you ought not say. There are some ways you should treat people and some ways you ought not treat people. God has written His law on their hearts and minds.”

The Terri Schiavo case, for instance, has raised awareness of people worldwide about vulnerability at the end of life, Cook said.

“We can use that and build on it. It’s not just Christians who have dignity. Every person has dignity. And in our evangelism, and in our care in the hospital setting, we need to make sure that we give people the dignity and worth and value that they have because they are made in the image of God.”

The Old Testament abounds with commands to practice justice and mercy, Cook said, noting that “God is the perfect balance of justice and mercy and we are to be like Him” especially to the vulnerable.

“In healthcare we are vulnerable. We have family who are vulnerable. And at the point of vulnerability we are ministers of grace and love.”

*

Is the Sanctity of Human Life An Outmoded Concept?

Job 3:20

Peter Singer has seen the future, and it does not include the sanctity of life. To be more specific, Singer presents his argument about the future in a forum published in the September/October 2005 edition of FOREIGN POLICY. The magazine asked a number of leading intellectuals to suggest what ideas, institutions, and features of contemporary life will be left behind as human beings rush into a bold new future. As Peter Singer sees it, confidence in the sanctity of human life must be abandoned in order for humanity to be redefined in the new millennium.

Singer is no stranger to controversy, of course. He currently serves as Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. The very fact that Peter Singer holds a distinguished chair in the field of bioethics at a major American university should signal all morally sensitive persons that the world of academia is in big trouble.

Singer attracted international attention and controversy with the publication of his 1975 book, ANIMAL LIBERATION. Then a professor at LaTrobe University in Canada, Singer argued that the concept of animal species is, in itself, “as irrelevant to moral status as race or sex.” As he explained his own position, Singer argued that “all beings with interest are entitled to equal consideration.” In other words, animals should be accorded equal rights with human beings, and the very fact that an individual is a member of the species HOMO SAPIENS does not mean that individual is entitled to human rights and the presumption of a right to live. In other words, every human being is not necessarily a human person.

“During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments,” Singer asserts in his FOREIGN POLICY essay. “By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.”

Looking over the last several months, Singer argues that the year 2005 “may be seen as the year in which that position [the sanctity of human life] became untenable.” In his view, controversy over embryonic stem cell research, the acceptance of human cloning experiments by South Korean scientists, and the tortuous controversy over Terri Schiavo, may lead to a basic change in American public opinion. Singer believes that technological developments will “drive this debate” and lead to a new understanding of the human organism -- an understanding that accepts a basic distinction between a human body and a human person. “Hence, a decision to remove the feeding tube will be less controversial, for it will be a decision to end the life of a human body, but not of a person,” he explains.

Singer is also confident that the acceptance of euthanasia in Europe -- including the euthanasia of newborns, young children, and the elderly -- will lead to a growing acceptance in the United States. “As we approach 2040, the Netherlands and Belgium will have had decades of experience with legalized euthanasia, and other jurisdictions will also have permitted either voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide for varying lengths of time.” Thus, “This experience will puncture exaggerated fears that the legalization of these practices would be a first step toward a new holocaust. By then, an increasing proportion of the population in developed countries will be more than 75 years old and thinking about how their lives will end. The political pressure for allowing terminally or chronically ill patients to choose when to die will be irresistible.”

Singer is consistent in asserting that the sacredness of human life is an outmoded and morally useless belief. In a notorious commentary published in the July 1983 issue of PEDIATRICS, Singer began by offering a similar prophecy: “The ethical outlook that holds human life to be sacrosanct -- I shall call it the 'sanctity-of-life view' -- is under attack. The first major blow to the sanctity-of-life view was the spreading acceptance of abortion throughout the Western world.”

In 1983, Singer was serving as professor in the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University in his native Australia. Nevertheless, his article in PEDIATRICS incited controversy in the United States. After all, PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

In his commentary, Singer argued that infanticide or euthanasia should be seen as morally acceptable under certain conditions. As a matter of fact, he implied that infanticide could well be a morally superior choice when compared to a decision to allow some infants to live.

Consider this chilling statement: “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.”

Singer's point is clear -- a dog who is able to communicate in a rudimentary way is superior to a human infant who lacks an equal ability to communicate.

In his book PRACTICAL ETHICS, Singer argues, “The fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species HOMO SAPIENS, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.”

Ponder that statement carefully, for it is a manifesto for killing human infants. Furthermore, Singer presses his case to make clear that he is not limiting his argument to the killing of infants who lack the potential to develop such qualities. “This conclusion is not limited to infants who, because of irreversible intellectual disabilities, will never be rational, self-conscious beings,” Singer clarifies. As in his argument for abortion, Singer asserts “that the potential of a fetus to become a rational, self-conscious being cannot count against killing it at a stage when it lacks these characteristics.”

Singer would accept a basic assumption of a right to life only for those beings he judges to have a capacity to envision a future. He would grant the status of human personhood only to those human beings who are able to communicate, to relate to others, and to possess what he would stipulate as a minimal understanding of self-consciousness in time. In short, Singer would grant a healthy dog a greater claim on life than a healthy human infant or an elderly person with Alzheimer's. But more recently, Singer has courted controversy with his argument that human sexuality should be liberated from any moral limits except consensuality. In an interview with Marvin Olasky of WORLD magazine, Singer asserted that he sees “no moral problem” with necrophilia. He has argued that human beings and animals may be able to have “mutually satisfying” sexual relationships. What he terms “zoophilia” should be illegal, he says, only if it involves cruelty.

Singer's appointment to a prestigious chair in bioethics at Princeton University led to world-wide controversy. Publisher Steve Forbes took a public stand and pledged to end all financial contributions to his alma mater “so long as Peter Singer remains a tenured professor there.”

Nevertheless, Princeton's president, Harold T. Shapiro, defended Singer's appointment.

In a statement published in the PRINCETON WEEKLY BULLETIN on December 7, 1998, Shapiro defended Singer's academic credentials. He went on to argue: “But the test in making any faculty appointment is not whether we agree with the findings of a professor's scholarship; the test is the power of the professor's intellect and the quality of his or her scholarship and teaching. An important part of our purpose as a university is to ask the most difficult and fundamental questions about human existence, however uncomfortable this may be.” That may sound like lofty academic discourse, but we should note carefully that this argument excludes any consideration other than a potential professor's intellect and teaching ability. President Shapiro cannot possibly stand by this argument, for it would require him to hire professors who would be proponents of theories, worldviews, and ideologies even he would surely find morally reprehensible. When President Shapiro tries to explain that Princeton serves “these central purposes of a university by appointing faculty members like Professor Singer whose work is intellectually astute, morally serious, and open to engagement with others,” he is defining “morally serious” in a manner that is seriously deficient.

Singer understands what is at stake. “We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul,” he argues. “Our better understanding of our own nature has bridged the gulf that was once thought to lie between ourselves and other species, so why should we believe that the mere fact that a being is a member of the species HOMO SAPIENS endows its life with some unique, almost infinite, value?”

Singer dismisses the Christian confidence in the sanctity of human life as “religious mumbo-jumbo” that must be discarded. In the case of Professor Peter Singer we face the quintessential warning of where the modern, secular, evolutionary understanding of humanity must lead. Unless we believe that human beings truly are “a special form of creation, made in the image of God,” we will inevitably slide into the moral calculations and frightening ideology of Peter Singer and those who share his worldview.

Peter Singer thinks he has seen the future, and he writes with renewed confidence that the sanctity of human life is an idea that will soon be discarded. Christians now face the urgent responsibility to prove him wrong.

*

Euthanasia In the Big Easy: What A Drag It Is Growing Old

It turns out that many of the most horrific stories we heard about New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina weren't true. But there's one nightmarish story that may turn out to be an exception — a story that should cause anyone who plans on growing old to lose some sleep.

Following Katrina, stories began to circulate about the goings on at Memorial Hospital. These stories depicted an overwhelmed and increasingly desperate staff repeatedly discussing the unthinkable: “euthanizing patients they thought might not survive the ordeal.”

Fran Butler, a nurse manager at Memorial, told CNN that her “nurses wanted to know what was the plan.” Were they supposed to put people out of their misery? Dr. Bryant King has told authorities about similar discussions among doctors, adding that he thinks that the matter went beyond mere talk.

These allegations have prompted Louisiana's Attorney General to open an investigation into what happened at Memorial Hospital. Were the sick euthanized? While I hope the allegations prove false, I know that the issues they raise are not going away.

That's because of three undeniable facts: First, our population is aging, and aging populations spend more of their resources on health care than younger ones do. Second, the cost of health care is rising faster than almost any other sector of our economy.

And by “cost,” I mean more than dollars and cents. Among the resources required to care for an aging population are the time and efforts of younger people. You can't care for the sick and elderly simply by throwing money at the problem, at least not if “quality of life” means anything.

The third fact is that in our post-Christian, secular culture, respect for the sanctity of life, especially at its end, has been weakened. The most obvious example, of course, is physician-assisted suicide, but an even greater threat is what's called “Futile-Care Theory.” As bioethics writer Wesley Smith describes it, this theory gives doctors and hospitals — not patients and their families — “the right to declare which of us have lives worth living and therefore worth treating medically, and which of us do not.”

It's a very short leap from what Smith calls “one of the hottest and most-dangerous topics in contemporary bioethics” to what is alleged to have happened in New Orleans. And why not take lives at their end? If we're not created in the image of God, in a secular culture, we judge human life by its value to us — what it contributes — not its inherent dignity.

These factors are why the President's Council on Bioethics just issued an important report titled Taking Care: Ethical Caregiving in Our Aging Society. The report expresses concern about “the human and moral shape that a mass geriatric society will take.”

We already live in a society where millions of families “face the difficult task of caring for frail and incapacitated elders.” As the numbers increase, an unqualified respect for the sanctity of human life may come to be seen as a “luxury” we can no longer afford.

Fortunately, we are not there, yet. There's still time to make the case that it's not a “luxury” but, instead, the basis of any decent society. We must do it now, and not wait until the problem gets out of hand, so that what happened in the Big Easy, the unthinkable, does not become a matter of stated policy.

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database elderly

Doctors Ignore Guidelines On Euthanasia

Doctors often ignore guidelines for euthanasia and assisted suicide, even to the point of not consulting the patient, according to results of a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Aug. 12, 1998.

Of 355 cancer specialists surveyed, 10.7 percent reported a case of either euthanasia or assisted suicide.

The study identified three safeguards proposed by supporters of euthanasia and assisted suicide for terminally ill patients: the patient must 1) initiate and repeat the request; 2) be evaluated by another physician; and 3) be in extreme pain.

Only 34.2 percent of doctors reporting a case reported that they adhered to all three guidelines. In 15.3 percent of the reports, patients were not involved in the decision; it was their families who asked to end the patients’ lives. The study also indicated doctors instructed their nurses to administer the lethal dose of medication, rather than doing it themselves.

The study also indicated many doctors sensed regret for their participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide, and 39.5 percent feared prosecution.

from The Journal Of The American Medical Association via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Biotech Century: Dream Or Nightmare?

Nations around the world are banning human cloning. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the practice to be banned everywhere. In addition, one of the biggest and most newsworthy human cloning experiments, in Korea, turned out to be a complete fake.

Well, it would look like the “Biotech Century,” as some have been calling it, is off to an unpromising start.

If so, that's something for which we can be grateful, because the closer we get to the cloning and commodification of human life — even for purposes that seem well-intentioned — the more we endanger all human beings.

President Bush put his finger on this when he said in his State of the Union address, “A hopeful society has institutions of science and medicine that do not cut ethical corners, and that recognize the matchless value of every life.” The president went on to ask Congress for a ban on “the most egregious abuses of medical research: human cloning in all its forms.” Notice that includes both reproductive cloning AND so-called therapeutic cloning. It's tremendously important that the president made that distinction clear, because it's an appalling sign of our times just how many people — including many of our United States senators — think it's perfectly fine to clone a human embryo so long as you plan to experiment on it and then destroy it before it can be brought to birth.

You may recall I talked recently about former senator and ambassador Jack Danforth and his slams against his fellow Christians. One of the many things he blames us for is “criminaliz[ing] research because we want to save cells in a petri dish that will never be implanted in a uterus and never become people.”

That kind of dreadful misreading of such a crucial issue is unpardonable, especially coming from a Christian. Unfortunately, however, it's all too common among lawmakers who, unlike Danforth, are still active in politics and have the power to make laws that would allow us to buy, sell, and experiment on human life. And that's why, despite so many promising developments around the world, we're having such a hard time pushing through a comprehensive cloning ban in the United States.

And as if that weren't bad enough, we have another threat to deal with on the biotechnology front: the advancing science of nanotechnology. If cloning threatens to redefine what it means to be human, nanotechnology takes it to the next level. My friend and colleague Nigel Cameron, of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, puts it this way: Abortion and euthanasia are taking life, cloning is making life, and nanotechnology and cybernetics are faking life. Nanotechnology — which, again, is being promoted as helping those with dread diseases — holds the dangerous potential of controlling or possibly even re-engineering human nature.

I know this stuff is complicated, and if you're like I am, science is hard to understand sometimes. But this is life-and-death stuff, and we have got to know more about it and be able to press for ethical guidelines.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database euthanasia

Baby Euthanasia Near In the Netherlands

Job 3:20

The Netherlands will soon become the first country to legalize euthanasia for infants.

A Dutch committee will begin regulating the active taking of infant life in the next few weeks, according to a March 5 report in the online version of the British newspaper The Times. While there have been reports from the Netherlands of baby euthanasia for several years, this development will mark a new step forward in legitimizing the practice.

The committee will follow the guidelines of the Groningen Protocol in regulating euthanasia in the crib. The protocol –- named after a university medical center where the guidelines were established and where infants have been euthanized in recent years -– says there must be “unbearable” suffering by the child with no hope for healing or relief, and the parents and an “independent doctor” must provide approval.

“That standard assumes that physicians are infallible, our current medical knowledge is complete, and human beings are omniscient,” said Colleen Carroll Campbell, a fellow at the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, in a March 13 column for National Review Online. “We can know a child suffers; we can know a disease has no known cure. But we cannot pronounce with certainty that another person has no hope or that his suffering has rendered his life worthless.

“Discouraged doctors, distraught parents and distant bureaucrats will make mistakes. And even when their deadly decisions conform perfectly to the protocol, they will commit grave evil by destroying innocent human life in a futile quest to destroy suffering itself.”

Americans should refrain from assuming such a regime would never occur in their country, Campbell wrote.

“[S]upport for infant and child euthanasia has a long history in the United States, stretching from the founding days of the Euthanasia Society of America in 1938 to the recent pronouncements of Peter Singer, a prominent Princeton ethicist who favors a parent’s right to kill disabled newborns,” she said. “The chilling reality is that although our depraved indifference to the sanctity of human life may not be as advanced as Holland’s, we are moving in that direction.”

*

from Baptist Press · Tom Strode via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Death Marks An Anniversary — Have We Learned Anything?

Today, March 31, 2006, marks the one year anniversary of Terri Schiavo's death by starvation. All too quickly, Terri's name and cause disappeared from the national awareness as our attention-deficit culture moved on to other issues and other concerns.

Just in time for the anniversary of her death, publishers have released books written by Terri's former husband, Michael Schiavo, and her parents -- each offering competing visions of Terri's life and the meaning of Terri's death. Given the symbolic nature of this sad anniversary, another flurry of news stories, cable news programs, and media commentaries are likely to appear. But, has America learned anything about the sanctity of human life over the past twelve months?

There are signs that Americans may actually be resigning themselves to the inevitability of euthanasia and the Culture of Death. In the aftermath of Terri Schiavo's death, a wave of commentary appeared, offering the suggestion that what Americans should have learned from the controversy was that personal autonomy should triumph over all other moral concerns and priorities. Beyond this, others have been quick to point accusing fingers at political figures, including George W. Bush, who attempted to intervene on behalf of Terri's life.

All this suggests that most people address this controversy with considerable confusion. When it comes to matters of life and death, we moderns face quandaries and questions unimaginable in previous generations. Regrettably, we are now attempting to answer those questions while the very worldview that would offer hope and moral assistance is being undermined and rejected.

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, argues that “a crucial line divides those who affirm and those who deny that the life of each human being possesses inherent and equal worth and dignity, irrespective not only of race, ethnicity, age, and sex (as everyone agrees), but stage of development, mental or physical infirmity, and condition of dependency.”

Professor George addressed these issues as a panelist at an event sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the Federalist Society, and the Constitution Project. An edited form of his comments is published as “Terminal Logic,” in the March 2006 edition of TOUCHSTONE.

As George rightly insists, those who attempt to distinguish between “mere biological human life” and a “person,” are on the wrong side of this divide. Most often, those who make this distinction are attempting to suggest that PERSONS possess rights while those who are merely forms of “biological human life” do not.

Professor George's clarification of these issues is urgently important and serves as a basic corrective to so much of the nonsense and confusion that characterizes the contemporary debate over human personhood, euthanasia, and related questions. If human beings are divided between those who are presumably persons and those who are not, this raises the whole question of how we are to understand “pre-personal” and “post-personal” human lives.

As Professor George explains, those who insist on the distinction between BIOLOGICAL LIFE and PERSONS will “insist the question is not, When does the life of human being begin or end?, but, When does a human being qualify or cease to qualify as a person, and therefore a creature with a serious right to life? Those they regard as non-persons do not possess such a right, though killing them may be wrong for some reason other than that killing them denies the inherent dignity of persons.”

Every moral argument is based upon some preconditions and presuppositions. The argument that human beings are to be divided between those who are merely biologically alive and those who possess sufficient qualities to be considered as persons is based upon a worldview that privileges human autonomy over other moral goods. As Professor George explains, “The right of autonomy immunizes individual choice in matters having to do with how one leads one's own life against interference by others, including the state, especially when the choices do not directly damage the interests or violate the rights of others.”

The triumph of personal autonomy over other moral goods has allowed abortion advocates to argue that a woman's supposed right of personal autonomy trumps any claim that an unborn baby has an inherent right to life. After all, according to this logic, the woman is herself a person while the unborn baby is something less, perhaps a “pre-person” in some stage of development. When advocates and opponents of abortion argue with each other, they often talk past one another, with pro-life advocates often missing the fact that those arguing for abortion rights begin with the PRESUPPOSITION that the woman's “right to choose” must triumph over all other concerns and claims, regardless of the circumstances.

In more recent years, debates over the use and destruction of human embryos in biomedical research has occasioned similar arguments. Those who argue for the validity of using and destroying human embryos in medical experiments or treatments argue that embryos are, at best, “pre-persons” who simply have no claim upon the moral equation. The claim of autonomy is assigned to those who would donate such embryos or make the moral decision to destroy those same embryos in the course of medical experimentation that is most often delivered with the promise that it will lead to medical treatments for “real” persons.

Of course, the issue of euthanasia brings the autonomy question into clear focus. Those arguing for a right to a “good death” do so on the grounds that a human person has the right to end his or her life as he or she may please. Once again, autonomy trumps all other moral concerns and claims.

Professor George sets the record straight: “Now, those who oppose abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, euthanasia, and so forth, as I do, oppose them BOTH because we reject the idea that there are or can be pre-personal or post-personal human beings, or human non-persons of any description, and because we do not accept the sweeping view of the value of autonomy. We affirm a doctrine of inherent and equal dignity that affirms all living human beings as persons, excludes the direct killing human beings, and demands respect for every individual's right to life. Most of us also believe that the law should honor the principle of the sanctity of human life and not privilege the belief in autonomy over it.”

In one sense, the argument over these questions comes down to a hierarchy of moral goods and claims. The slide into abortion, euthanasia, embryo research, and worse is directly traceable to the rise of autonomy as the supreme moral good in the view of many persons. Of course, this is a fairly new development in human thinking, but it is perfectly fitted for our times -- telling Americans that their personal autonomy is the most important moral claim we can conceive.

Terri Schiavo died because her husband sought and obtained a court order that feeding and hydration should be denied to her. Mrs. Schiavo had suffered a calamitous physical injury that had clearly affected her brain and powers of cognition. Still, this injury did not kill her and she did not die as a direct result of the injury. She died simply because she was starved and dehydrated until she died -- all this at the order of successive courts and at the instigation of her husband.

The claim for removing her feeding tube and hydration was made on the basis of her own personal autonomy. Of course, there was no record that Terri Schiavo had indicated any wish to exercise her autonomy in this way, but the court received as sufficient her husband's claim that she had done so in a recognizably minimal way.

Much of the debate over Terri Schiavo had to do with the contested question of whether she had actually made any such statement. This misses the more fundamental point -- that such a statement would be immoral and unjustifiable even if made.

In 1992, a group of ethicists known as the Ramsey Colloquium adopted a statement entitled “Always to Care, Never to Kill.” That statement offers wisdom that is urgently needed in our reconsideration of the Terri Schiavo controversy one year later:

“Life, however, is not simply a 'good' that we possess. We ARE living beings. Our life IS our person. To treat our life as a 'thing' that we can authorize another to terminate is profoundly dehumanizing. Euthanasia, even when requested by the competent, can never be a humanitarian act, for it attacks the distinctiveness and limitations of being human. Persons -- ourselves and others -- are not things to be discarded when they are no longer deemed useful.”

Further: “We can give our life FOR another, but we cannot give ultimate authority over our life TO another. The painfully learned moral wisdom of our heritage is that persons cannot 'own' persons. The decision for euthanasia is not an exercise of human freedom but the abandonment of human freedom. To attempt to turn one's life into an object that is at the final disposition of another is to become less than human, while it places the other in a position of being more than human -- a lord of life and death, a possessor of the personhood of others.”

As Professor George argues, in agreement with the Ramsey Colloquium: “We are to maintain solidarity with those in disabled conditions, seeking to heal their afflictions when we can and making every effort to relieve their suffering and discomfort. At the same time, we should discourage anyone tempted to regard his life as valueless or merely burdensome to himself or others from thinking this and from committing suicide. We cannot encourage or assist suicidal choices and assisted suicide or euthanasia.”

Bad ideas often work their way out of a culture -- but at great cost and over great time. The sad legacy of the twentieth century demonstrates that truly tragic, pernicious, and deadly ideas and ideologies can take millions upon millions of victims. We can only hope that Americans will regain some moral sense and the consciousness of what was lost when Terri Schiavo became yet another victim of the Culture of Death. When personal autonomy triumphs over all other moral claims, this kind of tragedy becomes inevitable. A year after Terri Schiavo's death, have we learned anything at all?

*

'Good People' Can Kill

Mark 10:18

When a New Orleans doctor and two nurses were charged with euthanizing several critically ill patients at Memorial Medical Center after Hurricane Katrina, a front-page headline here subsequently read: “Doctor's colleagues rush to her defense,” while a local television station gave five minutes to Dr. Anna Pou’s sister and brother to defend her.

Supporters of Pou (pronounced “poe”), an ear-nose-throat doctor who specializes in cancer treatments, tell how she is so devoted to her patients that she gives each one her cell phone number. A doctor told The Times-Picayune how she was called in the middle of the night over the hemorrhaging of a patient. She rushed to the hospital and called in a battery of specialists who worked for hours doing intricate surgery to staunch the blood flow and repair the damage. “That's just the kind of doctor she is,” they say; a devout Catholic, “one of the greatest doctors I've ever worked with” and “one of those rare people who has devoted her life to the care of her patients and the practice of medicine.”

Pou and the two nurses, Lori Budo and Cheri Landry, charged in mid-July with four counts of second-degree murder, had stayed at Memorial Medical Center after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. The area around the hospital flooded, shutting down the electrical power, the hospital's emergency generator and the sanitation system. Temperatures soared past 100 degrees inside the hospital. In all, 34 patients died during or just after the storm and 11 others subsequently died.

As conditions worsened in the hospital, according to the charges pressed by Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti Jr., Pou decided to put at least four people out of their misery by ordering that they be given lethal doses of painkillers.

Dr. Pou's attorney says experts will be called to challenge these findings. A local attorney who called Pou's office soon after her arrest to offer his services free of charge was told by the receptionists, “You're the 10th caller,” the Times-Picayune reported. The attorney, Blase McCarthy, said, “I can't imagine that she would hurt a fly.” A colleague of Pou’s, Dr. Isabel Ochsner, told the newspaper, “I'm so ashamed of what someone has put her through. For someone of her caliber to be wrongfully accused of killing is a sin.”

Among various letters to the editor, Jennifer Ramo of New Orleans wrote, “If Dr. Anna Maria Pou and the two nurses felt that they had to make a decision to let these poor people, who were on the brink of death, die without more pain and terror than they had already endured, they did so because they felt they had no other options. They did so because they had no hope that anyone was coming to rescue them.... They should not be arrested and prosecuted. My heart is broken for them and their families.”

As a minister of the Gospel, I find myself intrigued by the defenders of the accused using such rationales as “such a fine person, she could not do such a thing,” “a genuinely good person” and “devoted to her patients.” All of which I feel confident is true.

But there is a problem.

The best of us are still capable of doing wrong things. A loving mother breaks under heavy emotional stresses and drowns her children. A minister's wife shoots her husband, then takes the children for a vacation. A pastor who has devoted decades to serving God and caring for people leaves his wife for another woman.

Spend a little time inside the penitentiaries of this land and you will meet some of the finest people on the planet. This convict was a minister, that one a loving grandmother, over there a fine father who was devoted to his children. But they got caught up in something -- an addiction, a depression, something. When they loved their families and helped their neighbors, they were being true to themselves. They were not play-acting. When they started on that downward spiral of sinful acts that eventually sent them to prison, they were also being true to who they were. Because they are sinners.

I am; you are. “All have sinned,” the Scripture says. We are sinners by nature and sinners by choice. Heredity and environment, nature and nurture -- cut it any way you please, it still comes up that there is a rottenness in the soul of all of us. A rebellion against God. A sickness of which self-centeredness is the heart and core.

A wonderful saint of the 1960s and ’70s, Marguerite Briscoe, a retired school principal and member of First Baptist Church in Jackson, Miss., had a Christlikeness about her, a peace and love, an openness and a strength that you knew were the Lord's doing. I would rather have had her praying for me than anyone I ever knew. I once said to her, “Marguerite, you are the finest Christian I know.” She smiled gently and said, “Oh, honey, if you just knew.”

I heard of a seminary professor who once was invited by a former student to come to his little west Texas town for a revival meeting. “While you are here,” the pastor said, “I want you to visit Mr. Crenshaw. He's an older gentleman whom we've never been able to reach with the Gospel. The fact is, he's such a highly principled man, he probably has higher standards than our people, and that's been a hangup.”

The visiting professor assured the pastor he would be glad to talk with anyone he chose. The revival started on Sunday morning and that day at least four or five people told the professor about Mr. Crenshaw, emphasizing what high moral values he held. Two people said the same on Monday. That afternoon, the pastor decided it was time for that visit.

Mr. Crenshaw welcomed the pastor and visiting revival preacher in his home, and offered them glasses of iced tea. After some preliminary visiting, the young pastor said, “Mr. Crenshaw, I wanted my professor to meet you and to talk with you about the Lord. Now, Mr. Crenshaw, I know you are a good man. You have high standards and you probably outlive some of the members of our church....” Suddenly, the professor said, “Hold it!”

He looked across the table at his host and said, “You know, Crenshaw, ever since I've been in this little town of yours, I've been hearing people telling me what a good man you are. And I just want you to know I'm not buying it.” He paused, leaned forward, and said, “You know, sir, if you are a man like I'm a man ... you're as rotten as hell.”

Mr. Crenshaw smiled and said, “You're right. I am.” What followed was a serious conversation about a Savior who welcomes sinners and has the power to forgive them and make them new persons. That day, Mr. Crenshaw came into the Kingdom of God through faith in Christ. [#33221]

“There is none good, but God alone.” (Mark 10:18) We have that authoritative word from the Lord Himself, spoken to a man whom we identify as the “rich young ruler” (in passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke).

Trouble is, we don't believe it. Not really. Whether it's naiveté on our part or simply ignorance of human nature or an unwillingness to believe Scripture, we endow certain dedicated and wonderful human beings in our spheres with attributes they do not possess. Our doctors could not euthanize an elderly patient. Yet doctors perform abortions by the millions every day. Parents are so dedicated, teachers are so self-giving, pastors are so godly. Yet some in these categories are arrested somewhere every day for abusing little children or embezzling funds or selling drugs.

And yet, I say to you that so many of these perpetrators were basically and humanly speaking, good people. Good people who did some truly horrendous things.

The tendency of most people is to read about them in the paper or see them on the news and conclude that they must have been a devil all along.

A woman who had spent time in a German concentration camp traveled to Israel for the trial of Adolf Eichmann during the 1970s. Eichmann had been responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews and others in these death factories. After decades of running, he had been caught and was on trial for his crimes. Later, the woman recounted what she experienced: “As Eichmann was brought into the courtroom, I began to cry. Looking at him there, I did not see a demon. He was not the devil incarnate. He was just a little man, ordinary in every way. That's when it occurred to me that if such an ordinary little man could do such evil things, any of us is capable of anything. And that's why I was crying. I was crying because I was seeing myself for the sinner that I am.”

In the “Superman Returns” movie, the man of steel reappears after an absence of several years to find Lois Lane receiving a Pulitzer for her column on “Why We Do Not Need Superman.” She tried to explain to him that man does not need a savior, that he has to work out his own problems. The rest of the movie is devoted to proving her wrong; the world goes from trouble to trouble, with Superman rushing from one disaster to another.

The movie leaves the audience in kind of a limbo or purgatory, with the world outside the theater facing mammoth problems on every side but without a caped hero to rush to its salvation.

Believers know there is indeed a Savior. Only one. Only Jesus.

A Savior is one who saves. Scanning Scripture, we are told that Christ saves us from sin (Matthew 1:21), from our enemies (Luke 1:71), from this generation (Acts 2:40), from wrath (Romans 5:9) and from death (James 5:20).

I can't find where the Bible says Christ saves us from ourselves in so many words. But that may be the biggest need of all. Thank God He does.

I cannot say with certainty that Dr. Pou and the nurses killed anyone, but I can say they were capable, and so are we. The human heart is a wonderful and deceitful thing. It is to be honored, but not trusted (Jeremiah 17:9).

That's why we need to love one another and pray for each other. What we must never do is expect ourselves or anyone else to be incapable of sin, even that of the worst sort.

We are in such need of a Savior.

Sign Your Way To A “Good Death?” -- the Soft Slide To Euthanasia

Job 3:20

Charlotte Allen doesn’t want to sign a roadmap that could lead to euthanasia. That’s why she refused to sign what is now commonly known as a “living will” when she was diagnosed last year with breast cancer. Writing in Sunday’s edition of THE WASHINGTON POST, Allen recounted her experience overcoming “efforts to persuade me to sign onto the currently fashionable notion of a ‘good death.’”

During her hospitalization, Allen was frequently asked to sign a living will. The suggestions came with the implication that such a step was the responsible thing to do -- just accepting one’s own responsibility to tidy things up at the end of life. Eventually, she came to feel “ever-so-slightly harassed.”

In reality, living wills are a central fact of life and death in medical centers, nursing homes, hospices, and hospitals. Groups such as the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association push living wills and advanced directives as a way of limiting some care at the end of life. In other words, the whole point of a living will is to allow medical personnel not to resuscitate or to deny “artificial” food, water, and breathing assistance.

In the course of her hospitalization and treatment, Charlotte Allen had time to consider what the living will and the concept of a “good death” might really mean. She explains:

In fact, when I contemplate the concept of “dying well,” I can’t

avoid the uneasy feeling that it actually means “dying when we,

the intellectual elite, think it is appropriate for you to die.”

Consider what’s happened in recent years: The classic Hippocratic

Oath and its prohibition against physicians giving people a

“deadly drug” has collapsed with the growing acceptance of such

notions as physician-assisted suicide, the “right to die,” and

even giving some very sick, disabled or demented people a little

push over the edge, as seems to be the case in the Netherlands.

People facing end-of-life decisions may well feel subtle pressure

from the medical and bioethical establishments to make the choice

that will save the most money, as well as spare their relatives

and society at large the burden of their continued existence. A

“good death” -- that’s the English translation of the Greek word

that begins with an “e.” You know, euthanasia.

She also traced how the movement toward a “good death” has spread to places once thought safe from the temptation, such as hospices. As she reports, just a few months ago “the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine reversed its long-standing opposition to physician-assisted suicide (which is legal in Oregon and said to be quietly practiced by many doctors elsewhere) and adopted a new set of rules that effectively endorsed the practice. The academy even decided on a new euphemism for the procedure: “physician-assisted death.” Even where assisted suicide is illegal, many hospices now endorse “terminal sedation,” the ethically murky practice of anesthetizing terminal patients, then cutting off their nutrition and liquids.”

Changing “physician-assisted suicide” to “physician-assisted death” is a clever manipulation of the language, but it cannot disguise the fact that the key word to the concept is death -- assisted by a physician.

Allen concludes her article in THE WASHINGTON POST with a flourish:

I wish we lived in a different kind of society, one with agreed

ideas about what a “good death” means -- but we don’t, at least

not now. So I say: Go ahead and sign a living will if you want.

Have your doctor pull out your feeding tube or inject you with

cyanide or do whatever fulfills your idea of death with dignity.

But count me out. I don’t want to “die well”; I just want to die

in peace.

Christians understand the reality of death, but we must also affirm the gift of life. Furthermore, the Bible makes clear that we are not the masters of our own fates, nor the sovereigns of our own souls. In the end, our lives are in God’s hands. This society’s transit down a freeway to euthanasia should concern all citizens, but Christians in particular.

The idea of a self-defined “good death” has its place in the pagan cultures of antiquity, but not in the biblical culture of Christianity. Given advances in medical treatments and technologies, end of life issues can be truly vexing and excruciatingly difficult -- even for those who attempt to think ahead. Be sure you know what you are signing when someone presents you with a form for a living will. Are you sure that it is truly consistent with your Christian beliefs? Are you sure that those reading the document will understand -- and follow -- what you sign?

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #22913]

Anne Lamott Kills A Man – and Writes About It

Job 3:20

Anne Lamott is a writer of incredible honesty and uncommon candor. Beyond this, she is a highly gifted artist, writing with a fluid and passionate style that attracts readers who quickly feel drawn into Lamott's life and experiences.

Additionally, Anne Lamott is a zealous proponent of her own personal causes. Passionately liberal, she is known for her fervent support of abortion on demand (she recently wrote of women whose lives were “righted and redeemed” by ROE V. WADE). Yet, at the same time, she has managed to identify herself in some sense as a Christian writer, and she describes her own mode of Christian discipleship in terms of being “Jesusy.” She has become something of a literary icon among mainline Protestants and leftward evangelicals. Now, however, she appears to be launching out into previously uncharted territory.

Writing in the June 25, 2006 edition of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, Lamott begins with these words: “The man I killed did not want to die, but he no longer felt he had much of a choice.” The language is truly shocking, and Lamott obviously intends to catch the attention of readers when she speaks of “the man I killed.” If it is attention she wants, she is almost sure to get more than she intended.

In her essay, “At Death's Window,” Lamott traces her involvement in the assisted suicide of a close friend. She introduces him as having “gone from being tall and strapping, full of appetites and a brilliant manner of speech, to a skeleton, weak and full of messy needs.” Lamott's poetic description of her friend's plight underlines the tragedy of his illness.

As Lamott traces his decline, the man who “had always been passionately literary” was losing his ability to read or write. No longer able to travel, hike, or share cherished experiences with his wife, he was only sixty when he was diagnosed with cancer.

The man Lamott helped to die is not identified with his real name. Instead, Lamott refers to the man and his wife as “Mel” and “Joanne.” Refusing aggressive chemotherapy treatment, Mel “wanted to feel as well as he could for as long as he could,” Lamott recounts, in order to “savor his family and friends and the beauty of life, on his own terms, in the strange basket of sickness.”

As is so often the case, the specter of precipitous physical decline accompanied by pain was a real concern. As the prescribed opiates no longer seemed to cover his pain, Lamott told Mel over lunch one day that “if he ever experienced too much pain or diminishment, I would try to help him die on his own terms, if he wanted.”

Taken in itself, this is a remarkable offer. Lamott's essay appeared even as the legislature in California is debating the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The proposal, now making its way through the California Senate and General Assembly, is modeled after Oregon's statute. If adopted, California will become the second state to legalize assisted suicide.

Clearly, Anne Lamott is enthusiastic about the process. As she recalls her lunchtime conversation with Mel, Lamott recalled that she had not premeditated making her offer. She also recounted the experience she shared with her brothers when they contemplated assisting their own father to die, even as he was slipping away from them due to the ravages of brain cancer. “Two months before he died, when he lay in a hospital bed in our one-room cabin in what amounted to a coma,” Lamott recalls, “my younger brother and I crushed up some barbiturates that his doctor had given him to help him sleep, but we couldn't do it. We were too young.” Now older, Lamott was apparently ready to act when it came to her friend Mel. When Mel asked Lamott about her understanding of death, she spoke of having heard an Eastern mystic “say that it was like slipping out of a pair of shoes that had never fit very well.”

The most revealing section of Lamott's essay is this: “Mel was sort of surprised that as a Christian I so staunchly agreed with him about assisted suicide. I believed that life was a kind of Earth school, so even though assisted suicide meant you were getting out early, before the term ended, you were going to be leaving anyway, so who said it wasn't OK to take an incomplete in the course?”

In the economy of just a few words, Lamott effectively turns the Christian understanding of life and death on its head.

No wonder Mel was “sort of surprised” that Lamott, identifying herself as a Christian, would agree to participate in an assisted suicide with such enthusiasm. Christianity teaches a distinctive understanding of human life. At the onset, the Bible reveals that we are not the lords of our own lives in the first place. Life is a gift, and human life is a special gift given to the only creatures who are made in God's own image. We are, in effect, the only sentient beings able to ponder the meaning of our own lives and the reality of our own death. 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. To the contrary, our lives are in the disposition of the Creator, 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.

Furthermore, Christianity does not teach that life is just “a kind of Earth school.” To the contrary, Christianity affirms the inherent dignity and meaning of our earthly lives. Life is not a course we are taking, so much as it is a stewardship of a priceless gift. It is profoundly true that Christianity points to eternal life beyond this earthly life as the realm of our ultimate existence as believers, but we are not invited to “take an incomplete” in the course of life as we may choose.

As Anne Lamott continues her story, she tells of Mel reminding her of her offer. “I won't be me for much longer,” he said. Having communicated with the Hemlock Society (a group that ardently supports euthanasia and offers advice to those wishing to die or to assist someone to die), Lamott “knew exactly how many Seconal pills it took to kill a big person.” As she recalls, she knew how to crush the pills and add them to applesauce, and then feed them to the sick person, along with toast and tea so that the pills would not be rejected.

Shortly thereafter, Lamott used what she describes as “wily and underground ways” to amass a sufficient number of Seconal pills to constitute a lethal dose. “That night, Mel and I had a cryptic phone conversation. 'I got it,' I said, like a spy, or a drug dealer.”

A month later, Lamott shared dinner with Joanne and Mel and, along with another friend, listened to his favorite music and told favorite stories. “He was absolutely clear as a bell, brilliant as ever,” she remembers. Using the full power of her descriptive ability, she wrote of the air smelling “faintly of honey and laundry, and illness.”

After dinner, Mel changed into comfortable pajamas and got into his bed, “wasted, sad, sweet and comfortable.” Lamott then went to the kitchen to get the pills, and then made the deadly applesauce “in a tiny Asian bowl.”

After eating the applesauce, Mel thanked his friends and wife, and “told us how much he loved his life, and how he wished he could live with us forever.” Finally: “After a while, Mel looked around, half smiled and fell asleep. People got up to stretch, for wine or water, or to change albums. He breathed so quietly, for so long, that when he finally stopped, we all strained to hear the sound.”

Those words end Lamott's essay. There is no extended moral argument for her action in assisting the suicide of her friend. There is no engagement with the Christian moral tradition, and there is no real sense of moral reflection at all. As with the issue of abortion, Anne Lamott is simply guided by her own sense of what is right and wrong.

With the ease of an author beginning to write on a clean sheet of paper, Lamott effectively jettisons Christian concern for the preservation of life and dismisses centuries of Christian conviction on the questions of life and death. She describes herself as a Christian, but there is nothing even remotely Christian, in any distinctive sense, to be found in her essay on a matter as serious as ending a man's life.

When Anne Lamott writes of “the man I killed” like this, she willingly enters uncharted terrain and forges a brave new morality, embracing assisted suicide as a moral good.

Mel was rightly shocked that a Christian would be such a staunch supporter of assisted suicide. Will Lamott's Christian readers be equally shocked to read of her views now? Those views led directly to Mel's poisoned applesauce.

from http://www.albertmohler.com · Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of Southern Baptist Seminary via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

A Pact With Death? Why the Christian Worldview Matters

Jenni Murray has made her pact with death. The popular and controversial presenter of “Woman's Hour,” a popular program on the BBC, stated her views on a recent television program called “Don't Get Me Started,” broadcast in Great Britain.

Murray, who is a member of the Order of the British Empire, announced on the program that she had entered into a “suicide pact” with two friends who agreed to kill each other if illness or incapacity should leave them unable to commit suicide.

“When my time comes I want to be able to decide about my destiny,” Murray stated, offering her own “personal rant” about the issues of euthanasia, assisted suicide, and mercy killing. Murray's two friends, Sally Feldman and Jane Wilton, discussed how they came to this conclusion and then agreed to seal their pact with a formal document of agreement.

As the friends discussed their plans to end each other's lives, Feldman told Murray that she would be willing to help her die only if she were suffering extreme pain or had “lost her marbles.” According to THE TIMES [London], Murray, Feldman, and Wilton discussed possible methods of bringing about death such as “injections or smothering one another with a pillow.”

In delivering her “personal rant” Murray complained that assisted suicide is illegal in Great Britain only because it is demanded by a “religious minority” who hold to outdated views concerning the value of human life. Furthermore, this “religious minority” also holds to the quaint belief that children have a moral obligation to care for elderly parents.

Murray began her argument by suggesting that she did not want to be a burden to her own two children as she reaches advanced years. Nevertheless, she shocked her television audience by suggesting that she does not want to be “trapped” into caring for her own mother who is currently ill with Parkinson's disease.

In response to controversy, a BBC spokesperson said: “Jenni is angry that, having fought so hard to become liberated and independent, woman are now being trapped into caring for dependent parents.”

Without doubt, this dimension of Murray's argument -- and the revealing statement released by the BBC -- demonstrates the true nature of her pact with death. It is not just about ending her own life, but the obligation of others to die and get out of the way, lest they interfere with her own life plans.

Increasingly, arguments for “assisted suicide” and euthanasia are moving from claims of a supposed “right” to die to an obligation to die. The argument reflects the fact that, according to its proponents, an inordinate percentage of medical costs are directed towards the end stages of terminal diseases and the final years of life. With a rapidly aging population, the escalation of these costs is a fact that must be faced by all advanced societies.

Beyond this, the developing argument for a “duty to die” moves directly toward the concerns of Jenni Murray -- concerns related to lifestyle issues and the question of whether there is any obligation to care for dependent parents.

Controversies over assisted suicide and euthanasia are now raging on both sides of the Atlantic. Of course, there are plenty of intellectuals and professional bioethicists ready to help make the case for a right or obligation to end one's life.

In Great Britain, the most significant of these advocates is Mary Warnock, one of Britain's most influential philosophers and, since 1985, Baroness Warnock of Weeke.

Warnock first came to international attention when she served as chair of the official British committee that established the basic framework for rules on in vitro fertilization in 1984. Now, after establishing herself as a major secular figure pushing the limits of modern morality, she has turned to the question of euthanasia and suicide.

In an interview published in PHILOSOPHY NOW, Baroness Warnock declares that “it is high time that people spoke honestly about assisted dying.” In her view, the law ought to be changed so that persons can gain legal assistance in committing suicide. “What horrifies me most is that people, mostly old people, who are not competent anymore, are just allowed to wither away,” she stated. “Nobody has any policy about this at all; it just happens.”

Of course, there is a current policy -- a policy that declares assisted suicide to be illegal. Speaking of herself, Baroness Warnock revealed that she would rather commit suicide than die in a “very slow process.”

In her own words: “I simply couldn't bear to get into the position where my children began to feel, 'Oh God, I think we better go and see her.’ I couldn't bear it. And I see no point in living if one were ga-ga. I wouldn't want to. One way or another I'd much rather die.”

For a woman whose academic work is marked by specificity and careful argument, this is particularly slippery. What is the medical definition of “ga-ga?”

Apparently, Baroness Warnock is, at least for now, ready to let individuals decide if they are burdens or not. But, she concedes that some elderly persons may feel the need to end their own lives, feeling, rightly or wrongly, that they have become a burden to their families.

When asked about the possibility that an elderly person might wrongly believe they are considered to be a burden by their families, Baroness Warnock responded: “This is one of those 'slippery slope' arguments. One can't rule it out that they might feel they ought to. But then, I don't know if that's such a terribly bad outcome, because their family if they're nice will say 'you're not a burden' even if they are really. I don't see why people should particularly want to stay alive if they're not enjoying themselves. But if they are enjoying themselves, put up with it. I think that's the criterion I'd use.”

In Baroness Warnock's view, “I don't think people any longer ought to SUPPOSE they should go on living the whole of their possible natural lives, because we all live so much longer these days.”

In Baroness Mary Warnock, we meet the face of the modern secular worldview. She is undoubtedly intelligent and clever, having served in a variety of illustrious and respected positions in academia and public life. There are few issues of public policy and debate in Great Britain which are not marked by her influence or leadership.

Interestingly, on the issue of assisted suicide Baroness Warnock is uncomfortable with the idea of a “right” to die. In her view, rights do not exist unless they are written into the positive law.

In other words, she rejects the entire structure of natural law argument, suggesting that there are virtually no natural rights. Of course, given the fact that she denies any divine or natural law, she is put in a position of great difficulty when she suggests that there is any basic “ought” to a moral question. In the end, the Baroness seems to suggest that euthanasia should not be a debate over either religion or rights. Instead, persons should simply be allowed this option, perhaps in light of the larger social obligation.

“I believe that people who are competent and suffering and who say they want to die should be able to do so, but I don't think I base that belief on their autonomy, or not in any very general sense,” she insists. “I think that the decision should be theirs because they are the people who are suffering.” Finally, “I'm not particularly keen on a morality of rights anyway: given the many conflicting rights, one doesn't quite know what one can claim as a right.”

In her view, objections to euthanasia or assisted suicide must be rooted in some form of religious argument. “I know a lot of people have religious objections to it, and of course they're entitled to them; but I don't see any reason why the religious view should be imposed on the people who aren't religious.” In other words, a secular view should simply be imposed upon public policy. Yet, the most basic question remains: how can one construct a workable policy on a matter as significant as human dignity from an entirely secular worldview?

Moving beyond these questions, Baroness Warnock even suggests that the medical profession has “had too much input into the whole discussion.” As she sees it, the crucial issues are not medical, but social. In an article published in THE GUARDIAN [London], Baroness Warnock complained that many medical doctors seemed to be squeamish about the issue of assisted suicide. Indeed, the vast majority of British doctors are publicly opposed to current efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

As Baroness Warnock recalled, “One imminent physician to whom I spoke said: 'I would not be able to do it. I am programmed not to kill.'” Responding with the case of an elderly person who wished to have her ventilator turned off, Baroness Warnock stated this: “We should be grateful to the medical profession that, on the whole, we can trust them to try to keep us alive rather than kill us. Yet there is something chilling about a doctor 'programmed' to disregard the serious desire of an intelligent and far-sighted woman, even though compliance with her wish has been deemed lawful.”

These arguments reveal the great divide that separates the modern secular mind and the Christian worldview. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more unbridgeable gulf than that which stands between the belief that human beings, made in the image of God, possess both an inherent right to natural life and an obligation to care for others and, on the other hand, the view that some lives are simply not worth living or keeping alive.

Jenni Murray and Baroness Mary Warnock know exactly what they mean to argue. Murray's suicide pact and Warnock's public argument may indicate a shift in public opinion in both Great Britain and the United States. Will individuals understand what is at stake when Baroness Warnock declares, “In other contexts sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance.... I am not ashamed to say some lives are more worth living than others?” Will the viewers of Jenni Murray's television program rise up in indignation when she declares that she does not want to be “trapped” into caring for her mother? Will the BBC face outrage when its spokesperson defends this statement by suggesting that the care of elderly parents threatens to limit the lifestyles and professional careers of “liberated and independent” women?

All that remains to be seen, though this debate seems to be taking an ominous turn on both sides of the Atlantic. In the meantime, these arguments should demand the attention of all persons who believe in the inherent dignity of human life. We are witnessing the embrace of a pact with death.

The Eliminators: Eugenics By Default

British medical researchers recently announced plans to use cutting-edge science to eliminate a condition my family is familiar with: autism. Actually, they are not “curing” autism or even making life better for autistic people. Their plan is to eliminate autism by eliminating autistic people.

There is no IN UTERO test for autism as there is for Down syndrome. As I have previously told “BreakPoint” listeners, that testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population. By some estimates, 90 percent of these people — who, if allowed to live, can live happy and healthy lives — are aborted.

In the absence of such a test for autism, researchers at University College Hospital London are settling for what they call a “close enough” solution. They have applied for permission to use pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, to screen out male embryos in families with a history of autism.

Their “logic” is that since 90 percent of all autistic people are males, their testing would allow families with autistic children “to have a daughter free from the condition.” Of course, they would have also killed males who were not autistic. Talk about wholesale gender cleansing.

The critics are not convinced. Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People drew the what-should-be obvious inference: “Screening for autism would create a society where only perfection is valued.” In the brave new world of the researchers, it is reasonable to fear “that anyone who is different in any way will not be accepted.”

Here in the states, bioethicist Ben Mitchell said that “if unborn children are being eliminated for a genetic disposition to autism, no one is safe ... Today autism, tomorrow intelligence below 70 I.Q., the next day male pattern baldness. When will this madness stop?”

The only way to avoid this is to understand that we have no business deciding “who should live and who should die.” And that's exactly where proposals like this are leading us.

Once a disability is “diagnosed” IN UTERO, women are subject to enormous pressures to have an abortion. According to a recent BUSINESS WEEK article, there's even a name for women who refuse to have an abortion in these circumstances: “genetic outlaws.”

Despite all the rhetoric about “alleviating suffering,” the bottom line in targeting the disabled IN UTERO is the bottom line. As BUSINESS WEEK puts it, “the social cost of accommodating [their] birth is increasingly being seen as exceeding [their] worth.”

Oh my! This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can't we see it?

My heart goes out to parents who are raising autistic children. I know what they face because my daughter is raising a 15-year-old autistic son. But I also know firsthand the joy and blessing these children can bring into our lives. The answer is not to play God and keep them from being born — rather we need to help them and their parents. That's what “alleviating suffering” really means.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database abortion

Princeton Professor Says Killing Disabled Newborns Is Acceptable

Job 3:20

Princeton University’s Peter Singer, widely known for his founding of the Great Ape Project to grant apes the same rights as humans, said Sept. 11 he would kill a disabled baby “if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”

“Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion,” Singer, a professor of bioethics, said in a question and answer article in The Independent, a British newspaper. “One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.”

Singer’s position is the “logical extension of the culture of death,” LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life news agency, asserted. He contends there is no inherent dignity in man and no sanctity of human life. Singer rejects the idea that man was created in the image and likeness of God, the site noted, and therefore believes man deserves no special treatment.

“Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is not,” Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com. “Non-persons are allowed to be killed.”

In the same article, Singer was asked a question about giving rights to animals that can’t understand those rights: “Isn’t it contradictory to ascribe human-based rights to animals? Surely it is absurd to apply a purely human concept to an animal who has no hope of ever understanding such a thing.”

Singer said the idea of giving human-based rights to animals was not at all absurd.

“Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can’t understand the concept,” Singer said. “It’s the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights do not need to understand these concepts.”

Another question dealt with what Singer would do if he were forced to decide between “shooting 10 healthy cows and one healthy human.”

“I’ve written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future,” Singer said. “Normal humans have such plans, but I don’t think cows do. And normal humans have family and friends who will grieve their death in ways more vivid and longer-lasting than the way cows may care about other cows. (Although a cow certainly misses her calf for a long time, if the calf is taken from her. That’s why there is a major ethical problem with dairy products.) If I really had to make such a decision, I’d kill the cows.”

When asked whether there are moral absolutes, Singer said there is only one.

“The only moral absolute is that we should do what will have the best consequences for all those affected by our actions,” he said.

In a question and answer article for the St. Petersburg Times in Florida published Sept. 14, Singer again addressed the issue of euthanasia.

“You’ve written about Terri Schiavo,” reporter Susan Aschoff said. “You say people have the right to end their lives or those of their loved ones. Where do you draw the line?”

“You have to distinguish cases,” Singer said, “where people are competent to make their own decisions and cases where human beings are not competent, and who should then make those decisions. If it’s a newborn baby, it’s really the parents.

“When we talk about decisions that are made in utero, most people would agree that a pregnant woman who has a fetus with a severe abnormality ought to be able to terminate the pregnancy,” he added. “Most people, including Catholic hospitals, don’t say you have to do everything to keep a newborn infant alive.” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, has written commentaries on Singer’s radical views several times, including in 2005 when Mohler said the very fact that Singer and others seriously make such arguments about the value of human life indicates that the culture of death is growing in assertiveness.

“Once we accept any moral distinction between a human being and a human person, we embrace the logic of death and inch our way toward an inevitable embrace of murder. It doesn’t get much scarier than this,” Mohler wrote.

That Was Then ... This Is Now? A Nazi Nightmare

A horrible discovery was made last week near the German town of Menden. The lack of media attention about this in the United States should serve as an alarm in itself.

As Deutsche Welle reports, the skeletons of twenty children and five adults were found as a cemetery site was being excavated. It appears that these skeletons represent victims of the Third Reich’s policy of euthanizing persons with handicaps or other problems.

As the paper reports, the site is very near to the location of a World War II hospital run by Adolf Hitler’s personal physician, Dr. Karl Brandt.

From the paper’s report:

The children, aged from one to seven years, were found alongside

the bodies of five adults, Hans-Bernd Besa-von Werden, a

spokesman for the district administration said.

Investigations of two of the children’s skulls indicated the

victims might have been handicapped.

More:

Some 70,000 people with physical or intellectual disabilities

perished in the euthanasia program, which the Nazis believed was

necessary to cleanse the German people of racially unsound

elements.

Those who were deemed “unworthy to live” by showing symptoms of

mental retardation or physical handicap were sent to the so-

called killing facilities, where they were murdered by lethal

injections or exposure to carbon monoxide gas.

The Nazi euthanasia program, which became an open secret in the

Third Reich, was officially terminated in 1941 in the wake of

protests from members of the German clergy.

The practice, however, clandestinely continued until the end of

World War II with an ever wider range of victims, which included

geriatric patients, bombing victims and forced laborers.

The German practice of euthanizing those considered unworthy of

life did not begin with the Third Reich. German doctors began

the practice under the liberal Weimar Republic, with doctors

defining those considered inferior as Lebensunwerten Lebens --

life unworthy of life.

Those identified as Lebensunwerten Lebens were simply killed --

sometimes after being subjected to inhumane medical experiments.

Karl Brandt, who was in charge of the program, was executed for

war crimes in 1948.

How is this definitively different from the current practice of selecting out “inferior” embryos or of aborting “defective” babies in the womb? These, too, are assaults on human dignity. How long will it be before some later generation excavates our own moral landscape?

The truly frightening aspect of all this is the fact that the German people allowed it to happen. The logic of euthanasia is so seductive and the concept of Lebensunwerten Lebens is so convenient. Simply define those difficult to care for as unworthy of life. Select one racial profile to be considered superior to all others. Sacrifice human dignity for the promise of a perfect race -- free from all those we would rather not see.

We can’t say that it can’t happen. Consider this -- why are so few babies with Down syndrome born today? Imagine what Dr. Brandt could have done with today’s prenatal genetic tests.

Clearly, a good many modern Americans have bought into Dr. Brandt’s logic to some degree. The past haunts us because it is not safely put away. The past threatens to erupt into the present in the form of modern euthanasia. This is a Nazi nightmare taking a new and seductive form.

Betraying the Least of These: the Church and Infanticide

England’s prestigious and influential Nuffield Council on Bioethics has recommended that babies born before twenty-two weeks be given no special treatment to save their lives. Claiming to have the “best interests” of these babies at heart, the Council stated — and read this carefully: “We view [the baby’s] interests in living or dying, or in avoiding an ‘intolerable’ life ... as more important than the interests that others may have in any significant decisions made about him or her” — like parents, I guess. If babies are born after twenty-two weeks, the Council said, intensive care should be given only if both doctors and parents agree on it.

This is frightening enough. But what’s even more frightening are some of the factors that went into this decision.

As reported on our blog, THE POINT, organizations around England weighed in to help the Council develop these recommendations. One of those organizations was the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology, who called for “active euthanasia” of disabled babies.

Then the Church of England entered the fray. But if you thought that they got involved to speak up for the lives of the defenseless, you’d be wrong. Instead, they backed up the obstetricians and gynecologists — the ones who were saying that a disabled and painful life was not worth living. Although it didn’t actually advocate euthanasia, the church’s statement did call for the withholding of treatment for premature babies “in some circumstances ... knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death.”

Here we have a chilling close-up view of how far the culture of death has advanced. To whom should human life be more sacred than to the Church and to the medical community? But in this case both have turned their backs on the human lives most in need of protection. Of course they claim to be doing this in the “best interests” of the infants and their families. But if these guidelines are officially adopted, just wait until a case comes up in which the child could survive with treatment, and the parents want that treatment. I guarantee you we’ll be informed that death rather than disability is in the child’s “best interest.”

In fact, we don’t have to wait. Look at the case of Charlotte Wyatt, born premature and disabled in Portsmouth, England. Her parents were forced to wage a major battle against the doctors for her life. Charlotte is now three, and the media uses words like TRAGIC to refer to her case — despite the fact that, though disabled, she’s still alive. A good sign of where the media’s priorities are, isn’t it? Just as with Terri Schiavo, the disabled life is seen as inconvenient to others and so not worth living.

But this is not about convenience, not about what’s easy or painless. It is about the sacredness and the dignity of human life made in the image of God. That the Anglican Church has discarded that truth should concern us all profoundly because if we can’t trust the Body of Christ to hold human life sacred, who can we trust? And don’t just write this off as, “Well, it’s the Brits.” So often what happens in England soon finds its way here.

________

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disability

Netherlands Set To Give Go-ahead To Child Euthanasia

Dutch officials are set to give child euthanasia the go-ahead. The practice is already widespread there with an estimated 15-20 cases per year despite it being illegal. No paediatricians have been prosecuted. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia in 2001.

The governing Christian Democrats said they will approve the Groningen Protocol, the child euthanasia guidelines named after the euthanist doctors from Groningen University Medical Centre. The protocol suggests that euthanasia be permitted when a child is terminally ill with no hope of recovery and in pain, and that parents are in agreement with the opinions of two doctors.

The government plans to set up a commission that will review that all the conditions have been met, or else a public prosecutor will become involved. So far no doctors committing child euthanasia have been prosecuted, even though it is still illegal.

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia paediatrician and ethicist Dr. Chris Feudtner told the AP he vehemently opposes the Dutch government’s decision. “I categorically do not endorse ending people's lives with the argument that it's alleviating their suffering,” he said. “I think too often the impulse is to resort to extreme measures because we're not being effective enough in the management of pain. If you allow it to occur, it will occur in cases where it is not ethical, period,” he added.

The vice-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life roundly condemned the Dutch proposal to extend euthanasia to children under the age of 12 last year. Bishop Elio Sgreccia said that with this policy, “the final boundary will have been crossed.”

from Firstimpressions · Anonymous via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Death Culture Strikes Again

Job 8:7

A rise in suicide among the young seems to be tied to the emergence of on-line suicide sites that offer advice and encouragement to kill oneself. The Telegraph [London] reports that, as an example, one village in Wales has seen a significant spike in suicides among the young.

Patrick Sawer reports that Internet “suicide gurus” in Europe and the United States are encouraging vulnerable people to end their lives. Some offer detailed advice on technique. Others simply offer strong encouragement to commit suicide. Apparently, a growing number of young people are visiting these sites and following the advice.

As Sawer reports:

One of the most notorious figures on the internet suicide scene

is Nagasiva Yronwode, a self-confessed satanist who runs a shop

selling occult books and charms in the small Californian town of

Forestville, north of San Francisco.

Yronwode, 46, describes himself as the “outreach director” for an

extremist cult called the Church of Euthanasia, which advocates

suicide as a means of saving the world from the effects of

overpopulation.

Writing under the name Boboroshi, he has edited a suicide guide,

which details various methods. Yronwode’s own website contains

links to online suicide discussion boards and forums.

He told this newspaper: “The guide is there to make it easier for

people who opt for suicide to carry it out. The purpose of my

information is empowerment for competent human beings who have an

interest in ending their lives. What’s the problem with that?

The approach of the sites might seem unlikely to influence many visitors toward suicide, but the fact is that many visitors are obviously troubled and in a state of mind that is open to the suggestion.

From the report:

Paul Kelly, co-founder of Papyrus [a group seeking to prevent

teen suicides], whose 18-year-old son Simon killed himself after

visiting a suicide website, said: “There is a growing number of

parents out there who can say the internet has played a role in

the deaths of their children.

“The internet offers factual advice which is accessible within

seconds. This is particularly dangerous with young people, who

often work on impulse.

This seems to be an important point. The impulsiveness of the young, combined with access to sites like these, can lead to deadly disaster. Many parents underestimate the dangers of the Internet and allow their teenage children (and sometimes even younger) virtually unrestricted access to Internet sites.

The Internet is an incredible technology and information system, but it brings as many dangers and benefits. Wise parents will see this warning as another reminder that teens and children should not be allowed unrestricted access to computers and the Internet. Put the computer in a visible place -- not in the teen’s bedroom -- and use filtering and tracking software.

After all, you don’t want your children to be reached by the “outreach director” of the Church of Euthanasia.

She Can Have An Abortion and You Can Be Euthanized

Job 3:20

No one should underestimate the extent to which fundamental worldviews produce very different understandings of reality. These different understandings of reality produce radically different perspectives on the real-life issues with which we are confronted.

One key issue here is the reading of history. In simple terms, these different readings of reality lead to different understandings of where history leads. Western liberal thought has long been shaped by the myth of inevitable progress. This is inevitably fueled by a legitimate celebration of developments ranging from democracy to air conditioning and antibiotics. There are also legitimate grounds for celebrating moral progress on fronts including slavery, racism, and other issues. The liberal mistake is to assume that this means that all moral change is progress. This mistake is accompanied by an assumption that moral progress always means the expansion of individual autonomy.

The clash between fundamental worldviews is often difficult to capture, but sometimes literature does what a news report cannot. Consider this passage from Cormac McCarty’s novel, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. In this passage, one of the main characters reflects on this clash:

Here a year or two back me and Loretta went to a conference in

Corpus Christi and I got set next to this woman, she was the wife

of somebody or other. And she kept talking about the right wing

this and the right wing that.

I aint even sure what she meant by it. The people I know are

mostly just common people. Common as dirt, as the sayin goes. I

told her that and she looked at me funny. She thought I was

sayin something bad about em, but of course that’s a high

compliment in my part of the world. She kept on, kept on.

Finally told me, said: I don’t like the way this country is

headed. I want my granddaughter to be able to have an abortion.

And I said well mam I don’t think you got any worries about the

way the country is headed. The way I see it goin I don’t have

much doubt but what she’ll be able to have an abortion. I’m goin

to say that not only will she be able to have an abortion, she’ll

be able to have you put to sleep. Which pretty much ended the

conversation.

That exchange also pretty much sums up the clash of worldviews. Sometimes literature captures a universe of meaning in a minimum of words.

Innocent Blood: the Demand of Paganism

When you hear the word “pagan,” what springs to mind? Do you think of ancient tree worshippers dancing by moonlight? Well, an authority on the subject says that notion is out of date. These days, says Dr. Robert George of Princeton University, the term “pagan” ought to conjure up images of affluent, well- educated Americans — including many who go to church.

George’s definition of paganism was presented at a recent meeting of Toward Tradition, a group that brings together Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians. He said paganism is not confined to the past, with primitive peoples offering sacrifices to the sun or praying to golden calves. Instead, the temptation to worship false gods is “a permanent threat” and “a constant temptation.”

You see, the essence of paganism is idolatry — the worship of false gods in place of the one true God. But, sadly, many modern Christians fall into pagan practices and don’t even know it, and some attend churches that actually promote it.

So, how do you know if you’re among them? There’s a fool-proof test, George says. “False gods demand the blood of innocents. Where the innocent and just are slain … the god being worshipped is not the God of Israel.” When Christians of the past burned heretics, persecuted Jews, and enslaved Africans, they were serving, not the biblical God, but false gods.

The false gods of modern pagans are even more bloodthirsty. “Today,” George says, “the unborn, the partially born, and the handicapped newly-born are … sacrificed to the false gods of choice, autonomy, and liberation. They’re sacrificed on stainless steel altars, by priests robed in surgical whites.” And advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia are their fellow believers.

By contrast, George notes, faithful Christians and observant Jews worship the Lord of life — a God who “endows every human being — however humble, however poor, however afflicted — with a sublime dignity.” It is for this reason “that the life of every innocent person is … equally inviolable under the moral law.”

Modern pagans — including most secularized Christians and Jews — wrap their pagan ideology in a cloak of virtue. They speak of compassion, even as they rationalize their “choice” to kill the innocent. In reality, they’re worshipping, not the God of compassion, but false gods of depravity and death.

It is a fact of history that every civilization that has sacrificed children to the gods has been destroyed. The God of the Bible has brought judgment on even the most powerful empires. That’s why, when friends of mine visited Mother Teresa a few years ago and asked what they could do to help her, she responded, “Go back to America and stop the slaughter of the innocent babies. Hurry, while there’s time, or God will judge you.”

She was right.

Today’s false gods masquerade under the name of “choice” and “compromise.” But as Professor George says, “A pagan culture is … a culture of death.”

It’s important that you and I learn to recognize these beliefs and practices, which can infiltrate our churches and are pervasive in our culture. Not only for the sake of the innocents who are being killed, but for the sake of our nation’s soul and our survival.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database euthanasiamurder

Amazing Awakenings -- Will the Nation's Conscience Be Awakened Too?

As Wesley J. Smith explains, “the reigning cultural paradigm” holds that “a life with profound cognitive dysfunction is not worth living.” The dominant assessment is that a person with a diagnosis of permanent unconsciousness should be allowed to die by withdrawal of food and hydration.

But, as Smith reports in The Weekly Standard, this “reigning cultural paradigm” is colliding with medical reality.

Consider this case:

On October 19, only months after being nearly dehydrated to death

when his feeding tube was removed, Jesse Ramirez walked out of

the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix on his own two legs.

Ramirez is lucky to be alive. Early last June, a mere one week

after a serious auto accident left him unconscious, his wife

Rebecca and doctors decided he would never recover and pulled his

feeding tube. He went without food and water for five long days.

But then his mother, Theresa, represented by lawyers from the

Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, successfully took Rebecca to

court demanding a change of guardianship on the grounds that

Rebecca and Jesse’s allegedly rocky marriage disqualified her for

the role.

The case of Jesse Ramirez should shock Americans into understanding that those diagnosed as profoundly cognitively impaired -- and thus considered candidates for death by starvation and dehydration -- sometimes recover.

Ramirez is not alone. Consider the case of 12-year-old Haleigh Poutre:

Haleigh barely survived terrible child abuse and then was nearly

done in by the very people charged with protecting her. Only

eight days after she was hospitalized in the wake of a beating,

the Massachusetts Department of Public Social Services, acting on

doctors’ solemn assurances that she was “virtually brain dead,”

requested permission to remove her respirator and feeding tube.

This request was approved by the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

But the doctors, social workers, and judges were wrong about

Haleigh’s prospects. Just before her life support was withdrawn,

she began to exhibit signs of awareness -- she picked up a

stuffed duck when requested -- leading to a last-minute reprieve.

Today, while Haleigh’s exact condition is not public information,

reports in the media indicate she is awake and aware and able to

eat some foods.

Add to these reports what THE WASHINGTON POST reported on September 8, 2006:

Without any hint that she might have a sense of what was

happening, the researchers put the woman in a scanner that

detects brain activity and told her that in a few minutes they

would say the word “tennis,” signaling her to imagine she was

serving, volleying and chasing down balls. When they did, the

neurologists were shocked to see her brain “light up” exactly as

an uninjured person’s would. It happened again and again. And

the doctors got the same result when they repeatedly cued her to

picture herself wandering, room to room, through her own home.

That’s right -- a woman thought to be without conscious function was found by researchers to be playing tennis in her brain, stimulated by a person saying the word in her presence. She was able to hear and understand the word, and to imagine herself playing the game.

Ironically, Smith reports that researchers have found that the drug Ambien -- usually prescribed to assist a person to sleep -- has been found to assist some patients to recover brain activity and consciousness.

Smith is profoundly correct in pointing back to the tragedy of Terri Schiavo and suggesting that the nation should have a guilty conscience.

He concludes:

A serious cultural consequence of the Terri Schiavo drama has

been the devaluation of the weakest among us into a disposable

and exploitable caste. But it is not too late to reverse the

tide. Jesse Ramirez, Haleigh Poutre, and the groundbreaking

research into the treatment of serious brain injury are powerful

reminders that where there is life, there is hope. Those who

understand that all persons, regardless of capacity, deserve to

be treated as beloved members of the human family have good

reason to shake off the Schiavo rout and return to the fray.

Where there is life, there is hope. That is a helpful formula for ethical decision-making in these cases. The fact that Jesse Ramirez is recovering, Haleigh Poutre is alive, and a patient was found to be playing tennis in her head should be enough to shock this nation and to awaken its conscience. If not, what will it take?

Killing Without Consequences: the Last Goodnights

Job 3:20

In his book, The Last Goodnights: Assisting My Parents with Their Suicides, lawyer and author John West publicly tells a story that most people would have kept silent. He does it so that one day others may be able to kill openly and without fear. That’s not how West puts it, of course, but I’m afraid that’s what it boils down to.

West’s parents were prestigious psychiatrists. As West wrote, “Neither was at all religious, but both had deep insight into the human condition.... And they knew what they wanted.”

What they wanted was to die “on [their] own terms.” When West’s father was diagnosed with cancer, he asked his son for help in taking his own life. In West’s mother’s case, “advancing cognitive decline” led her to fear that she would “turn into a bowl of Jell-O in her head.” A couple of weeks after West assisted his father’s suicide, his mother made the same request.

It’s hard to listen to West talk about his parents’ deaths, as he recently did on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show. As he describes it, when talking about their impending deaths, his parents kept resorting to euphemisms like “do the trick” and “achieve the goal.”

No euphemism, however, can do away with the stark reality of death and what West had to do to kill them. For instance, he had to wake his father, who was groggy from pain pills given to him by a hospice worker, in order to take the extra pills that would kill him. West admitted that his father might not have finished taking the pills had he, the son, not fed them to him.

In California, these acts were against the law, but as West proclaimed on Rehm’s show, “Everyone in the medical world knows that it happens all the time.” (As it happens, both a doctor and a hospice worker contacted Rehm to disagree.) At any rate, West considered this a case where “it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the letter of the law.”

So, according to West, murder of an innocent is the right thing?

West is publicizing how he helped kill his parents to promote assisted suicide, which he wants to see legalized.

But as West’s story itself shows, our culture and our legal system have already begun to acquiesce to murder, to the point where more and more of these assisted suicide cases are allowed to slip by. Diane Rehm asked West whether he might face any legal repercussions for his actions. His response was that he had heard nothing from the authorities so far.

No good can come of allowing people to kill others — even if they claim they were acting out of the most purely humanitarian motives. The authorities need to uphold the law.

Make no mistake: Legalizing assisted suicide is a big step on a dangerous and slippery slope, especially in a world where human life is growing cheaper by the minute. We’ve already seen that legalizing assisted suicide has led to non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands. And we’ve talked recently on BreakPoint about how increasing health-care costs have spurred Britain to deny certain citizens life-prolonging treatment.

I will say it over and over, until I am blue in the face: Every human life, from conception through natural death, is sacred. And to take that life unjustly is simply murder — the kind of thing the state has a sworn duty to stop.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database murdercancerpro life

Deadly Trend: the Infanticide Protocol

Job 3:20

Sociologist Stefan Timmerman has observed that “Humans in every society studied to date are more likely to be murdered on the day they are born than on any other day of their lives.” Timmerman was quoted recently by bioethicist Wesley J. Smith in the online publication TO THE SOURCE.

Smith rightly claims that while infanticide was commonly accepted in ancient times, only the Jews and the Christians actively opposed it. The strength of their opposition paid off “when infanticide was outlawed by Emperor Valentinian, a Christian, in the 4th century.”

So, as Western culture abandons its Christian roots, we ought not to be surprised that infanticide is making a comeback.

Take a look at what is already happening in the Netherlands. In 2004, doctors from Groningen University Medical Center admitted to killing, or “euthanizing,” to use the euphemism, dying or profoundly disabled babies. That practice came to be known as the Groningen Protocol.

Under those guidelines, not only are dying infants killed, but so are disabled infants who do not even require intensive care. The criteria for euthanizing a baby are subjective: Either the baby is judged to have no chance of survival; may survive after intensive treatment but with a grim future; or endures “suffering [that] is severe, sustained, and cannot be alleviated.” These criteria depend on the doctor’s whim.

So much for the Hippocratic Oath.

By judging which life is valuable or not, doctors are doing precisely what the Nazis did over 60 years ago. The Nazis even had a phrase for this, which translated means “life not worth living” — and not because of the individuals’ suffering, but because of their burden and cost to society.

“As the West loses some of its Biblical moral footing,” writes Smith, “there is a new effort to decriminalize infanticide.” In fact, he asserts, “the notion is ‘positively trendy’.” Most notably, of course, is Princeton Professor Peter Singer who has advocated for some time killing disabled infants. But he is not the only one. When the Groningen Protocol was revealed, others began — not condemning it — but, sadly enough, defending it.

Smith noted a New York Times feature and a New England Journal of Medicine report, both giving credence and sympathy to Dutch infanticide proponents. And now the Hastings Center Report, the most respected journal on bioethics, has published another pro-Groningen Protocol article in which the authors not only “support lethally injecting dying babies, but also those who are disabled.”

“The article assumes that guidelines will protect against abuse,” writes Smith, but, as he points out, “infanticide is by definition abuse.” And, as Smith reminds readers, Dutch euthanasia guidelines for adults and teens have been “violated for decades,” so why should we expect anything different with infanticide guidelines?

“[W]e are moving toward a medical system,” says Smith, “in which babies are put down like dogs and killing is redefined as a caring act.”

But this can happen only in a society that has forgotten that every human life is made in the image of God — and, therefore, worthy of protection.

Think worldviews do not matter? Think our Christian heritage is irrelevant? Too bad we cannot ask the infants of Groningen what they think.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Charles Colson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database medical ethicspro life

Deadly Intentions

Job 3:20

The poison peddled by the euthanasia movement here in the United States continues to take its toll. Assisted suicide was legalized in Oregon in the 1990s, and pro-death advocates are now pushing hard to make it legal in the state of Washington, where Initiative 1000 would allow any competent adult suffering from a terminal illness to make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life.

The average reader would interpret Initiative 1000 as helping terminal patients commit suicide, plain and simple. But the euthanasia movement has tried to mask that plain truth with soothing euphemisms. Rather than acknowledging that the initiative promotes assisted suicide, the text states the “request” will allow the patient to end their life “in a humane and dignified manner.” Then, in a classic example of double speak, the text goes on to state, “Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as ‘suicide’ or ‘assisted suicide.’” Funny, these “actions” sound just like the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of suicide: “the act or an instance of taking one’s own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind.”

If passed in November 2008, Initiative 1000 will transform the legal landscape of the state of Washington. The change would parallel Oregon’s decade-long acceptance of assisted suicide, a practice that has given rise to a myriad of problems. According to a fact sheet from National Right to Life, Oregon “conducts no independent reviews of assisted suicide deaths.” Further, physicians who prescribe lethal drugs “only file required reports about 80.2% of the time.” Incredibly, in “76.1% of these cases, physicians said that they had not perceived their act as the ending of life.”

Not surprisingly, stories of abuse abound.

In 1998, an Oregonian psychologist decided that 85-year-old Kate Cheney was “cognitively impaired” because she suffered from dementia and, therefore, was not qualified to pursue assisted suicide. Her family then found another psychologist who authorized the suicide. That psychologist did so despite noting the undue influence of Cheney’s family on the decision and that Cheney was so mentally impaired she could not remember basic information about her cancer diagnosis.

In 2007, two nurses in Oregon gave Wendy Melcher a lethal overdose. Though this was illegal (Oregon only allows physicians to prescribe lethal drugs), one of the nurses said she provided the overdose “because she believed [Melcher] to be in uncontrollable pain.” However, the nurse had never noted such pain prior to the day she administered the overdose.

Recently, 64-year-old Barbara Wagner was suffering from cancer, but the Oregon Heath Plan would not cover a $4000 a month drug that could have helped her. Instead it offered to pay for comfort care, including assisted suicide through drugs that would cost the state far less money than those requested by Ms. Wagner. As the only state that -- in the words of The Oregonian newspaper -- “both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care,” the state’s motivations in this case are highly suspect.

The truth is that the euthanasia movement’s ultimate goal is death on demand for everyone. “A dignified death for the terminally ill” is just the first step toward this goal. Philip Nitschke, a well known pro-euthanasia leader and president of Exit International in Australia, said in a 2001 interview, “My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want.” Nitschke’s view is typical of pro-death advocates. Their belief in a right to commit suicide is based on a hyper-individualism that sees every person as completely autonomous. They ignore any duties a person has to society or to their family as well as the wider social impact of such low regard for human life.

Wesley J. Smith points out in a National Review article, “[Nitschke] has not limited his ‘death counseling’ to the terminally ill. A case in point involved Nancy Crick who made headlines when she announced on Australian television that she would commit assisted suicide because she had terminal cancer. When her autopsy showed she was cancer free, however, Nitschke admitted that he and Crick had known all along that she wasn’t dying. Nevertheless, he deemed that medical fact ‘irrelevant’ because she wanted to die.”

Acceptance of euthanasia in select cases leads inevitably to an ever-expanding circle of those considered “killable.” In 30 years of unpunished (and eventually legalized) assisted suicide in the Netherlands, Smith reports, the circle of accepted killings has been broadened to include the depressed, the disabled and infants born with birth defects. Once a society accepts the right to commit suicide to prevent suffering, the right to kill to prevent suffering follows.

The euthanasia movement’s callous disregard for life needs to be unmasked. Behind euphemisms like “death with dignity” and “end of life choices” lies an insidious assault on the sanctity of human life. Euthanasia advocates view “choice” as the ultimate virtue and “freedom of choice” as the ultimate freedom. Stripped of its gloss, however, their position is that unless one has the freedom to kill himself, he isn’t really free. That’s a perverse view of freedom and a sad view of life.

________

Ken Connor is chairman of the CENTER FOR A JUST SOCIETY based in Washington D.C., online at www.centerforajustsociety.org.

A Demented Idea: Human Dignity On the Sceptred Isle

Job 3:20

The Brits may be losing their marbles. The distinguished Baroness Warnock, labeled by the Daily Telegraph as Britain’s leading moral philosopher, ought to be ashamed of herself.

You see, Lady Warnock once chaired a government committee that helped legalize embryonic research. She’s known for supporting assisted suicide for people don’t want to burden their caregivers.

But now Lady Warnock has gone a step further. She says elderly people who suffer from dementia are “wasting people’s lives” — that is, the lives of those who care for them — and ought to choose to die even if they’re not suffering.

And even if they aren’t a burden on their families, they ought to “off” themselves anyway, as she puts it, because they’re a burden on the public, which, under British national health care, pays for their treatment. According to the Daily Telegraph, Warnock hopes people will soon be “licensed to put others down.”

Putting others down? That’s the kind of euphemism we use when talking about injured horses or sick dogs. It’s not how we talk about human beings — or at least, it’s not how we used to talk about them.

At age 84, Lady Warnock is old enough to remember Hitler’s Final Solution — and the thinking that drove the slaughter, not only of the Jews, but also of the handicapped, gypsies, and others the Nazis considered “defective” or “useless.”

But even though Lady Warnock should remember World War II, she evidently has forgotten its terrible lessons. Given her despicable recommendation for the elderly, she ought to hope that her memory issues aren’t related to dementia.

Thankfully, at least a few Brits are outraged by Warnock’s comments, calling them — in typical British understatement — both callous and deeply ignorant. Neil Hunt, a spokesman for the British Alzheimer’s Society, says to suggest that people with dementia “have some sort of duty to kill themselves is nothing short of barbaric.”

More ominously, a spokesman for a British right to life group said Warnock’s views “are an illustration that while euthanasia is promoted as a right to choose, it pretty rapidly becomes” an obligation to die.

This tale out of England is also a dire warning about what happens when countries nationalize health care. There’s never enough money to go around — and some bureaucrat at the top is always going to start making choices about who gets to live and who’s going to die. If those targeted for death don’t go willingly, well, they will need to be encouraged to die — or they might get a visit from someone “licensed to put others down.”

Has the Western world truly sunk this low? Do we ever need a more vivid reminder of the tremendous importance of worldview?

Either all human life — from unborn children to demented mothers and fathers — is created in the image of God and therefore infinitely precious, or humans are nothing but the result of mere chance, indistinguishable morally from a sand flea. The choice society makes will determine whether the most vulnerable among us will be respected and protected ... or whether we will “put them down” when they become a burden.

We Christians must speak out as others — especially those in authority — move us closer and closer to compulsory killing.

If we do nothing, it’s evidence that perhaps we’ve all lost our marbles.

________

Copyright (c) 2008 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Marvelous Suicide and Beneficial Abortion -- Worldviews Matter

Job 3:20

In times of economic turmoil, moral issues are often cast in financial terms. For those who promote the Culture of Death, the logic is that we would be better off if certain people were dead.

In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation [BBC],

A Swiss “right-to-die” organization, which in a macabre twist is named “Dignitas,” advocates the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The group has gone so far as to advocate assisting psychiatric patients to commit suicide.

Its founder Ludwig Minelli did an interview with BBC in which he criticized resistance to suicide and said, “I have a totally different attitude to suicide. I say suicide is a marvelous, marvelous possibility given to a human being.” Extending his gushing advocacy of killing oneself, he added: “Suicide is a very good possibility to escape a situation which you can’t alter.”

Minelli makes an economic argument in pressing his enthusiasm for suicide. In his view, society benefits from the cost savings he associates with a successful suicide:

For 50 suicide attempts you have one suicide and the others are failing with heavy costs on the National Health Service. If we would have another attitude to suicide, saying suicide is a very good possibility to escape. In many, many cases they are terribly hurt afterwards sometimes you have to put them in institutions for 50 years. Very costly.

Mr. Minelli also makes clear that he does not believe that suicide is a “marvelous possibility” only for the terminally ill, but also for those who may for any reason choose to end their own life. He told the BBC of a Canadian couple planning a joint suicide. The husband is ill but the wife is not, but she just wants to “go at the same time.” Minelli complained that Swiss law, though notoriously ambiguous on such matters, might present a problem if Dignitas helped the wife to commit suicide.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, U.S. News and World Report columnist Bonnie Erbe argues in her current column that abortions are “not a bad choice” in an economic downturn.

“The recession is driving American demand for contraception. And for abortions,” reports Erbe. “The media have been rife this past week with stories about the rising number of couples and single mothers doing the math and deciding this is no time to bring a child into the world — not when the economy is depressed, jobs are scarce, and family incomes are dropping.” She then proceeds to complain that many media reports treat this as a tragedy. “It is not,” retorts Erbe.

Erbe then related the story of a woman in Oakland, California who aborted what would have been her fourth child because she felt her family could not afford another baby. As her doctor explains, this was a wanted child and a “desired pregnancy.” The woman cried as she told the physician why she was seeking the abortion.

But Erbe, who also hosts the PBS news program, TO THE CONTRARY, thinks the tears were unnecessary and the decision was right. In her chilling words:

Yes, it’s sad that this unwed, pregnant mother of three had no money for bus fare. It’s terrible that her boyfriend lost his job. It is heart-wrenching that she fell to tears in the doctor’s office. But in the long run, can we not agree that an unwed couple’s decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy? It’s actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well.

No, Ms. Erbe, we cannot agree that this is no tragedy. Abortion cannot be celebrated as “a fact-based, rational decision” that is supposedly justified by “benefits” to the family and society.

“It’s no tragedy: it’s a good decision,” she insists. She also makes the economic argument central to her argument, insisting that the abortion “lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources.”

So, Ludwig Minelli argues that suicide is a “marvelous, marvelous human possibility” that will cut medical costs and Bonnie Erbe argues that abortion is “a good decision” that will benefit us all.

The Culture of Death usually disguises itself better than this. Here the ugliness and brutality -- the utter Godlessness of such proposals are here for all to see. Worldviews matter. Indeed, worldviews are a matter of life and death.

_________________

The BBC interview with Ludwig Minelli can be viewed courtesy of the BBC.

Wife Wants To Die With Ill Spouse

Job 8:7

The Swiss assisted-suicide organization Dignitas plans to help a healthy woman die with her terminally ill husband, and a pro-life bioethics specialist says this development should have been expected.

Ludwig Minelli, found of Zurich-based Dignitas, announced his plans to go to a Swiss court to seek permission to aid in the suicides of the Canadian couple, The Times of London reported April 2. Dignitas says it has assisted in the suicides of more than 100 people from Britain, where the practice is illegal.

The “marvelous opportunity” of suicide should not be reserved for the terminally ill or severely disabled, Minelli said, according to The Times. Anyone with “mental capacity” should be able to experience assisted suicide, he said.

“It is not a condition to have a terminal illness,” Minelli was quoted as saying. “Terminal illness is a British obsession. As a human rights lawyer I am opposed to the idea of paternalism. We do not make decisions for other people.

“We should have a nicer attitude to suicide, saying suicide is a very good possibility to escape,” he said.

Bioethics specialist Wesley Smith said of this expansion of the assisted-suicide movement’s pool of potential victims, “I don’t know why anyone would be surprised by this story. Assisted suicide advocacy rests on two fundamental ideological premises: First, that we own our bodies and it is the ‘ultimate civil liberty’ to decide on the time, manner and place of our own demise. Second, that killing is an acceptable answer to the problem of human suffering. Once these values are accepted, preventing death on demand becomes logically unsustainable.”

No Compassion For The Mentally Ill: Canada's Obsession With The “Right To Die”

Mark 5:15

How compassionate is it to let people end their lives when they choose? That’s the wrong question.

Canadians, or at least Canadian media elites, seem intent on creating a real-life version of what novelist P.D. James, in her novel “The Children of Men,” called “quietus”: that is, state-sanctioned mass suicide of the those deemed to be a burden to the rest of society.

John Stonestreet told you about a recent article in Maclean’s magazine (think Time or Newsweek for our friends north of the border) that asked, “Should doctors be paid a premium (for) assisting deaths?” The answer was a resounding “Yes!” Without such a “premium,” what Canada calls “medical assistance in dying,” “will exist in theory only, and not in practice.”

That was just the beginning for Maclean’s. The August 15, 2017 issue told the story of a palliative care doctor who decided that, in addition to providing end-of-life care to dying patients, he would assist them with the actual dying.

Not surprisingly, the story was wrapped in gauzy haze that made everyone involved appear noble beyond words: think noted humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, instead of Jack Kevorkian.

There was no hint of where this ersatz brand of “compassion” could lead. For that, you only had to look back a few months in the magazine’s archives. A few months earlier, an article in the magazine argued that, although “It may make some people understandably uncomfortable ... extending the right to assisted dying to the mentally ill is a compassionate solution.”

I told you about the move to extend the so-called “right to die” to mentally ill people back in May. I told you back then that it was a terrible idea, and now that I’ve seen the rationale fully set forth, I’m looking for a word that’s stronger than “terrible.”

The piece was written by Daniel Munro of the Conference Board of Canada whose stated goal is to — and I’m not making this up — build “a better future for Canadians by making our economy and society more dynamic and competitive.” According to Munro, it’s “not clear why” the principle that justifies euthanasia for the terminally ill “should apply any less to people with mental illness.”

That “principle” isn’t compassion, which comes from the Latin for “to suffer with.” No, the principle Munro and others cite is autonomy — ”allowing individuals to choose the time and manner of their deaths, just as we allow people to choose how they will lead their lives.”

The New Testament Greek word for compassion is “splagchnizomai.” It means being moved in our guts, our bowels, in response to the suffering of others. But today, according to Macleans anyway, compassion means being careful not to violate someone’s autonomy.

This enshrinement of autonomy goes a long way toward explaining why the “right to die” will not and cannot be limited to the terminally ill. If you begin with the assumption that people have a right to live and die as they please, then there’s no good reason to limit lethal medical assistance to only one group of suffering people.

So we need to remember, as I told you in my earlier broadcast, that when a mentally-ill person says “please let me die,” you can never be certain whether it’s the person speaking or the mental illness speaking. What matters to Macleans is not interfering with how a person chooses to end their life. And that, my friends, is the exact opposite of a Christian worldview.

In James’ novel, state-sanctioned quietus was the product of a society literally without a future. In Canada’s case, it’s being championed by people who claim to be working for a better future. Whatever the setting, compassion is the last thing we should call it.

________

Copyright (c) 2017 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas with Roberto Rivera via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database disabilitycompassion

Canada’s Suicidal Slide

Job 3:20

If it is true, as Richard Weaver famously put it, that “ideas have consequences,” it is also true that bad ideas have victims. On no other contemporary issue today is the connection between a bad idea and its victims clearer than assisted suicide. In no other nation today are the bad ideas and their victims more aggressively embraced than in Canada.

In a lengthy and powerful essay at The Atlantic this month, David Brooks exposed just how monstrous Canada’s so-called “medical aid in dying” regime has become since it was enacted in 2016. Originally, Canada only permitted the request for medical aid in dying to those with serious illness, in advanced or irreversible decline, unbearable physical or mental suffering, or whose death was “reasonably foreseeable.” The criteria are vague enough. Since the law went into effect, however, the number of Canadians killed annually has gone from 1,000 to over 10,000. In 2021, one in thirty Canadian deaths was by assisted suicide, and only 4% of those who applied to die were turned down.

Were all these people terminally ill or suffering from serious and irreversible conditions? Hardly. In fact, Brooks tells the story of a man whose only physical condition was hearing loss yet who was “put to death” over the objections of his family. Another patient had fibromyalgia and leukemia yet wrote that “the suffering I experience is mental suffering, not physical. I think if more people cared about me, I might be able to handle the suffering caused by my physical illnesses alone.” One otherwise healthy 37-year-old who suffers from schizoaffective disorder and is unemployed said, “logistically, I really don’t have a future. ... I’m not going anywhere.” As of Brooks’ writing, that man was awaiting approval for assisted suicide.

Simply put, Canadians who need help are instead being helped to kill themselves because they’re depressed, lonely, or mentally ill. And the slope keeps getting slipperier. Brooks described patients who have been pressured by doctors and hospital staff into killing themselves to avoid medical bills. Earlier this year, the Canadian Parliament’s Special Committee on Medical Assistance in Death recommended extending the program to mature minors” as young as twelve.

Brooks observed, this is what happens “when a society takes individualism to its logical conclusion.” The core question “is no longer, ‘Should the state help those who are suffering at the end of life die?’” It is now whether any degree of suffering is worth living with. He concludes, “The lines between assisted suicide for medical reasons ... and straight-up suicide are blurring.”

Brooks clearly identified the bad idea behind these victims: what he calls “autonomy-based liberalism.” In its place, he proposed something called “gifts-based liberalism,” which acknowledges that each of us is a “receiver of gifts ... including the gift of life itself.” That life, Brooks insists, is “sacred” because each of us is endowed with “dignity,” and society has a duty to say, “No, suicide is out of bounds. ... You don’t have the right to make a choice you will never be able to revisit. ... We are responsible for one another.” At least, that is, in most cases, according to Brooks.

He is so close to getting this one right and articulating the sanctity of life in the way Christianity does. That’s why it’s frustrating that Brooks seems to think it’s possible to climb back up the slippery slope and re-establish assisted suicide only for “extreme” cases. He writes, “I don’t have great moral qualms about assisted suicide for people who are suffering intensely in the face of imminent death.”

But, David, the moment you begin setting criteria for when a life is no longer worth living, no longer sacred, and a person no longer deserving of love instead of lethal injection, you let the bad idea that led to all those victims right back in the cultural door! For all his admirable reporting on how bad it has gotten in Canada, Brooks never gets around to answering his core question: Why did Canada’s “medical aid in dying” law – which supposedly limited victims to only those he agrees should have the right to die – become government-sponsored mass suicide in just seven years?

The answer is simple: because the value of human life is not based on any extrinsic quality. Period. It’s instead based on the fact that humans are made in God’s image. We belong to Him, not to ourselves. This is ultimately why the slope from accepting some suicides to all suicides is so slippery. It’s also why “gifts-based liberalism,” until it acknowledges the one who gave us life, will never be able to keep its footing or help those intent on throwing away the very gift.

________

Copyright (c) 2023 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet & Shane Morris via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database depressionvalue of life

The Dangerous Appeal of “Death With Dignity”

Job 3:20

According to a recent article in World magazine, several Australian states have initiated or expanded the practice of euthanasia “down under.” Similar measures were expanded across the Tasman by New Zealand last year, and across the globe in Spain, but failed in Portugal.

Canada’s death laws are being expanded through appeals to allow the mentally ill to die, while Holland and Belgium are still racing to see how far this road actually goes. Here at home, ten U.S. states have “death with dignity” laws.

Every one of these laws advances by an appeal to compassion. It is merciful, we are told, to allow the ill to end their pain in death. Denying death to those who suffer robs human beings of their innate dignity and our future of “a happier world.” Death can be, the rhetoric goes, a gift of love. Couched in explicitly moral terms, euthanasia is offered as the only ethical choice, with any opposition portrayed as heartlessness and cruelty.

The word games played in the euthanasia debate would be impressive if they weren’t so evil. Words such as “illness,” “pain,” “compassion,” “mercy,” and “dignity,” are moving targets. It’s the same game played by some of the worst villains in history.

The movie Ich Klage An (or “I Accuse” in English) was released in German in 1941. In the film, the accused is a society and legal system that refuses to let a young woman die. Hanna Heyt, who suffers greatly from MS, wishes to end her pain. Her doctor refuses but her scientist husband complies. He’s brought to trial for murder, only to level his own accusation against society for its heartlessness in the face of needless agony.

With a few stylistic edits and updated production, one could easily imagine this compassionate appeal for “death with dignity” hitting a theater or streaming service today. It’s all there: a fresh young face full of promise shackled by an incurable disease, an earnest plea for a merciful end to her suffering. A husband’s compassionate struggle to aid his loved one in getting what she wants, offering wise and carefully nuanced counsel to the resisting authorities. The anguished husband’s accusation hits not just the judges, but an entire culture’s supposedly cold heart.

Ich Klage An was produced at the behest of the infamous Joseph Goebbels and his Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, with the goal of selling his new euthanasia program for the chronically ill and disabled. It worked. The movie was so compelling, the Allies banned it in 1945 for its role in enabling the Holocaust.

Our idea of Nazi propaganda is probably more the goose-stepping hyenas in The Lion King but, as one commentator put it:

... Ich Klage An comes across as a well-made, balanced melodrama. Unlike other propaganda films made during the time, there is little Nazi imagery or rhetoric. Yet dig a little deeper, it soon becomes apparent just how slyly and insidiously it pushes active euthanasia.

The film and regime’s same utilitarian view of human dignity advances so-called “death with dignity” laws in our age. And, like the German extermination initiatives, these laws expand every time they are tried. The debate begins with those near death, and quickly expands to those who are terminal, then to those with incurable disease, then to those with permanent conditions, then to the disabled, and finally to the depressed and mentally ill. First, consent is required. Then, it is implied. Finally, it is unnecessary.

Those who advance euthanasia and doctor-assisted suicide laws should have to demonstrate how their arguments differ from Nazi propaganda. If they don’t, it’s time to ask hard questions about this movement expanding so quickly around the world.

________

Learn More...

“Assisted Suicide is Compassionate - What Would You Say?” .

“Killing Over Care in Australia,” World Magazine, .

“Ich Klage An (I Accuse You),” Movie, 1941, .

________

Copyright (c) 2021 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. “BreakPoint” is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet & Timothy D. Padgett via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Most Americans Say Assisted Suicide Morally Acceptable

Job 3:20

The American Medical Association has described physician-assisted suicide as a serious risk to society and “fundamentally incompatible with a physician’s role as healer.” But Millions of Americans disagree, according to a 2016 study by LifeWay Research.

Two-thirds say it is morally acceptable for terminally ill patients to ask their doctors for help in ending their lives. A similar number says doctors should be able to help terminally ill patients die.

Americans want more say over how they die, noted Scott McConnell, executive director of LifeWay Research. That’s especially true if facing a painful, terminal illness, he said.

“Many believe that asking for help in dying is a moral option,” he said. “They don’t believe that suffering until they die of natural causes is the only way out.”

Widespread support

Physician-assisted suicide first became legal in the U.S. in 1997 under Oregon’s “Death with Dignity” law. Since then, 991 patients in Oregon have ended their lives using medications prescribed by a doctor under the law, according to that state’s reports.

Today six states allow physician-assisted suicide. The latest is Colorado, where voters approved Proposition 106, which allows a terminally ill patient to request a fatal dose of sleeping medication, by a two-to-one margin in November. Washington, California, Vermont, and Montana also allow physician-assisted suicide.

The city council in the District of Columbia recently approved a measure allowing the practice -- a decision that must be reviewed by Congress.

In LifeWay Research’s survey, 67 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “When a person is facing a painful terminal disease, it is morally acceptable to ask for a physician’s aid in taking his or her own life.” Thirty-three percent disagree.

While there are differences among demographic groups, most still agree.

For example, Americans age 18 to 24 (77 percent) and those 35 to 44 (63 percent) and 55 to 64 (64 percent) agree. So do white Americans (71 percent) and Hispanic Americans (69 percent). Those with some college education (71 percent) or with graduate degrees (73 percent) and those with high school diplomas or less (61 percent) also agree.

Among faith groups, more than half of all Christians (59 percent), Catholics (70 percent), Protestants (53 percent), Nones (84 percent) and those of other religions (70 percent) agree. Most of those who attend religious services less than once a month (76 percent) also agree.

A few demographic groups are skeptical. Fewer than half of those with evangelical beliefs (38 percent), African-Americans (47 percent) or those who attend religious services at least once a month (49 percent) say physician-assisted suicide is morally acceptable.

“Traditional Christian teaching says God holds the keys to life and death,” McConnell said. “Those who go to church or hold more traditional beliefs are less likely to see assisted suicide as morally acceptable. Still, a surprising number do.”

Few want restrictions on doctors

Researchers also found widespread support for removing restrictions on physician-assisted suicide.

Many Americans (69 percent) say physicians should be allowed to assist terminally ill patients in ending their lives. Thirty-one percent disagree.

Those in the Northeast (73 percent), Catholics (70 percent), white Americans (73 percent), those with graduate degrees (77 percent), Nones (88 percent) and those who skip religious services (78 percent) are among those most likely to agree.

More than half of Southerners (64 percent), African-Americans (53 percent), Protestants (53 percent), those with a high school diploma or less (64 percent) and those who attend services at least once a month (52 percent) also agree.

Again, those with evangelical beliefs (42 percent) do not.

LifeWay Research’s findings echo those of other studies. A 2015 Gallup survey found 68 percent of Americans said physician-assisted suicide should be legal, up from 53 percent in 2013. Gallup also found that support for legalized physician-assisted suicide has wavered over the past 20 years. It previously peaked at 68 percent in 2001 before declining to 53 percent.

The debate over physician-assisted suicide is unlikely to go away, said McConnell, and it raises troublesome questions.

“Such requests are asking doctors to betray one of their most sacred oaths -- which admits, ‘It may also be within my power to take a life,’ but concludes, ‘I must not play at God,’” McConnell said. “To ask physicians to turn from their task of healing is not a decision to make lightly.”

from Baptist Press · Bob Smietana via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database death

Life, the Great Non-Negotiable: Autism and Eugenics

Autism Spectrum Disorder, which runs the gamut from profoundly disabled to high-functioning individuals capable of living fairly normal lives, affects millions of families: 1 out of every 110 births today are autistic kids.

The families of these children, like my grandson Max, don’t see these children as burdens but, instead, as blessings. Not because the parents are in “denial,” but because they love their children, and that love has helped them to see what is really important and where human worth really lies.

Unfortunately, there are many others, unlike these parents, who believe that parents and society would be better off if kids like Max were never born.

And these days, pre-natal testing allows doctors, insurance companies, and prospective parents to determine which babies in the womb will be so-called “normal and healthy,” and which will be born with handicaps. Which is why more and more of them identified with handicaps, like Down Syndrome, are being aborted.

The demonic “logic” behind targeting people with Down Syndrome can be applied to anyone with disabilities. A combination of fear, concern over the costs of caring for these kids, desires for a “perfect” child can prove irresistible. Medical technology may never enable us to “cure” things like autism, but it may enable us to identify — and target — autistic people in the womb.

If you’re thinking “this can’t happen here,” it already has. As Dr. Christopher Hook of the Mayo Clinic warns, “Eugenics is back in America.” Eugenics is the belief that we can improve the human race by eliminating undesirable genetic traits, usually, that is, the people who carry those traits. In fact, the modern eugenics movement began here in the United States. Among its proponents were people like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Margaret Sanger.

Eugenics is so dangerous and pernicious because it represents a radical disrespect for every human life — not just the life of the unborn. Adolf Hitler, an open admirer of the American and German eugenics movements, began eliminating the mentally and physically handicapped years before he started killing Jews.

The re-birth of eugenics in this country doesn’t require Nazi brown-shirts or even new laws. In fact, all it requires is for Christians not to pay attention. Then a combination of medical rationing and other economic and cultural forces will enable the forces of death to follow the demonic “logic” to its deadly conclusion.

So, how do we prevent this? We stand up for life, from conception to natural death. We make it clear to both our “leaders” and the chattering classes that respect for life is the great non-negotiable.

And it’s non-negotiable precisely because of people like Max. He will never pay taxes or hold down a job. He’ll never cure the common cold or cure the economy. But he has brought love and joy into the world in ways I never could have imagined. And I’ll talk more about that Monday.

Please, get a copy of Dancing with Max. I can almost guarantee you’ll fall in love with my grandson. And he’ll teach you exactly why we must resist every effort for humans to play God and decide who lives and who dies.

________

Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

A Life Unworthy of Life?

Job 3:20

The Nazi regime under the leadership of Adolf Hitler employed a policy known as Lebensunwertes Leben, which translated means “Life unworthy of life.” The practice gave the Nazi’s the right to designate segments of the population that in the eyes of the state had no right to live.

People with physical disabilities were the first to be euthanized under the policy. The mentally ill were the next to receive the designation. Eventually anyone deemed a threat to the Nazis and their stated goals were labeled Lebensunwertes Leben. The final horror of the policy was the holocaust of the Jews.

Considering the status of the unborn in the so-called developed nations of the world, it would seem one aspect of the Nazi policy of Lebensunwertes Leben is experiencing a revival.

While no country yet forces the abortion of unborn children with disabilities, the practice, while voluntary, is widely accepted by physicians and individuals alike.

For example, when a doctor recently informed a Canadian couple that the unborn child their surrogate mother was carrying was likely to be born with Down syndrome, they insisted on an abortion, according to the National Post.

The surrogate resisted and sought to take the pregnancy to term. Her decision, according to the terms of the surrogacy contract, would release the couple from any responsibility for the child. The surrogate eventually relented and had the abortion, in part because she already had two children.

The child in Canada was a victim of a growing trend toward the acceptance that some unborn children are simply unworthy to be born.

A variety of studies in the United States have found that when there is a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, 84 to 91 percent of those unborn babies suffer the fate of abortion. A 2004 study in England found that more than 90 percent of prenatal Down syndrome diagnoses ended with abortion.

When you consider that in America the vast majority of abortions take place as a matter of convenience, it should come as no surprise that unborn children diagnosed with probable abnormalities are overwhelmingly aborted.

If a normal and healthy life that is not “planned” or “wanted” can be deemed as Lebensunwertes Leben, then for certain a life viewed as “less than perfect” is going to be easy to label as unworthy to live.

There are concerns among some ethicists that the right to abortion on demand could become the expectation of abortion of the imperfect. In other words, parents might be stigmatized for choosing to give life to a child with birth defects.

The Nazis, of course, moved well beyond the termination of unborn “undesirables.” The policy of Lebensunwertes Leben included anyone that was considered problematic for the state. As a result, anyone deemed unworthy of life by the state were euthanized.

Of course developed nations are not forcibly euthanizing people. However, the idea of people determining their own death is catching on around the world.

Euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, while physician-assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland. In the United States physician-assisted suicide has been deemed legal in Oregon, Washington and Montana.

In the same way ethicists fear abortion could morph from a right into an expectation, some are concerned the same could occur with euthanasia. Some experts in ethics are concerned that the right to die could become the expectation to die.

Those who are terminally ill could feel societal pressure to simply end their lives. Why drain financial resources and put family members through emotional turmoil when you can have a doctor help you painlessly end it all?

Once the expectation to die is accepted for the terminally ill, can the same be far behind for the aged? After all, one of the arguments for physician assisted suicide is “quality of life.”

If a person’s quality of life is diminished for any reason, then euthanasia could be justified. And some would argue that quality of life does diminish with age.

The idea of life unworthy of life is certainly a slippery slope. Who determines if a live is worthy to live? The state? The individual? If an imperfect, innocent life can be deemed unworthy to live, then any life can be threatened with the same designation.

The Nazis sought to force Lebensunwertes Leben on German society. However, in developed countries around the world the concept of “life unworthy of life” is slowly but surely being embraced. The Nazis, it seems, were just ahead of their time.

Confessing Courage: Lothar Kreyssig and the Sanctity of Life

Job 3:20

You have probably never heard of Lothar Kreyssig - I hadn’t until recently. Yet, after hearing his story, I realized Kreyssig was a hero for our times: a man whom, at almost unbelievable risk, stood up for the sanctity of human life. [See a similar story at HolwickID #63002]

In October, 1939, the Third Reich created what came to be known as the “Action T4” program. In furtherance of what the Nazis called “racial hygiene,” Reich bureaucrats, working with doctors, were authorized to identify and kill those deemed to be “unworthy of life,” that is, institutionalized patients with “severe disabilities.”

Of course, expressions like “unworthy” and even “severe” are subjective. In reality, they were a license for mass murder. Hitler called for at least 70,000 people to be killed under this program, so doctors and officials set about meeting the Fuhrer’s quotas.

Fearing domestic and international reaction, the Nazis tried to hide what was going on: they lied to patients’ families and, fore-shadowing Auschwitz, they disguised the gas chambers as showers.

When I think of what happened to those people, especially the children - some like my autistic grandson, Max - it breaks my heart - horrifies me.

The Nazis also took pains to provide a patina of legality to the murders: Hitler personally ordered German judges not to prosecute doctors for killing their patients. And that’s where Kreyssig comes in: He was a highly regarded judge in his native Saxony.

But he was more than a judge - Kreyssig was a leader in the Confessing Church, which resisted the Reich’s efforts to “Nazify” protestant churches. To be a Confessing Churchman, never mind a leader, was to live with a bull’s-eye painted on your back.

As more and more death certificates for mentally ill people crossed his desk, Kreyssig realized that something terrible was happening.

He wrote the Reich Minister of Justice protesting not only the Action T4 program but also the treatment of prisoners in concentration camps. He then charged a doctor with murder in connection with the deaths of his patients.

When he was called into the Minister’s office, where he was told that Hitler himself had authorized the program. To which Kreyssig replied: “The Führer’s word does not create a right.”

The courage to say that to a government official in Nazi Germany was extraordinary. Kreyssig was forced to retire. Although the Gestapo tried to get him sent to a concentration camp, fears over drawing attention to the T4 program probably saved Kreyssig’s life.

He spent the rest of the war at home tending to his farm and, oh yes, hiding Jews on his property.

The only judge to stand up to the Nazis outlived the “1000-year Reich” by forty-one years. Twenty years after his death, Germany held a memorial honoring his bravery and compassion.

In a culture where “go along to get along” was literally a survival strategy, Kreyssig refused to be silent. When the majority of German Potestants adapted the faith to the demands of the Reich, he refused to go along and made it clear that there was a higher law.

Thankfully, defending the sanctity of life nowadays doesn’t require anything like Kreyssig’s courage. But it does require courage. And it requires, as well, as an understanding of Whose Word does create a right.

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Lift Up Your Heads: Von Galen and the Third Reich

Job 3:20

Recently, I told you the story of Lothar Kreyssig, the Protestant German judge who defied the Third Reich’s program to rid Germany of what it called “lives unworthy of life.” [See HolwickID #63000] But while Kreyssig was exceptional, he wasn’t alone.

Clemens August Graf von Galen was the Bishop of Muenster. He became bishop in 1933, the same year Hitler came to power, and from the start he made life difficult for Nazi officials.

He opposed Reich policies in education and its attacks on religious freedom. When others were bending over backwards to avoid provoking the Nazis, von Galen went on the rhetorical offensive: He mocked Nazi ideology and defended the authority of the Old Testament against Nazi attacks.

But von Galen’s most important confrontation with the regime came over the Action T4 program - the Nazi effort to eliminate the physically and mentally disabled. By 1941, Nazi persecution of Catholics, which included sending thousands of priests to concentration camps, had caused leading German prelates, as historian Richard Evans put it, to “[keep] their heads down.”

But as more and more disabled patients were being murdered, keeping one’s head down became tantamount to complicity with evil. What’s more, as von Galen realized, it was futile - because the Nazis were going to persecute the Church, anyway.

So, in July and August of 1941, he delivered a series of sermons that denounced the Nazi regime. He told the German people that if the disabled could be killed with impunity, “then the way is open for the murder of all of us, when we become old and weak and thus unproductive.” If a regime could disregard the commandment against murder, it could do way with the other nine commandments as well.

The sermons caused an international sensation: Copies were sent to German soldiers at the front lines; the BBC read excerpts on the air. The local Nazi leader demanded that von Galen be executed. The bishop’s sister, a nun, was arrested and locked in the nunnery basement, from which she escaped by climbing out the window.

Von Galen himself expected to be martyred. But something extraordinary happened: The Nazis backed down. The bishop’s sermons had galvanized the public: nurses and orderlies began to obstruct the program. So Hitler issued an order suspending the gassing of disabled adults.

While the Nazis did continue to kill the disabled, especially children, they killed fewer and they took pains to hide it. As Evans has written, but for von Galen’s actions, the Nazis would have continued unhindered in their quest to rid German society of “those they continued to be a burden to it.”

Von Galen outlived the Third Reich but not by much: shortly after being made a Cardinal in 1946, he died from an appendix infection. But he wasn’t forgotten: in 2005, he was beatified by the Catholic Church. In Catholic terms, that makes him the “Blessed Clemens von Galen.” But it is we who are blessed by examples like his and that of Lothar Kreyssig. They stood up for life in circumstances we can’t imagine and forced a demonic dictatorship to back down.

Imagine what we could accomplish today with their kind of commitment and courage.

As American As Apple Pie: Eugenics and the War On the Weak

Protestant judge Lothar Kreyssig and Catholic Bishop Clemens von Galen courageously resisted the Nazis’ war on the disabled. Sadly, that war still rages today. And America has been on the front lines for nearly a century.

The story is told in two indispensible books: War Against the Weak by Edwin Black and Better for All the World by Harry Brunius. Both Black and Brunius tell us the all-but-forgotten story of how the United States tried to stop what Theodore Roosevelt called the “wrong type” from perpetuating themselves.

The idea that we can manage who is born and who isn’t is called eugenics. It was the creation of an Englishman (Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin), but it didn’t really take off until it reached America. And whereas Galton’s goal was to persuade the “right type” of people to have more children, his American disciples were more concerned with reducing births among the “wrong type.”

The weapon of choice in what a colleague of mine has called “apple pie eugenics” was forced sterilization. Between 1907 and 1927, “the United States [shockingly] became the pioneer in state-sanctioned programs to rid society of the ‘unfit.’” Thirty states enacted forced-sterilization laws.

And it didn’t take much to be considered “unfit.” New York actually contemplated prohibiting marriage between people who wore glasses and others who didn’t!

Apple-pie eugenics reached its peak in the 1927 Supreme Court case, Buck V. Bell. The famous Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upholding Virginia’s decision to sterilize Carrie Buck, said “It is better for all the world” if “society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He then concluded infamously with the words, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

It didn’t matter that neither Buck nor her mother were “imbeciles” or that the “science” behind eugenics was quackery. What mattered was that it offered the chance to remake society - in other words, to play God.

As Brunius and Black chronicle, what was going in America was closely followed abroad. Countries such as Canada, Sweden and, yes, Germany used American laws as models for their own statutes.

And American eugenicists actually offered both technical and moral support to the Third Reich’s program.

While Nazi crimes and atrocities exposed the horror of eugenics, the idea of playing God, and the war on the weak it entails, has never gone away. What Black calls “newgenics” seeks to achieve many of the same goals in a “kinder, gentler” way.

The most obvious example is prenatal genetic testing. This is how we get Down Syndrome children identified in the womb and kill them. Since we are years, if ever, from being able to fix genetic abnormalities in utero, the logic of prenatal genetic testing is inexorably tied to taking lives, not alleviating suffering.

Just think how society has advanced-now we can solve the problem of the “manifestly unfit” in a way earlier generations of eugenicists could only have dreamed of: getting rid of them without the bad publicity. Who will resist on behalf of the victims?

Do I hear any volunteers?

________

Copyright (c) 2011 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

[see also HolwickID #30866]

Of Babies and Beans? A Frightening Denial of Human Dignity

Adam Gopnik is a gifted essayist and writer whose contributions, often published in The New Yorker, are almost always thoughtful and interesting. Nevertheless, one of his most recent writings is deeply disturbing, and at the deepest level.

Reflecting on the debate between Vice President Joseph Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan, Gopnik registered alarm at “something genuinely disturbing and scary” that had been said by Paul Ryan. Gopnik first complained that Biden and Ryan should not have even been asked about the role their Roman Catholic faith plays in their thinking, specifically on the issue of abortion.

Gopnik then wrote:

“Paul Ryan did not say, as John Kennedy had said before him, that faith was faith and public service, public service, each to be honored and kept separate from the other. No, he said instead ‘I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do.’ That’s a shocking answer — a mullah’s answer, what those scary Iranian “Ayatollahs” he kept referring to when talking about Iran would say as well. Ryan was rejecting secularism itself, casually insisting, as the Roman Catholic Andrew Sullivan put it, that ‘the usual necessary distinction between politics and religion, between state and church, cannot and should not exist.’”

Gopnik accuses Paul Ryan of reasoning like a mullah and rejecting any distinction between church and state. Ryan did no such thing, of course. Instead, Ryan stated the obvious — “Our faith informs us in everything we do.” Any faith of substance will inform every dimension of our lives. It is hard to imagine that Adam Gopnik would have complained or even taken offense if a similar statement had been made, for example, by the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., concerning his advocacy for civil rights.

Our total worldview inevitably “informs us in everything we do.” Paul Ryan was simply responding with honesty, and he did not call for a theocracy. Interestingly, Joseph Biden, though a champion of a woman’s right to choose, has repeatedly claimed the influence of his Roman Catholic faith in other arenas of public policy, especially economics. This has not elicited similar cries from liberals, accusing Biden of attempting to forge a theocracy.

Gopnik attempted to make his position clear, arguing that religious beliefs “should not inform us in everything we do, or there would be no end to the religious warfare that our tolerant founders feared.” Mr. Gopnik would no doubt be surprised to discover that many of the founders were not so tolerant, in his sense, as he believes. A good many argued for the absolute necessity of theism as a foundation for morality and civil society. In any event, does he really believe that a candidate’s most deeply held convictions should have no influence in his or her thinking on the most serious of issues? That is not only impossible; it is absurd.

As off-base as his complaint on this issue is, however, it pales in contrast to the argument Gopnik then turned to make. He referred to the fact that Ryan defended the right to life of the unborn, and that Ryan and his wife had named their unborn first child “Bean” as an affectionate reference to the shape on the ultrasound image. Gopnik asserted that “a bean is exactly what the photograph shows — a seed, a potential, a thing that might yet grow into something greater, just as a seed has the potential to become a tree. A bean is not a baby.”

There is no mistaking Gopnik’s claim — that the image of the unborn Ryan child revealed only a bean, and not a baby.

Gopnik then wrote:

“The fundamental condition of life is that it develops, making it tricky sometimes to say when it’s fully grown and when it isn’t, but always easy to say that there is a difference and that that difference is, well, human life itself. It is this double knowledge that impacts any grownup thinking about abortion: that it isn’t life that’s sacred — the world is full of life, much of which Paul Ryan wants to cut down and exploit and eat done medium rare. It is conscious, thinking life that counts, and where and exactly how it begins (and ends) is so complex a judgment that wise men and women, including some on the Supreme Court, have decided that it is best left, at least at its moments of maximum ambiguity, to the individual conscience (and the individual conscience’s doctor).”

Chillingly, Gopnik limits human dignity to “conscious, thinking life.” This is the life “that counts,” he claimed.

Clearly, Gopnik agrees with those who restrict human dignity to persons who achieve “conscious, thinking life,” and apparently only for so long as they maintain that state of consciousness and thinking ability. This is the horrifying logic of the German doctors of the Weimar Republic who argued that certain human beings were not fully deserving of life — deemed “life unworthy of life.” They argued that certain abilities or characteristics must be acquired and maintained in order for life to be “worthy of life.”

I am quite certain that Adam Gopnik, who writes so movingly of his love of fatherhood, did not mean to associate with the full impact of such an argument, but his own assertions lead to the very same conclusion. We must note that Gopnik goes so far as to cast doubt, not only on when “conscious, thinking life” begins, but where it ends. Did the readers of The New Yorker even notice?

This is the logic of the Culture of Death, and it is an assault upon the dignity and worth of every human being. There was indeed “something genuinely disturbing and scary” said with reference to the Vice Presidential Debate, but it wasn’t said by Paul Ryan. It was written by Adam Gopnik.

________

Adam Gopnik, “Of Babies and Beans: Paul Ryan on Abortion,” The New Yorker, Friday, October 12, 2012. [Warning: The article includes a vulgarism.] http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/of-babies-and-beans-paul-ryan-on-abortion.html

A Life-Or-Death Situation

A Right to Die, a Will to Live: As a bioethicist, Peggy Battin fought for the right of people to end their own lives. After her husband’s cycling accident, her field of study turned unbearably personal.

________

If Margaret Pabst Battin hadn’t had a cold that day, she would have joined her husband, Brooke Hopkins, on his bike ride. Instead Peggy (as just about everyone calls her) went to two lectures at the University of Utah, where she teaches philosophy and writes about end-of-life bioethics. Which is why she wasn’t with Brooke the moment everything changed.

Brooke was cycling down a hill in City Creek Canyon in Salt Lake City when he collided with an oncoming bicycle around a blind curve, catapulting him onto the mountain path. His helmet cracked just above the left temple, meaning Brooke fell directly on his head, and his body followed in a grotesque somersault that broke his neck at the top of the spine. He stopped breathing, turned purple and might have died if a flight-rescue nurse didn’t happen to jog by. The jogger resuscitated and stabilized him, and someone raced to the bottom of the canyon to call 911.

If Peggy had been there and known the extent of Brooke’s injury, she might have urged the rescuers not to revive him. Brooke updated a living will the previous year, specifying that should he suffer a grievous illness or injury leading to a terminal condition or vegetative state, he wanted no procedures done that “would serve only to unnaturally prolong the moment of my death and to unnaturally postpone or prolong the dying process.” But Peggy wasn’t there, and Brooke, who had recently retired as an English professor at the University of Utah, was kept breathing with a hand-pumped air bag during the ambulance ride to University Hospital, three miles away. As soon as he got there, he was attached to a ventilator.

By the time Peggy arrived and saw her husband ensnared in the life-sustaining machinery he hoped to avoid, decisions about intervention already had been made. It was Nov. 14, 2008, late afternoon. She didn’t know yet that Brooke would end up a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the shoulders down.

Suffering, suicide, euthanasia, a dignified death — these were subjects she had thought and written about for years, and now, suddenly, they turned unbearably personal. Alongside her physically ravaged husband, she would watch lofty ideas be trumped by reality — and would discover just how messy, raw and muddled the end of life can be.

In the weeks after the accident, Peggy found herself thinking about the title character in Tolstoy’s “Death of Ivan Ilyich,” who wondered, “What if my whole life has been wrong?” Her whole life had involved writing “wheelbarrows full” of books and articles championing self-determination in dying. And now here was her husband, a plugged-in mannequin in the I.C.U., the very embodiment of a right-to-die case study.

An international leader in bioethics, Peggy explored the right to a good and easeful death by their own hand, if need be, for people who were terminally ill, as well as for those whose lives had become intolerable because of chronic illness, serious injury or extreme old age. She didn’t shy away from contentious words like “euthanasia.” Nor did she run from fringe groups like NuTech, which is devoted to finding more-efficient methods of what it calls self-deliverance, or Soars (Society for Old Age Rational Suicide), which defends the right of the “very elderly” to choose death as a way to pre-empt old-age catastrophes. She also found common purpose with more-mainstream groups, like Compassion and Choices, that push for legislation or ballot initiatives to allow doctors to help “hasten death” in the terminally ill (which is now permitted, with restrictions, in Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont). And she testified in trials on behalf of individuals seeking permission to end their lives legally with the help of a doctor or a loved one.

At the heart of her argument was her belief in autonomy. “The competent patient can, and ought to be accorded the right to, determine what is to be done to him or her, even if ... it means he or she will die,” she wrote in 1994 in “The Least Worst Death,” the third of her seven books about how we die.

Peggy traces her interest in death to her mother’s difficult one, from liver cancer, when Peggy was 21. Only later, when she started in order to write fiction in an M.F.A. program at the University of California, Irvine, (which she completed while getting her doctorate in philosophy and raising two young children) did she realize how much that event had shaped her thinking. Her short stories “all looked like bioethics problems,” she says, wrestling with topics like aging, mental competence, medical research, suicide — moral quandaries she would be mining for the rest of her life.

Fiction allowed her to riff on scenarios more freely than philosophy did, so she sometimes used it in her scholarly writing. In “Ending Life: Ethics and the Way We Die,” published in 2005, she included two short stories: a fictional account of an aged couple planning a tandem suicide to make way for the younger generation, until one of them has a change of heart; and a story based on an actual experience in grad school, when Peggy had to help a scientist kill the dogs in his psych experiment. The point of including the second story, she wrote in the book’s introduction, was to ground her philosophical arguments in something more elemental, “the unsettling, stomach-disturbing, conscience-trying unease” of being involved in any death, whether through action, as happened in that laboratory, or acquiescence.

When Peggy finished her doctorate in 1976, the right-to-die debate was dominated by the media spectacle around Karen Ann Quinlan, a comatose young woman whose parents went to the New Jersey Supreme Court for permission to withdraw her from life support. It helped Peggy clarify her thoughts about death with dignity and shaped her belief in self-determination as a basic human right. “A person should be accorded the right to live his or her life as they see fit (provided, of course, that this does not significantly harm others), and that includes the very end of their life,” she wrote in one of her nearly 40 journal articles on this subject. “That’s just the way I see it.”

That’s the way she saw it after Brooke’s accident too, but with a new spiky awareness of what it means to choose death. Scholarly thought experiments were one thing, but this was a man she adored — a man with whom she shared a rich and passionate life for more than 30 years — who was now physically devastated but still free, as she knew he had to be, to make a choice that would cause her anguish.

“It is not just about terminally ill people in general in a kind of abstract way now,” she wrote after the accident; “it’s also about my husband, Brooke. I still love him, that’s a simple fact. What if he wanted to die? Can I imagine standing by while his ventilator was switched off?”

Before the collision, Brooke was known for his gusto. “At parties he was the one who ate the most, drank the most, talked the loudest, danced the longest,” one friend recalls. A striking 6-foot-5, he had a winning smile and a mess of steely gray hair and was often off on some adventure with friends. He went on expeditions to the Himalayas, Argentina, Chile, China, Venezuela and more; closer to home, he often cycled, hiked or backcountry skied in the mountains around Salt Lake City. In addition, Brooke, who had a bachelor’s degree and a doctorate from Harvard, was a popular English professor who taught British and American literature with a special fondness for the poetry of Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron and Keats.

All that energy went absolutely still at the moment of his collision. When Brooke woke up in the I.C.U., his stepson, Mike, was at the bedside and had to tell Brooke that he might never again walk, turn over or breathe on his own. Brooke remained silent — he was made mute by the ventilation tube down his throat — but he thought of Keats:

The feel of not to feel it,

When there is none to heal it

Nor numbed sense to steel it.

“Those words, ‘the feel of not to feel it,’ suddenly meant something to me in ways that they never had before,” he wrote later on a blog his stepdaughter, Sara, started to keep people apprised of his progress. “My suffering was going to be a drop in the bucket compared to all the human suffering experienced by people throughout human history, but still, it was going to be a suffering nevertheless.”

Brooke took some solace in Buddhism, which he began exploring when he was in his 40s. A few weeks after the accident, a local Buddhist teacher, Lama Thupten Dorje Gyaltsen, came to his hospital room. “The body is ephemeral,” Lama Thupten declared, gesturing at his own body under his maroon-and-saffron robe. He urged Brooke to focus on his mind. At the time, it was a comfort to think that his mind, which seemed intact, was all that mattered. It meant he could still be the same man he always was even if he never moved again. But as much as he yearned to believe it, Brooke’s subsequent experiences — spasms, pain, catheterizations, bouts of pneumonia, infected abscesses in his groin — have made him wary of platitudes. He still wants to believe the mind is everything. But he has learned that no mind can fly free of a useless body’s incessant neediness.

One gray morning in February, more than four years after the accident, I met Brooke and Peggy at their home in the Salt Lake City neighborhood known as the Avenues. Brooke rolled into the living room in his motorized wheelchair. It was a month before his 71st birthday, and his handsome face was animated by intense, shiny brown eyes, deep-set under a bristly awning of brow. He was dressed as usual: a pullover, polyester pants that snap open all the way down each leg, a diaper and green Crocs. A friend was reading on a couch nearby, a caregiver was doing her schoolwork in the kitchen and Peggy had retreated upstairs to her office amid towers of papers, books and magazines. She had finally gained some momentum on a project that was slowed by Brooke’s accident: a compendium of philosophical writings about suicide, dating as far back as Aristotle.

Peggy, who is 72, still works full time. This lets her hold on to the university’s excellent health insurance, which covers a large portion of Brooke’s inpatient care and doctor bills, with Medicare paying most of the rest of them. But even with this double coverage, Peggy spends a lot of time arguing with insurance companies that balk at expenditures like his $45,000 wheelchair. And she still pays a huge amount of the cost, including nearly $250,000 a year to Brooke’s caregivers, 12 mostly young and devoted health care workers who come in shifts so there’s always at least one on duty. Peggy says she and Brooke were lucky to have had a healthy retirement fund at the time of the accident, but she doesn’t know how many more years they will be able to sustain this level of high-quality 24-hour care.

Scattered around the living room were counter-height stools that Peggy picked up at yard sales. She urges visitors to pull them up to Brooke’s wheelchair, because he’s tall and the stools bring most people to eye level. About two years ago, Brooke used a ventilator only when he slept, but following a series of infections and other setbacks, he was now on the ventilator many of his waking hours, too, along with a diaphragmatic pacer that kept his breathing regular. Earlier that morning his caregiver adjusted the ventilator so he and I could talk, deflating the cuff around his tracheostomy tube to allow air to pass over his larynx. This let him speak the way everyone does, vocalizing as he exhaled. It seemed to tire him, though; his pauses became longer as our conversation went on. But whenever I suggested that we stop for a while so he could rest, Brooke insisted that he wanted to keep talking.

What he wanted to talk about was how depressed he was. He recognized the feeling, having struggled with bipolar disorder since adolescence. “It takes a long time to get ready for anything,” he said about his life now. “To get up in the morning, which I kind of hate, to have every day be more or less the same as every other day ... and then to spend so much time going to bed. Day after day, day after day, day after day.”

Brooke has good days and bad days. When friends are around playing blues harmonica or reading aloud to him, when his mind is clear and his body is not in pain — that’s a good day. On a good day, he said, he feels even more creative than he was in his able-bodied life, and his relationships with Peggy, his two stepchildren and his many friends are richer and more intimate than before; he has no time or patience for small talk, and neither do they. Every so often he’ll turn to Peggy and announce, “I love my life.”

On a good day, Brooke’s voice is strong, which lets him keep up with reading and writing with voice-recognition software. A caregiver arranges a Bluetooth microphone on his head, and he dictates e-mail and races through books by calling out, “Page down,” when he reaches the bottom of a screen. On a good day, he also might get outside for a while.”I like to take long walks, quote unquote, in the park,” he told me. “There’s a graveyard somewhat lugubriously next to us that I like to go through,” pushed in his wheelchair by a caregiver with Peggy alongside. A couple of years ago, he and Peggy bought two plots there; they get a kick out of visiting their burial sites and taking in the view.

But on bad days these pleasures fade, and everything about his current life seems bleak. These are days when physical problems — latent infections, low oxygen levels, drug interactions or, in a cruel paradox of paralysis, severe pain in his motionless limbs — can lead to exhaustion, depression, confusion and even hallucinations. As Brooke described these darker times, Peggy came down from her office and sat nearby, half-listening. She has bright blue eyes and a pretty, freckled face fringed by blond-white hair. Most days she wears jeans and running shoes and a slightly distracted expression. She takes long hikes almost daily, and once a week tries to squeeze in a Pilates session to help treat her scoliosis. Each body harbors its own form of decay, and this is Peggy’s; the scoliosis is getting worse as she ages.

She walked over to us, bent crookedly at the waist, and gently kissed Brooke’s forehead. “Depression is not uncommon in winter,” she said in the soft voice she almost always uses with him. “It’s important to think positive thoughts.”

“Basically I dislike being dependent, that’s all,” he said, looking hard into her eyes. He spit some excess saliva into a cup.

“It’s something you never complain about,” she said. “You’re not a big complainer.”

“One thing I don’t like is people speaking for me, though.”

Peggy looked a bit stung. “And that includes me?” she asked.

“Yes,” he said, still looking into her eyes. “I don’t like that.”

She made an effort not to get defensive. “Well, sometimes that has to happen, for me to speak for you,” she began. “But ... but not always. I try not to.”

Brooke seemed sorry to have spoken up; it was clear he didn’t want to hurt her. “I’m trying to be as frank as possible,” he said.

“No, it’s good,” she assured him, her protective instincts clicking in. “It helps me for you to say that, to tell me what you would have wanted to say instead.”

All Brooke could muster was a raspy, “Yep.”

“The most important thing is to not speak for someone else,” Peggy insisted.

“Yep,” Brooke repeated. “What I want to do most right now is be quiet and read.” So Peggy and I left him in the living room, where the big-screen monitor was queued up to Chapter 46 of “Moby-Dick.” “Page down,” he called out, forced to keep repeating it like a mantra because his speech was croaky and the software had trouble recognizing the phrase. “Page down. Page down.”

For Brooke, what elevates his life beyond the day-to-day slog of maintaining it — the vast team effort required to keep his inert sack of a body fed and dressed and clean and functioning — is his continuing ability to teach part time through the University of Utah’s adult-education program. During my February visit, I sat in on one of his classes, which he teaches with Michael Rudick, another retired English professor from the university. Some two dozen students, most over 60, crammed into Brooke’s living room for a discussion of “Moby-Dick.” Conversation turned to the mind-body problem. “Melville is making fun here of Descartes, as though you could exist as a mind without a body,” said Howard Horwitz, who teaches in the English department and was helping out that day.

Brooke seemed exhausted and sat quietly, impassive as Buddha as his ventilator sighed. At one point a student called out to ask what Brooke thought about a particular passage. He responded with an oblique, “I’d much rather hear what you think,” and was silent for the rest of the class. The discussion continued with the two other professors taking charge. There was an almost forced animation, as if the students had tacitly agreed to cover for a man they loved, admired and were worried about.

When Peggy arrived late — she was at a meeting on campus — Brooke flashed her one of his dazzling smiles. His eyes stayed on her as she positioned herself near an old baby grand that hugs a corner of the living room, a memento from Brooke’s parents’ house in Baltimore. Above the piano is a huge painting that Peggy got years ago, a serial self-portrait of a dark-haired figure with a mustache — six full-body images of the same man in various stages of disappearing.

“He’s never looked this bad,” Peggy whispered to me during the break as students milled around. She went to Brooke and kissed his forehead. “Are you O.K.?” she asked softly.

“I’m fine,” he said. “Don’t worry.”

They have this exchange a lot: Peggy leaning in to ask if he’s O.K., Brooke telling her not to worry, Peggy worrying anyway. Quietly, so the students wouldn’t hear, she asked the respiratory therapist on duty, Jaycee Carter, when Brooke last had his CoughAssist therapy, a method that forces out mucus that can clog his lungs. “Three hours ago,” Jaycee said. But Brooke said he didn’t want it while the class was there: it’s noisy, and it brings up a lot of unsightly phlegm. As students started to head back to their seats, Peggy lit on a more discreet alternative: a spritz of albuterol, used in asthma inhalers to relax the airways, into his trach tube. Jaycee stood by awaiting instructions, Brooke kept shaking his head — no albuterol, not now, no — and Peggy kept insisting. At last, annoyance prickling his expressive eyebrows, he gave in, and Jaycee did as she was told. But the albuterol didn’t help.

Peggy retreated to the piano as the class resumed, her eyes brimming. “This is bad,” she murmured. “This is really bad.” Underlying her anxiety was a frightening possibility: that Brooke’s inability to teach that day was the start of a progressive decline. Up until then, his occasional mental fogginess was always explained by something transient, like an infection. But if he were to lose his intellectual functioning, he would be robbed of all the things that still give his life meaning: teaching, writing and interacting with the people he loves. If that day ever came, it would provoke a grim reckoning, forcing Brooke to rethink — provided he was still capable of thinking — whether this is a life worth holding onto.

After class, Jaycee wheeled Brooke to the dining area so he could sit with Peggy and me as we ate dinner. Brooke doesn’t eat anymore. Last August he had a feeding tube inserted as a way to avoid the dangerous infections and inflammations that were constantly sending him to the hospital. If he doesn’t chew, drink or swallow, there’s less chance that food or fluid will end up in his lungs and cause aspiration pneumonia.

In his prior life, Brooke couldn’t have imagined tolerating a feeding tube; he loved eating too much. In fact, when he updated his living will in 2007, he specifically noted his wish to avoid “administration of sustenance and hydration.” But the document had a caveat found in most advance directives, one that has proved critical in negotiating his care since the accident: “I reserve the right to give current medical directions to physicians and other providers of medical services so long as I am able,” even if they conflict with the living will.

Thus a man who had always taken great joy in preparing, sharing and savoring food decided to give up his final sensory pleasure in order to go on living. He swears he doesn’t miss it. He had already been limited to soft, easy-to-swallow foods with no seeds or crunchiness — runny eggs, yogurt, mashed avocado. And as much as he loved the social aspects of eating, the long conversations over the last of the wine, he managed, with some gentle prodding from Peggy, to think of the feeding tube as a kind of liberation. After all, as she explained on the family blog, Brooke could still do “almost all the important things that are part of the enjoyment of food” — he could still smell its aroma, admire its presentation, join in on the mealtime chatter, even sample a morsel the way a wine taster might, chewing it and then discreetly spitting it out. Maybe, she wrote, “being liberated from the crass bodily necessity of eating brings you a step closer to some sort of nirvana.”

Or as Brooke put it to me in his unvarnished way: “You can get used to anything.”

Brooke kept nodding off as he sat watching us eat — the class had really drained him — but Peggy kept him up until 9 o’clock, when his hourlong bedtime ritual begins. After Jaycee brought him to his room, she and the night-shift caregiver hoisted him from his wheelchair and into the bed using an elaborate system of ceiling tracks, slings and motorized lifts; changed him into a hospital gown; washed his face and brushed his teeth; emptied his bladder with a catheter; strapped on booties and finger splints to position his extremities; hooked him up to the ventilator; and set up four cans of Replete Fiber to slowly drip into his feeding tube as he slept. The ritual ended with what Brooke and Peggy think of as the most important part of the day, when Brooke finally is settled into bed and Peggy takes off her shoes and climbs in, too, keeping him company until he gets sleepy. (Peggy sleeps in a new bedroom she had built upstairs.) There they lie, side by side in his double-wide hospital bed, their heads close on the pillow, talking in the low, private rumbles of any intimate marriage.

Throughout the first half of last year, Brooke had severe pain in his back and legs, and all the remedies he tried — acupuncture, cortisone shots, pressure-point therapy, nerve-impulse scrambling — were useless. At one point last summer, he decided he couldn’t go on living that way. “Pain eats away at your soul,” he wrote on July 28, 2012, using his voice-recognition software to dictate what he called a “Final Letter” to his loved ones, explaining why he now wanted to die:

For many years since the accident I have been motivated by a deep will to live and to contribute to the benefit of others in my small way. I think I have done that. And I am proud of it. But as I have told Peggy over the past few months, I knew that I would reach a limit to what I could do. And I have arrived at the limit over the past couple of weeks.

He had thoughts like this before, but this time it felt different to Peggy, who proofread and typed the letter; the longing for death felt like something carefully considered, something serious and sincere. This was an autonomous, fully alert person making a decision about his own final days — the very situation she had spent her career defending. She reasoned that Brooke had the right, as a mentally competent patient, to reject medical interventions that could further prolong his life, even though he did not live in a state where assisted suicide was explicitly legal. And if he wanted to reject those interventions now, after four years of consenting to every treatment, Peggy was ready to help. She shifted from being Brooke’s devoted lifeline to being the midwife to his death.

She knew from a hospice nurse that one way to ease a patient’s dying included morphine for “air hunger,” Haldol for “delusions and end-of-life agitation” and Tylenol suppositories for “end-of-life fever, 99 to 101 degrees.” Another nurse mentioned morphine, Haldol and the sedative Ativan; a third talked about Duragesic patches to deliver fentanyl, a potent opium alternative used for pain. Peggy also tried to find out whether cardiologists would ever be willing to order deactivation of a pacemaker at a very ill patient’s request (probably, she was told). She kept pages of scribbled notes in a blue folder marked “Death and Dying.” She had also taken careful notes when Brooke started to talk about his funeral. He told her what music he wanted, including a few gospel songs by Marion Williams, and which readings from Wordsworth’s “Lucy Poems” and Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass.” On his gravestone, he might like a line from Henry Adams: “A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops.” These were good conversations, but they left him, he told Peggy, “completely emotionally torn up.”

Then in early August, fluid started accumulating in Brooke’s chest cavity, a condition known as pleural effusion, and he had trouble breathing, even on the ventilator. He was uncomfortable and becoming delirious. Other people, including a few of Brooke’s caregivers, might have seen this as a kind of divine intervention — a rapid deterioration just when Brooke was longing for death anyway, easing him into a final release. But that’s not how Peggy saw it. This was not the death Brooke wanted, confused and in pain, she explained to me later; he had always spoken of a “generous death” for which he was alert, calm, present and surrounded by people he loved. So she consulted with a physician at the hospital about whether Brooke would improve if doctors there extracted the fluid that was causing the respiratory distress. In the end, she decided to ignore the “Final Letter.” She went upstairs, got dressed and, along with the caregiver on duty, put Brooke into the wheelchair-accessible van in the driveway and drove him to the emergency room.

This put Brooke back in the hospital with heavy-duty antibiotics treating yet another lung problem. During his three-week stay he recovered enough to make his own medical decisions again — which is when he consented to the insertion of the feeding tube. He also met with a palliative-care expert, who suggested trying one more pain treatment: low-dose methadone around the clock, five milligrams at exactly 9 a.m. and exactly 9 p.m., every day. With the methadone, Brooke’s pain was at last manageable. Now when he reflects on that hospitalization, he thinks of it as having a “happy ending.” In the “Death and Dying” folder is one last penciled note from Peggy dated Aug. 18, 2012: “10:37 a.m. Brooke says he wants to ‘soldier on’ despite difficulties.”

A couple of days after Brooke and Peggy talked about his not wanting anyone to speak for him, the subject came up again. Peggy raised it as we all sat in the living room. At first she did all the talking, unwittingly acting out the very problem under discussion. So I interrupted with a direct question to Brooke. Why, I asked, do you think Peggy sometimes does the talking for you?

“I think it’s because she’s concerned about me and wants the best for me,” he said. He made the gesture I’d watched him make before, lifting the tops of his shoulders, over which he still has motor control, in a resigned-looking little shrug. In light of such pervasive dependency, that shrug seemed to say, how can a loving, well-meaning wife help but sometimes overstep in her eagerness to anticipate her husband’s needs?

I asked Brooke if Peggy ever misunderstood what he meant to say.

“I don’t know, ask her,” he said. But Peggy saw the irony there and urged Brooke to speak up for himself.

“Occasionally, yes,” he said, though he couldn’t think of any specific instances.

When she makes a mistake, I asked, do you ever correct her?

“No, because I don’t want to upset her.” His brown eyes got very big.

She: “It would be O.K.”

He: “O.K.”

She: “It would help me if you would say to me — “

He: “O.K., O.K., O.K.”

She: “I think this issue is especially important.... What you’ve wanted has fluctuated a lot, and part of it is to try to figure out what’s genuine and what’s a part of response to the pain. That’s the hardest part for me, when you say: ‘I don’t want to go to the hospital ever again, I don’t like being in the hospital and I don’t want to be sick. If the choice is going to the hospital or dying, I’ll take the dying.’ “

Peggy turned to me. She wanted me to understand her thinking on this. It’s so hard to know what Brooke wants, she explained, because there have been times when she has taken him to the hospital, and he later says that she made the right call. It’s so hard, she repeated. She has to be able to hear how a transient despair differs from a deep and abiding decision to die. She believes he hasn’t made that deep, abiding decision yet, despite the “Final Letter.”

She understands him well enough, she told me, to know when his apparent urgency is just a reflection of his dramatic way of presenting things: his deep voice, his massive size, his grimaces. “Brooke is very expressive when he’s in his full self,” she said.

Watching the dependence, indignity and sheer physical travail that Brooke must live through every day, Peggy told me, she doesn’t think she would have the stamina to endure a devastating injury like his. “It seems not what I’d want,” she said when I asked if she would choose to stay alive if she were paralyzed. While she might not want to persevere in such a constrained and difficult life, she believes that Brooke does want to, and she tends to interpret even his most anguished cries in a way that lets her conclude that he doesn’t quite mean what he says. But she worries that others in his life, even the caregivers who have become so close to him, might not be able to calibrate the sincerity of those over-the-top pleas and might leap too quickly to follow his instructions if he yelled out about wanting to end it all.

Suzy Quirantes, the senior member of the caregiving team, a trained respiratory therapist who has been with Brooke since the day he came home in 2010, sees it a bit differently. “I’ve worked with death a lot,” she told me. She thinks there have been times when Peggy has been unable to hear Brooke’s heartfelt expressions of a desire to die. “Last year, right after the feeding tube, he kept refusing his therapies,” she said. “And I said, ‘If you’re really serious, if you’re done, I need you to be very clear, and you need to be able to talk to Peggy so she understands.’” He never did talk to Peggy, though — maybe because he wasn’t clear in his own mind what he wanted. “He has said, ‘I’m done,’ and then when we kind of talk more about it, he gets scared,” Suzy said. “He says: ‘What I mean is I’m done doing this stuff in the hospital. But I’m not ready to die yet.’ “

The tangled, sometimes contradictory nature of Brooke’s feelings has led to subtle shifts in Peggy’s scholarly thinking. She still believes that, whenever possible, people have the right to choose when and how to die. But she now better understands how vast and terrifying that choice really is. “What has changed,” she told me, “is my sense of how extremely complex, how extremely textured, any particular case is.” This realization is infinitely more fraught when you’re inextricably invested in the outcome and when the signals your loved one sends are not only hard to read but also are constantly in flux.

The only consistent choice Brooke has made — and he’s made it again and again every time he gives informed consent for a feeding tube or a diaphragmatic pacer, every time he permits treatment of an infection or a bedsore — is the one to stay alive. This is the often-unspoken flip side of the death-with-dignity movement that Peggy has long been a part of. Proponents generally focus on only one branch of the decision tree: the moment of choosing death. There’s much talk of living wills, D.N.R. orders, suicide, withdrawal of life support, exit strategies. Brooke’s experience has forced Peggy to step back from that moment to an earlier one: the moment of confronting one’s own horrific circumstances and choosing, at least for now, to keep on living. But the reasons for that choice are complicated too. Brooke told me that he knows Peggy is a strong person who will recover from his death and move on. But he has also expressed a desire not to abandon her. And Peggy worries that sometimes Brooke is saying he wants to keep fighting and stay alive not because that’s what he wants, but because he thinks that’s what she wants him to want. And to further complicate things, it’s not even clear what Peggy really wants him to want. Her own desires seem to shift from day to day. One thing that doesn’t change, though: She is deeply afraid of misunderstanding Brooke’s wishes in a way that can’t be undone. The worst outcome, to her, would be to think that this time he really does want to die and then to feel as if she might have been wrong.

Since Brooke’s accident, Peggy has continued to advocate for people seeking to die. She went to Vancouver in late 2011 to testify in court in the case of Gloria Taylor, a woman with ALS who wanted help ending her life when she was ready. And in 2012, she presented testimony by Skype in the case of Marie Fleming, an Irishwoman with multiple sclerosis who was making a similar request. The plaintiffs were a lot like Brooke, cognitively intact with progressively more useless bodies. But they felt a need to go to court to assure they would have control in the timing of their own deaths. Brooke has not. Perhaps that’s because he believes that Peggy will follow through on a plan to help him die if that’s what he ultimately chooses.

Those seeking to end their lives are up against opponents who say that helping the terminally ill to die will lead eventually to pressure being put on vulnerable people — the elderly, the poor, the chronically disabled, the mentally ill — to agree to die to ease the burden on the rest of us. Peggy doesn’t buy it. The scholarly work she is most proud of is a study she conducted in 2007, which is one of the first to look empirically at whether people are being coerced into choosing to end their lives. Peggy was reassured when she and her colleagues found that in Oregon and the Netherlands, two places that allow assisted dying, the people who used it tended to be better off and more educated than the people in groups considered vulnerable.

What Peggy has become more aware of now is the possibility of the opposite, more subtle, kind of coercion — not the influence of a greedy relative or a cost-conscious state that wants you to die, but pressure from a much-loved spouse or partner who wants you to live. The very presence of these loved ones undercuts the notion of true autonomy. We are social beings, and only the unluckiest of us live in a vacuum; for most, there are always at least a few people who count on us, adore us and have a stake in what we decide. Everyone’s autonomy abuts someone else’s.

During Peggy’s cross-examination in the Gloria Taylor trial, the Canadian government’s lawyer tried to argue that Brooke’s choice to keep living weakened Peggy’s argument in favor of assisted suicide. Isn’t it true, the lawyer asked, that “this accident presented some pretty profoundly serious challenges to your thinking on the subject?”

Yes, Peggy said, but only by provoking the “concerted re-re-rethinking” that any self-respecting philosopher engages in. She remained committed to two moral constructs in end-of-life decision making: autonomy and mercy. “Only where both are operating — that is, where the patient wants to die and dying is the only acceptable way for the patient to avoid pain and suffering — is there a basis for physician-assisted dying,” she told the court in an affidavit. “Neither principle is sufficient in and of itself and, in tandem, the two principles operate as safeguards against abuse.”

One morning in April, I called to speak with Peggy and Brooke. Peggy told me that when I was there in February, Brooke had an undiagnosed urinary tract infection that affected both his body and his clarity of thinking. It had since cleared up, she said. “He’s a different person than the one you saw.” The possibility that he’d begun a true cognitive decline was averted, at least for the time being.

“I’m cautiously happy about life in general,” Brooke said on speakerphone, stopping between phrases to catch his breath. “I’m getting stronger. Working hard. Loving my teaching. My friends and caregivers. My wife.”

I asked about Brooke’s “Final Letter” from last summer. I was still trying to understand why Peggy had ignored it, just days after she typed it up for him, and instead took him to the E.R. to treat his pleural effusion. Why hadn’t she just let the infection end his life?

“Brooke had always said, ‘I’m willing to go to the hospital for something that’s reversible, but I don’t want to die in the hospital,’ “ she said, as Brooke listened in on the speakerphone. So she had to “intuit” whether this was something reversible, and she believed it was. “This didn’t feel like the end,” she said, “but of course you don’t know that for sure.” In addition, there was that image in her mind of Brooke’s ideal of a “generous death.” It’s hard to say whether she’ll ever think conditions are exactly right for the kind of death Brooke wants.

The next day I learned that a few hours after my phone call, Brooke suddenly became agitated and started to yell. “Something bad is happening,” he boomed. “I’m not going to make it through the morning.” Peggy and the caregiver on duty, Jaycee, tried to figure out what might have brought this on, just hours after he told me he was “cautiously happy.” He had gone the previous two nights without his usual Klonopin, which treats his anxiety; maybe that was the explanation. Or maybe discussing his “Final Letter” with me, remembering the desperation of that time, had upset him. He was also getting ready for the first class of a new semester, covering the second half of “Moby-Dick”; maybe he was experiencing the same teaching anxiety that had plagued him his whole career.

Deciding that Brooke was having a panic attack, Peggy told Jaycee to give him half a dose of Klonopin. She did, but things got worse. Brooke’s eyes flashed with fear, and he yelled to Peggy that he was about to do something terrible to her — meaning, she guessed, that he was going to die and leave her alone. Finally he announced that he wanted to turn off all the machines. Everything. He wanted to be disconnected from all the tubes and hoses that were keeping him alive. He was ready to die.

Peggy and Jaycee did what he asked. They turned off the ventilator and disconnected it from the trach, and placed a cap at the opening in his throat. They turned off the oxygen. They turned off the external battery for the diaphragmatic pacer. They showed Brooke that everything was disconnected.

Brooke sat back in his wheelchair then and closed his eyes. There were no tears, no formal goodbyes; it all happened too quickly for that. He sat there waiting to die, ready to die, and felt an incredible sense of calm.

Two minutes passed. Three minutes passed. He opened his eyes and saw Peggy and Jaycee sitting on stools, one on either side, watching him.

“Is this a dream?” he asked.

“No, it’s not a dream.”

“I didn’t die?”

To Brooke, it was a kind of miracle — all the machinery had been shut off, just as he asked, but he was still alive. He felt refreshed, as if he had made it through some sort of trial. He asked Jaycee to reattach everything, and three hours later, after he had a nap, his students arrived to start the new semester, and Brooke began teaching “Moby-Dick” again.

But it was no miracle. “I know what his medical condition is,” Peggy told me later, out of Brooke’s earshot. “The reason he didn’t die is he’s not at the moment fully vent-dependent anymore. He can go without oxygen for a while, and he can go with the pacer turned off for some time.” She didn’t say any of this to Brooke. “It seems to have been such an epiphany, such a discovery, when he woke up and discovered he was still alive,” she said. “I don’t really want to puncture that bubble.”

If for some reason Brooke had become unconscious, she and Jaycee would have revived him, Peggy told me, because she didn’t believe he really wanted to die. She thinks what he really wanted was to believe he had a measure of control, that he could ask for an end to his life and be heard. “We showed him that we would do what he asked for,” she said, “and he thought it was real.” But it wasn’t real, I said. It all sounded like an elaborate end-of-life placebo, an indication that in fact he was not in control, that he wasn’t being heard. Peggy laughed and did not disagree.

She’s not good at keeping secrets from Brooke, though, and by the time I contacted them both by Skype later in the week, she’d told him the truth about that afternoon. In retrospect, Brooke said, the whole thing seemed kind of comical. He mimed it for me, leaning back with his eyes closed waiting for the end to come, then slowly opening them, raising his eyebrows practically to his hairline, overacting like a silent-film star tied to the tracks who slowly realizes the distant train will never arrive. He looked good, handsome in his burgundy polo shirt, mugging for the webcam. Some new crisis, some new decision, was inevitable — in fact, last month it took the form of another farewell letter, stating his desire to die in the spring of 2014, which is when he expects to be finished teaching his next course, on “Don Quixote.” But at that moment, Brooke was feeling good. “I think it will be a productive summer,” he said. And he and Peggy smiled.

A Moral 'right' To Die?

Philippians 1:21

The Pew Research Center has released results of a study on views of end of life medical treatment. Among the findings is how different faith groups view the morality of ending life.

A fourth of evangelicals believe a person has a moral right to suicide if he or she “is ready to die, living is now a burden” (25 percent) or if that person “is an extremely heavy burden on family” (24 percent).

When the situation is escalated to an incurable disease, 36 percent of white evangelicals believe a person has a moral right to suicide. If the patient “is in a great deal of pain” with “no hope of improvement,” the percentage increases to 42 percent.

Should we be surprised by these increasing numbers? Is it concerning that growing percentages of evangelicals (and every other religious category) view suicide as a moral right?

When I was a seminary student, I took a class on the ethics of life and death. One of my classmates made a presentation asserting that he would rather take his life than live through a difficult disease. He based his conclusion on the words of Philippians 1:21, “For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.”

My classmate rebuffed any attempts to be talked out of his view that his moral right -- even his biblical right -- was to take the supposed perspective of the apostle Paul and seek death in order to be united with Christ.

While the Pew Research Center did not equate the changing views of faith groups with the Pauline declaration of Philippians 1:21, I cannot help but think that is at least in the background. Is this what Paul meant? Did he really intend to encourage Christians to seek death over life in difficult circumstances?

Let’s consider what was happening in Paul’s life.

In Philippians 1:7, we see that Paul has been imprisoned. He is fighting for his own freedom (and possibly his life) in front of the Roman authorities. Even though Paul was a Roman citizen and may have spent some of his imprisonment in house arrest, the Roman authorities were still not known for making the lives of their prisoners as comfortable as possible. In fact, it is likely that Paul considered his own life to be at risk from the Roman government. His spirits are buoyed by the love and affection of the believers in Philippi (Philippians 1:3–11), but life is still hard.

Taken out of context, Philippians 1:21 seems to be Paul’s final desire for death in the face of his circumstances. But we need to take a closer look. He goes on to say, “But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose” (Philippians 1:22). Verse 22 puts Paul’s struggle in context. He knows that if he continues living he will be fruitful spreading the Gospel, but if his life ends he will be united with Christ.

We then read the following: “But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith, so that your proud confidence in me may abound in Christ Jesus through my coming to you again” (Philippians 1:23–26).

Paul sets aside his own personal desire to be united with Christ and sets his sights on living for the benefit of those he loves. He considers it to be more necessary that his sufferings continue for the sake of the Philippians so that they will progress in their faith.

Now let’s revisit the topic at hand. Do we have a moral right to suicide? The text most often employed to justify this right (Philippians 1:21) actually compels us to continue living for the sake of others. No matter how bad the circumstances are, our suffering can be beneficial for the faith of others.

Suicide is often considered an escape from the pain of this world. No one desires to endure an extended bout with a terminal illness. No one wants to be a burden on family. However, claiming a moral right to suicide does not take into account the biblical understanding of the value of life and how persevering in terrible circumstances can build the faith of others and advance the Gospel.

Getting It Over With: What Euthanasia Steals From Us

Facing an unpleasant circumstance, sometimes we just want to “get it over with.” But that’s no way to approach people at the end of their life.

We talked recently on BreakPoint about the push towards assisted suicide and how language is being manipulated to win acceptance for a horrible practice. Instead of using terms like “euthanasia” or “assisted suicide,” advocates peddle the much-kinder sounding “aid in dying.”

But there’s more to say. Today I’d like to focus on how our hearts are being manipulated through a worldview that says nothing good can come from suffering — especially suffering unto death. And I’d like to do this primarily by telling a couple stories.

First story: My grandfather and grandmother have been married for more than 70 years. For years, they ran a dairy farm and delivered milk all over northern Virginia. Then because my grandmother was an incredible baker, they started a catering business. And my grandparents supported each other every step of the way. He was an accomplished pianist and church organist; she taught Sunday School for decades, and along the way they had two daughters, seven grandchildren, 17 great-grandchildren and even some great-greats. What an amazing life.

But for the last couple of weeks, my grandfather hasn’t been able to get out of bed. The reality is, he’s going to die soon. My grandmother has had no thought of “getting it over with.” She’s patiently, lovingly walking with her husband through the final days of his life. And she’s not alone — my mother is there with them, even though she has to make numerous trips back and forth. Other friends and family members are helping as well.

My mother told me what many people in similar situations say: It’s been difficult, but she wouldn’t have traded these last days with her dad for anything. They’re not “getting it over with”!

Story number two, from a coworker: His wife comes from a large family, and I mean large. Her mom had six brothers and sisters, her dad had nine. Well, her grandfather, George, was dying. The house where he and his wife, Marie, lived in had been the gathering place for all kinds of birthdays, holidays, and other things.

Now it would be a gathering place for his home going. His family decided, as he was growing weaker, that he would die at home. George wasn’t in much pain, but it was hard for him to breathe. All kinds of people would go into the bedroom to visit and talk and sit by his bedside. They gave George palliative care, but that was it. And there was absolutely no thought of “getting it over with.”

One day the pastor came. Years before, he and many other young shepherds would go to George and Marie’s for dinner and just to get fussed over. So now, maybe 40 years later, the pastor came to say goodbye. He sat on the edge of the bed with George propped up and Marie sitting next to them. The room was filled with maybe 30 people. There were four generations of family members who stood or sat on the floor and listened to George, Marie, and the pastor talk about old times. There was smiling, laughing, and wiping away tears.

And George died a few days later.

“I get teary thinking of it,” my colleague tells me. “I can’t imagine not having had that evening.”

Friends, euthanasia and assisted suicide will take these difficult but incredibly important moments away from us. We need these moments, to stretch our understanding of love, to deepen our relational thinking and to help our generation steward the heritage given to us by past generations. A culture that just wants to “get it over with” is a dehumanizing one.

It’s hard for my grandfather to depend completely on others right now. But it’s good for him, too, both to see people loving him and to let those people serve him. It’s good for him to know his frailty as he prepares to meet God. And it’s good for married couples to walk through the commitment that they made, “‘til death do us part, as long as we both shall live.”

Currently, five states allow assisted suicide, and Colorado may be poised to become the sixth. We can’t let ourselves be manipulated by this culture of death. We must overwhelm it with life, one bedside at a time.

________

Editor’s note: Shortly after John recorded this script, his grandfather went home to be with the Lord.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database pro lifedeathold age

Life, Suffering, and Dignity: the Courageously Mundane Faithfulness of Kara Tippetts

Job 3:20

A young Oregon woman with a brain tumor recently made the choice to die. But a Colorado woman facing a terminal disease is choosing to live. Here’s what we can learn from their stories.

When we argue about sanctity of life issues such as abortion or euthanasia, we risk becoming too theoretical. Talking in terms of percentages or trends is fine to do, and it’s important that we know that there have been 56 million legal abortions since Roe V. Wade and that the number of those euthanized in Holland has risen 151 percent in just seven years.

We sometimes need facts and statistics like these to make the case for life. But, despite our best intentions, sometimes we forget to talk as if these stats reflect actual people, who are made in the image of God. They do, and we should tell their stories.

My guess is that by now you’ve heard the story of Brittany Maynard, a “vibrant” 29-year-old with terminal brain cancer who moved from California to Oregon in order to take advantage of that state’s Death with Dignity law.

Oregon allows physician-assisted suicide; California doesn’t. Brittany chose November 1 as the day she would end her own life, with the help of a doctor. And I’m sad to say she carried through with her plans — despite the enormous outpouring of love and prayers from people across the country who urged her to change her mind.

One of those people was Kara Tippetts, a 38-year-old married mother of four who knows well the fear and pain of a stage 4 cancer diagnosis. Her approach to illness has been to rest on the grace of God and to find power in living faithfully moment by moment, squeezing the goodness out of each day, and exhibiting, no matter what the prognosis, “mundane faithfulness,” which is the name of her blog.

“We thought my pastor-husband and I would help the broken,” Kara said in a World magazine article, “but Jesus planned for us to be the broken. We opened our hands to our strength and grasped the weakness handed to us. From the despair, beauty was born. We were invited to dine at the table of those who came with us and salt our every meal with our own tears.”

Kara tells a story of mundane faithfulness in her new book, “The Hardest Peace.” She’s gained a national following in recent weeks thanks to best-selling author Ann Voscamp, who gave her a platform to share her story.

Kara has used her voice to reach out to Brittany Maynard, asking her to reconsider, gently telling her that there’s more to life than good physical health and the avoidance of suffering. “Suffering is not the absence of goodness,” Kara says in an open letter to Brittany, “it is not the absence of beauty, but perhaps it can be the place where true beauty can be known. ... That last kiss, that last warm touch, that last breath, matters — but it was never intended for us to decide when that last breath is breathed.”

Kara has been learning that lesson on her own journey. Go to her blog and you’ll see that Kara is not throwing around a lot of cheap Christian clichés. She looks suffering and death full in the face, and in it sees glimpses of God’s love. Here’s an entry from October 18th

“How do you love when you are at the bottom of yourself? The last gulp of a drink you feel tentative to swallow? How do you swallow that last gulp of life and fight to live it well? I’m struggling today,” she writes, “and I knew it would be a hard one. Chemo brings a low that I struggle with words to describe.”

And then on October 20: “ ... The hand held, the time spent reading together, the little loves that when faced with death have become the giant important moments in my life. The time praying together, laughing together, cooking together and crying together. They add up to a life well lived. [They] are simply the best of life.”

As Kara told me in our interview, she’s felt called by God to weigh in on Brittany’s story when it made national media attention. Her letter has already made a difference in the lives of many, and she shared some of those stories with me in our interview. We’ll link to it at BreakPoint.org.

Friends, let’s pray for Kara and for all those facing terminal illness — as well as for their families. And let’s also pray for our culture, that we learn that life is always a gift, without exception.

________

RESOURCES:

Small wonders

Kara Tippetts | World magazine | October 17, 2014

Christian writer in Colorado Springs speaks against assisted suicide

Stephanie Earls | The Gazette | October 19, 2014

Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope: You Can’t Kill Just One

Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | October 16, 2014

Joni Eareckson-Tada to Brittany Maynard: Choose Life

CBN.com | October 22, 2014

Christians praying for Brittany Maynard ahead of assisted suicide scheduled for November 1

Cath Martin | Christianity Today | October 20, 2014

A Fitting Death: True Death with Dignity

Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | April 8, 2005

________

Copyright (c) 2014 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · John Stonestreet via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database sufferingdeathcancer

Greasing the Slippery Slope: the Court, Autonomy, and Anything Goes

I can’t get the Cole Porter song “Anything Goes” out of my head. Even worse, I hear Justice Kennedy singing it.

The two words that come to mind after reading about the Supreme Court making same-sex marriage the law of the land are “anything goes.”

Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion has positioned our culture near the top of a generously-greased slope and there are plenty of people ready to give that culture a shove.

A case in point is the cover story of the most recent issue of the Economist, which appeared a few days before the Court’s ruling.

The cover reads “The Right to Die: Why assisted suicide should be legal.” Inside the magazine, the article began with the following words: “It is easy to forget that adultery was a crime in Spain until 1978; or that in America, where gay marriage is allowed by 37 states and may soon be extended to all others by the Supreme Court, the last anti-sodomy law was struck down only in 2003. Yet, although most Western governments no longer try to dictate how consenting adults have sex, the state still stands in the way of their choices about death. An increasing number of people — and this newspaper — believe that is wrong.” Wow.

Strictly speaking, this is a non-sequitur, because in strictly logical terms, what the state does or doesn’t do regarding sex between consenting adults is unrelated to its position on physician-assisted suicide.

But there is a very real cultural and worldview connection between the two. What the Economist is appealing to is our ideas about personal liberty and autonomy.

These ideas were at the heart of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. He began by saying that, in addition to the rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment guarantees “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.”

He added that “the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy.” He then concluded by writing that, “There is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices.”

In other words, without autonomy, there is neither dignity nor freedom. (Now there’s a chilling thought for those whose lives depend on others for care). In fact, you could argue that, for Justice Kennedy, the point of freedom is to make personal autonomy possible. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in his dissent, the only restraint on this idea of autonomy is five Justices’ “reasoned judgment,” based on “‘new insight’ into the ‘nature of injustice,’ which was invisible to all who came before but has become clear ‘as we learn [the] meaning of liberty.’”

In other words, the judges are making it up as they go along.

And that brings me back to the Economist’s cover story. In 1997, the Supreme Court declined to find a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide. That was a little bit of a surprise at the time. After all, Justice Kennedy had recently penned his “mystery passage” in the Planned Parenthood case, in which he defined liberty as “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

While the Court declined to go that far back then, 18 years is a long time, and I can only imagine what “new insights” might have taken hold since then. It would be folly to think that assisted suicide is settled law.

Likewise, it would be foolish to think that the legal redefinition of marriage will stop at same-sex marriage. As the dissenters pointed out, Kennedy’s case for same-sex marriage can also apply to polygamy.

As I said, “anything goes.” It can hardly be otherwise if individual autonomy is the definition of freedom.

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The New Totalitarians: Change Your Religious Beliefs Or Else

Mark 12:14

If you think the era of totalitarianism is over, you haven’t been paying attention to the headlines.

In the first century, Jesus was asked whether the Jewish people, who were under pagan, Roman occupation, should pay taxes to Caesar. The Lord, of course, said we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s. But in 21st century America, Caesar is angling for a better deal — and he’s getting it.

Our old friend Chuck Colson sounded the alarm several years ago when certain political figures on the Left — including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton — began downsizing the First Amendment’s guarantee of our God-given right to freedom of religion into a more manageable “freedom of worship.”

Chuck feared — rightly, it turns out — that opponents of religious liberty were seeking to keep religion within the four walls of our churches, synagogues, and mosques — as if religious belief were no more than a purely private opinion with no practical implications for the real world. In other words, “Feel free to worship, if you like, but keep your religiously informed opinions and actions to yourself.”

It’s a totalitarian impulse, and you can see it in the intensifying efforts to force faith groups to pay for abortions, to shut down Christian businesses that don’t want to participate in so-called “gay weddings,” and so on.

And the totalitarians are getting bolder about it. In Victoria, Australia, doctors are required by law to perform abortions when asked, or refer the patient to a colleague who will. In Canada, meanwhile, the Ontario and Saskatchewan Colleges of Doctors and Surgeons want physicians forced to perform euthanasia — which is now a fundamental national “right” — if no one else is available to do it.

And the totalitarians — being totalitarians — will brook no compromise. According to Canadian bioethicist Udo Schuklenk, “The very idea that we ought to countenance conscientious objection in any profession is objectionable.”

Really? And alas, this totalitarian streak is not confined to the Great White North. Mrs. Clinton, who once said that abortion can be “a sad, even tragic choice,” now asserts that a so-called “right to reproductive health care” trumps religious freedom. “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she said at a recent meeting of the Women in the World Summit. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Religious beliefs have to be changed?

Now Caesar seeks to regulate not just our actions, but our thoughts as well!

New York Times columnist and gay-rights advocate Frank Bruni thinks we need to change our religious beliefs about marriage, too — since, he says, interpreting the Bible is filled with subjectivity and uncertainty. Therefore believers shouldn’t take it too literally on matters of sexuality. “So our debate about religious freedom,” Bruni says, “should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

How nice that Mr. Bruni and other sexual totalitarians stand ready to “free us” from our prejudices. What’s next, re-education camps? If you think I’m exaggerating the totalitarian threat, in the same newspaper, David Brooks writes, “If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all.”

Lord have mercy.

________

RESOURCES

Hillary: ‘Religious Beliefs’ Must Change For Sake Of Abortion

Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, Fox News, April 27, 2015

Bigotry, the Bible and the Lessons of Indiana

Frank Bruni, New York Times, April 3, 2015

Kill or get out of medicine!

Wesley Smith, lifesitenews.com, April 20, 2015

Memo to Hillary Clinton: On Marriage, Here Christians Stand and We’re Not Moving

Rob Schwarzwalder, Christianpost.com, April 24, 2015

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious Beliefs’ About Abortion ‘Have To Be Changed’

John McCormack, Weekly Standard, April 24, 2015

The Week in ‘Tolerance:’ Boycotts, Bans and Bullying

Guy Benson, Townhall.com, Apr 27, 2015

Religious Liberty and Equality

David Brooks, New York Times, March 31, 2015

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

From Suicide To Euthanasia: Europe's Sinister Slide … and Ours?

Job 3:20

When does the right to suicide become an obligation to die? Once again, Europe is pushing the boundaries.

“If you were a psychiatrist and a chronically depressed patient told you he wanted to die, what would you do?” That’s the question Charles Lane of the Washington Post recently asked.

In the United States, at least for now, the answer would be to employ a combination of talk therapy and drugs to ease the patient’s pain and alleviate what psychiatrists call “suicidal ideation.” If necessary, you might consider hospitalizing your patient.

But in Belgium, as Lane tells readers, “you might prescribe this vulnerable, desperate person a fatal dose of sodium thiopental.”

As Lane tells readers, between 2007 and 2011, 100 people went to a clinic in Belgium seeking euthanasia. While most of them were clinically-depressed, not all of them were. Some of them were schizophrenic; others had Asperger’s Syndrome, a form of autism.

What happened in forty-eight of the cases was chilling: “The doctors, satisfied that [these] patients were in earnest, and that their conditions were ‘untreatable’ and ‘unbearable,’ offered them lethal injection; 35 went through with it.”

The same thing is happening next door in the Netherlands. A clinic there euthanized 11 people in 2012 whose “only complaint was being ‘tired of living.’”

Lane rightly characterizes this trend as “sinister.” Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association, bioethicists Barron H. Lerner and Arthur L. Caplan said that the reports from the ironically-named “low countries,” “seem to validate concerns about where these practices might lead.”

To which Lane replied, “That’s putting it mildly.”

As he writes, “What’s noteworthy about euthanasia in Europe ... has been its tendency to expand, once the taboo against physician-aided death was breached in favor of more malleable concepts such as ‘patient autonomy.’”

And as Belgian law professor Étienne Montero has warned, “What is presented at first as a right is going to become a kind of obligation.”

I recently told you about the Third Reich’s euthanasia program code-named Aktion T-4. Between 1939 and 1940, as many as 70,000 disabled and sick people, whom the Nazis deemed “lives unworthy of life,” were exterminated — murdered — in psychiatric hospitals across the Reich.

Now, in case you’re wondering, I’m not saying that what’s happening in Europe today is the equivalent of Aktion T-4. In some important respects, however, it’s arguably worse.

Because while the Nazis killed schizophrenics and people with autism, I’m not aware of their killing people who were merely depressed or “tired of living.” Modern Europeans seem hell-bent on expanding the definition of a life unworthy of life.

What’s more, unlike 1940, there’s no real opposition. Hitler was forced to abandon Aktion T-4 because of the opposition of people like Lothar Kreyssig, a judge in Brandenburg and a member of the Confessing Church, and the Bishop of Munster, August Graf von Galen, who publically condemned the program in a series of sermons that were printed and disseminated.

These courageous acts roused public opinion against the program and resulted in a rare victory for human decency in the Third Reich.

Today, what Lane calls the “slide” toward euthanasia continues largely unabated — not only in Europe but in the U.S. as well. As Lerner and Caplan wrote, all this “should give us pause” about where the so-called “assisted dying” movement will lead.

And here’s a hint: you don’t need jackboots and brown shirts anymore to turn entire classes of people into lives unworthy of life.

________

RESOURCES

Europe’s sinister expansion of euthanasia

Charles Lane, Washington Post, August 19, 2015

Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Unethical and Dangerous

Ira Byock, New York Times, October 6, 2014

“Euthanasia in Belgium: Safeguards and controls do not work” according to Professor Dr. Etienne Montero, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Namur, Belgium

Press release, Marketwatch.com, December 8, 2013

Eugenics and Not-So Ancient History: Opposing the Will of God

Eric Metaxas, BreakPoint.org, September 15, 2014

Lift Up Your Heads: Von Galen and the Third Reich

Chuck Colson, BreakPoint.org, January 25, 2011

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #22340]

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database suicide

Lethal Subjectivity: the Roots of Suicide As Autonomy

Job 3:20

Which has more value — human life, or human choice? And I’m not talking about abortion.

On September 11th, California lawmakers approved a measure, which if signed by Governor Jerry Brown, would make the Golden State the sixth state to legalize physician-assisted suicide.

The “End of Life Option Act” was modeled after neighboring Oregon’s law. The California Act gained political momentum with the story of Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old Californian who moved to Oregon to end her life after a terminal diagnosis.

While Maynard’s parents and husband played an important role in getting the bill passed, there’s more here than misguided “compassion.” Physician-assisted suicide, like other bad ideas making their way through our culture, has been a long time in the making.

The California bill passed despite the opposition of disability-rights activists and concerns voiced by ethicists who fear “that low-income and under-insured patients would inevitably feel pressure from family members to end their own lives in some cases, when the cost of continued treatment would be astronomical compared with the cost of a few lethal pills.”

It passed because, in the words of supporter Mark Leno, who represents San Francisco, “It allows for individual liberty and freedom, [and] freedom of choice.”

Sound familiar? As the New York Times pointed out, Leno “compared the issue to gay marriage.” Of course he did. Behind the high-sounding rhetoric of “compassion” and “dignity,” both same-sex marriage and physician-assisted suicide are ultimately about the pursuit of personal autonomy and self-expression.

Someone who understands this all too well is Rosaria Butterfield. Butterfield is probably best-known for her extraordinary testimony: she went from being a partner in a committed lesbian relationship to being a pastor’s wife and home-schooling mom. She was also an academic: a tenured professor of English at Syracuse University specializing in feminist and “queer” theory.

On a recent appearance with me on the “Eric Metaxas Show,” Butterfield told me that this quest for personal autonomy and self-expression long predated the Sixties, the Sexual Revolution or even Sigmund Freud. Its roots stretch back to the late 18th and early 19th centuries and the rise of Romanticism.

As Butterfield wrote in her new book, “Openness Unhindered,” Romanticism “claimed that you know truth through the lens of your personal experience, and that no overriding or objective opposition can challenge the primal wisdom of someone’s subjective frame of intelligibility.”

Unchallengeable subjective experience as the basis of truth is how men and women went from being “made in God’s image with souls that will last forever to people whose sexual drives and gender identifications define them and liberate them and set them apart.”

But Romanticism did more than provide the basis for the modern idea of “sexual orientation.” It also put self-expression on a pedestal. And that self-expression could include suicide.

As Butterfield reminded me, the first great Romantic novel, “Young Werther” by Goethe, was a story about a man who kills himself as the ultimate form of self-expression, living life on his terms. It inspired copycat suicides all across Europe over 200 years ago.

While the people championing same-sex marriage and physician-assisted suicide probably haven’t read the novel or even know much about Romanticism, they are living out its precepts. When Justice Kennedy wrote about defining for oneself the “concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” it was straight out of the Romantic playbook. As events in California demonstrate, our enshrinement of “personal experience” has turned lethal.

________

Resources:

Rosaria Butterfield, The Eric Metaxas Show

podcast | September 11, 2015

Greasing the Slippery Slope: The Court, Autonomy, And Anything Goes

Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | July 2, 2015

Always Care, Never Kill: The Dangers of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Eric Metaxas | BreakPoint.org | March 30, 2015

The Language of Assisted Suicide: Deception Instead of Dignity

John Stonestreet | BreakPoint.org | February 27, 2014

Four Problems with Physician-Assisted Suicide

Ryan Anderson | Heritage Foundation | March 30, 2015

________

Copyright (c) 2015 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Eric Metaxas via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database euthanasia

Right To Die

Job 3:20

A federal judge ruled that the Constitution does not contain a so-called "right to die."

Article on next page details how a California initiative that would allow doctors to give lethal injections, failed.

from Moody via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database euthanasia

The Suicide Doctor Is A Serial Mercy Killer

Acts 1:18

Dr. Jack Kevorkian "doesn't have a doctor-patient relationship with these people. He's not there for treatment or diagnosis. He doesn't give them alternatives or reasons to live. He's there to help you die," says ethicist George Annas of Boston University. Each victim has been a woman. (Details given on each case.)

#2125

*

from Daily Record · Ellen Goodman via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database euthanasiadeath

Death Is A Solution

Mark 7:21

The first death in the Bible came as a "solution" to a problem. The sons of Adam and Eve quarreled and Cain "resolved" it by slaying his brother Abel. Death is still used today as a final solution. In thought and deed.

A decision is not agreed with and angry yells erupt: "Kill the umpire!" Property or life is threatened and someone shouts: "Shoot 'em!" A failing body suffers in an intensive care ward and a relative whispers: "Pull the plug!"

One nation feels threatened by another and a soldier says: "Nuke 'em!" An egregious crime is committed and an outraged community shouts: "Give him the chair!" or "String em up!"

Are we getting too cozy with death? Too chummy with the Grim Reaper? Death was the worldly solution to Jesus: "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Easter is the heavenly answer: "Vivit! Vivit! He lives! He lives!"

#2443

*

To Care Or To Kill?

Job 3:20

With all the talk about health care, Medicare, managed care and all other sorts of care associated with the practice of medicine, surprisingly little is heard about the type of care likely to be most valuable for the baby boomers as they age: palliative care.

“Palliative care” is distinct from traditional medical care in that the latter often focuses on CURING at the expense of all else — meaning that patients deemed incurable may be neglected.

Palliative care, by contrast, focuses on CARING for the patient, seeking primarily to relieve pain and provide comfort. Its approach to sickness is broader: It treats the emotional, psychological and even spiritual dimensions of illness, not just the physical. This fuller approach alone can relieve much of the suffering that comes with serious illness.

In theory, palliative care enjoys widespread support from both medical professionals and those who formulate health-care policy. In practice, however, the application of palliative care principles is woefully lacking. Indeed, despite the advances in anesthesiology and the growth of the hospice movement, patients in this country continue to die in needless pain.

As Gregory Hamilton, president of the organization Physicians for Compassionate Care, recently testified, “Many, if not most, physicians and healthcare professionals remain unaware of the high success rate of recent advances in the use of pain relieving drug regimens and procedures for control of severe pain in the seriously ill." Mr. Hamilton described the magnitude of the problem nationwide as “staggering.”

What’s more, medical students report that there are very few classes on end-of-life care and pain relief. “That’s handled in the ethics classes,” remarked one resident.

The focus on curing certainly explains part of this phenomenon. But both pharmacists and doctors also report that prescribing the amount of drugs needed to relieve pain is risky business: Storing or prescribing large quantities of morphine can raise the eyebrows of federal drug authorities. This is so even though most professionals in the field of pain and symptom management recognize the need for high doses of controlled substances in some cases. Such doses are acceptable even when they hasten death, provided the purpose is solely to relieve pain or otherwise provide comfort to the patient.

Morphine, for example, has a number of effects: Pain control is one, but respiration depression (the slowing of breathing) is another. When doctors administer morphine to relieve pain, they practice sound medicine. When they administer it to stop the patient’s breathing with the intent of causing death, they do not. In medical circles, this is known as the principle of “double effect." The morally and legally relevant question is always: What was the doctor’s intent and purpose? Killing pain is fine; killing patients is not.

While the medical profession recognizes and appreciates this distinction, practically speaking, no one wants the hassle of an investigation by the Drug Enforcement Agency, much less the risk of sanction, license suspension, or even license revocation, should someone take issue with prescription quantities. Thus, doses remain low and inadequate for many patients in pain.

Meanwhile, stories of pain and discomfort, especially in the end stages of life, fuel the euthanasia movement. The more painful and unpleasant death appears, the more sympathy euthanasia proponents can elicit for the quick “out” supposedly provided by assisted suicide. Their advocacy of an “easy death” implies that the sole alternative is a hard death, an alternative that makes their position look reasonable and humane.

The choice between hard and easy dying is false, however. While death will inevitably be frightening to many, it does not have to be painful or inhumane. America has the option of committing resources toward this goal. But neither health-care policy nor the medical profession has made that commitment to date.

That is about to change.

On June 17, Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Reps. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) introduced the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999. With this legislation, the federal government is taking affirmative and aggressive steps to improve pain management and palliative care for patients in pain, particularly the terminally ill and those suffering from progressive and far advanced diseases.

The bill creates a program within the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) to develop and advance scientific understanding of palliative care. It requires the Agency to collect and distribute pain management information to health-care programs, medical schools, and hospices, as well as the general public. It creates education and training programs for local, state and federal personnel (including DEA officers) regarding the proper use of controlled substances in pain management, including the administration of drugs that may hasten death, provided the purpose is pain relief.

While the bill encourages the legitimate use of controlled substances for relieving pain, it rejects their deliberate use for killing patients. This may disgruntle euthanasia proponents in Oregon (the only jurisdiction to allow the killing of some patients as part of medical care), but the bill merely clarifies and continues a century-long federal drug policy. Federal law regulates drug usage that “endangers public health and safety." That includes lethal overdoses as well as drug addiction. Citizens in Oregon may have decided to change the Oregon criminal code to allow lethal overdoses, but they cannot unilaterally change federal drug laws.

Fortunately for patients in pain, federal drug policy will now encourage the use of controlled substances for pain relief, but continue to disallow illegitimate purposes, such as killing. Those within Oregon intent on practicing assisted suicide, however, will need to find a way other than the illicit use of federally regulated drugs.

Most importantly, however, federal lawmakers appear to understand the ultimate contradiction between caring for patients and killing them. Killing is the antithesis of caring, notwithstanding the rhetoric of rights and compassion of the euthanasia movement. “Assisted suicide” for the dying is simply the killing of those most in need of care.

To care or to kill? That is the question. And palliative care, as advanced by the Pain Relief Promotion Act, is the answer.

***

TERESA R. WAGNER IS A POLICY ANALYST FOR LIFE ISSUES AT FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL AND AUTHOR OF FRC’S NEW BOOKLET "To Care or to Kill?"

*

Who Is Doctor Death

Kdo je doktor smrt

Nìkteøí øíkají, že Jack Kevorkian je andìl milosrdenství. Jiní ho považují za masového vraha

Kevorkian pomohlodejít ze života 20 lidem a od té doby více než stovce dalších. Nechal je buï vdechnout oxid uhelnatý, nebo jim píchl smrtící injekci. O svého posledního klienta, dvaapadesátiletého Thomase Youka, se "postaral" loni 17. záøí. Videozáznam jeho smrti pak poskytl televizní stanici CBS.

Posedlost

Jack Kevorkian se narodil 26. kvìtna 1928 v Pontiaku ve státì Michigan. Jeho rodièe byli arménští uprchlíci a v dìtství mu vyprávìli o zvìrstvech, která za 1. svìtové války na Arménech páchali Turci.

Medicínu vystudoval na Lékaøské fakultì Michiganské univerzity a v polovinì padesátých let zahájil v jedné detroitské nemocnici pokusy, za které si vysloužil pøezdívku doktor Smrt.Posedlost smrtí se projevuje i na obrazech, které maluje. Jejich hlavním námìtem je od šedesátých let násilí a smrt. Na obraze s názvem Genocida neváhal potøísnit rám svou vlastní krví.

Smrt na požádání

Kevorkian tvrdí, že mu kariéru znièil pouze jeho zájem o smrt.

Po tom coodešel do dùchodu,penze mu umožnila naplno se vìnovat "specializaci", kterou sám vytvoøil – ordinování smrti. V roce 1987 dal do místních novin inzerát následujícího znìní: "Lékaøské konzultace pro nevyléèitelnì nemocné, kteøí si pøejí dùstojnou smrt." Na vizitky si nechal vytisknout: "Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Bioetika a eutanazie. Úmrtní poradenství. Pouze po osobní konzultaci."

Smutná bilance

Pitva devìtašedesáti Kevorkianových klientù ukázala, že mnozí nebyli nevyléèitelnì nemocní, a nìkteøí dokonce ani nemìli žádný patologický nález. Hlavní soudní lékaø oaklandského okresu L. J. Dragovic prohlásil, že v ohrožení života bylo pouze šestnáct z nich, zatímco osmaètyøicet dalších trpìlo chorobami, které lze léèit. U zbývajících pìti se žádné pøíznaky nemoci nenašly.

Prvního záøí loòského (1999) roku vstoupil v Michiganu v platnost nový zákon, který asistovanou sebevraždu zakazuje. O šestnáct dní pozdìji aplikoval Kevorkian smrtící dávku chloridu draselného Thomasi Youkovi, který trpìl nervovou chorobou v závìreèném stadiu. Bìhem svého vystoupení v televizi prohlásil: "Musejí mì obvinit, protože jinak by to znamenalo, že mùj skutek za zloèin nepovažují. Další dùkazy pøece snad už nepotøebují, ne?"

Michiganský státní návladní jeho pøání vyhovìl a za úèast na Youkovì smrti ho postavil pøed soud. Letos v bøeznu ho porota shledala vinným z vraždy druhého stupnì a 13. dubna byl odsouzen k deseti až pìtadvaceti letùm vìzení.

Ve své závìreèné øeèi soudkynì Jessica Cooperová prohlásila, že proces nemìl rozhodnout o správnosti èi nesprávnosti eutanazie. "Byl jste souzen pouze vy, pane Kevorkiane, vaše nezákonné jednání, vaše arogance a neúcta ke spoleènosti. Mìl jste tu drzost objevit se v televizním vysílání, abyste svìtu ukázal, co jste provedl. Vyzval jste zákon, aby vás zastavil. Teï jsme vás tedy zastavili."

from Readers Dygest Report via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database euthanasia

The Complexity of End-of-life Ethics Decisions

Robert Orr expected that some people attending a Dallas bioethics conference might chuck rotten tomatoes at him over his view that end-of-life decisions aren’t always as morally clear as some believe.

Orr, a physician and bioethicist at the University of Vermont’s College of Medicine and “family doctor of the year” in the state in 1995, is a Christian pro-lifer and an outspoken opponent of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. He also is an ethics consultant who has been involved in more than 1,400 medical cases and is the clinical director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, a Chicago-area bioethics think tank and one of the sponsors of the “Cutting-Edge Bioethics: Human Life on the Line” conference at Criswell College.

But his views on artificially administered feeding and hydration -- that such treatment is sometimes inappropriate -- pits him against many pro-lifers.

Orr, referencing the temptation to nap during an after-lunch late-April session, mused, “I’m actually hoping that some of you do fall asleep this hour. Because I’m going to say some things that some of you don’t want to hear. In conversations and so on, I’ve gotten the idea that some of you have already decided on some issues that I think are not necessarily already decided.”

In the cases of persons such as Terri Schiavo -- the severely disabled Florida woman who died this year after fluids and nutrition were removed -- Orr said family members nearly always make the right decision on what the patient would have wanted regarding extraordinary life-extending treatment. But such decisions are best made at the bedside, not in the courts, he said.

Removal of artificially given food and water -- with proper family or patient directives -- is appropriate when continued nutrition extends life but does not enhance the patient’s recovery chances, Orr stated. Removal of fluids, done with constant moistening of the mouth and with pain relief, is often preferable to extended suffering for terminal patients and sometimes may be the ethical choice, he said.

Orr used a graph to explain the “trajectory of death.” Some people die suddenly (accidents or heart attacks), some die predictably (terminal illness) and others “dwindle” (as many elderly people do).

But the most complex ethical decisions arise from cases of people with chronic disease, Orr said. They spiral downward, improve, worsen, and improve again. “There’s crisis after crisis -- you never know which one will be fatal,” he said. “And so the uncertainty of how they’re going to do really colors the issue of how you make decisions in these circumstances.”

Because medicine can prolong life far more than in previous generations, new issues arose in the 1970s and ’80s along with a slew of publicized court cases that centered on medical ethics and patient and family rights.

“Some of these media cases resulted in decisions about different types of treatment,” Orr said, citing specific cases such as that of Karen Ann Quinlin, when a ventilator was removed.

“Bottom line is that it’s OK sometimes to use less than maximal treatment even if that means sometimes the patient will die,” Orr said. “This change in approach led to advance directives, hospice, palliative care -- very positive things.”

Orr cited eight ways bioethicists learned from court cases between 1976 and 1990:

1) A competent patient has the right to refuse even life-prolonging treatment.

2) Incompetent patients have the same right and a surrogate may exercise that right.

3) The family is the presumptive surrogate, except in Britain where physicians make the call, sometimes with the family’s influence.

4) Courts are inappropriate places to settle end-of-life issues.

“A judge sitting on a probate bench for 15 years may see one, two, three limitation-of-treatment cases in his or her career,” Orr noted. “They’re not used to this. They’re not up for this. They’re not prepared. They would much rather prefer these decisions be made at the bedside.”

5) There is no specific diagnosis or treatment that must be taken to court for legal approval.

6) There is no difference between withholding and withdrawing of treatment.

“That was a tough pill for some people to swallow -- old folks like me,” Orr said.

7) Artificially administered fluids and nutrition are treatment.

8) Physicians or hospitals acting in good faith and without negligence will not be held civilly or criminally liable for limitation of treatment at the surrogate’s request.

“It was painful learning those eight lessons but those are pretty well accepted in North American bioethics are this point,” Orr said.

The limitation of treatment, he said, may involve such things as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilators, chemicals to maintain blood pressure, artificially administered hydration and nutrition, radiation and chemotherapy -- even transfer from emergency to intensive care.

“I’ve got some news for you. When a patient dies in the hospital, 70 percent of the time the timing of death is a matter of choice,” Orr said. “Not the fact of death but whether the patient dies now or three days from now or three weeks from now is often dependent on whether or not we try to resuscitate, give one more blood transfusion, another round of antibiotics, chemotherapy, so on.”

Withholding treatment, Orr said, is usually an advance decision on a specific remedy; withdrawing treatment is to stop something already begun.

“There’s really no professional, moral or legal difference between those two,” Orr said. “...However, there may be a significant psychological difference. It’s harder to go into the ICU and turn down the dials on the ventilator knowing that the patient almost certainly will not survive than it was to not start the ventilator in the first place.

“Why might we consider limiting treatment in certain circumstances?” Orr asked. “Well, if the patient doesn’t want it -- that’s reason to consider it. Or if it’s not going to work, or if it’s outside the burden of care, or if the burdens of risk of treatment outweigh the benefits. And can we say it out loud -- if the cost outweighs the benefits?

“I’m not saying these are definitive answers but these are considerations we must bring onto the table when we’re talking about limitation of treatment,” Orr said.

When making ethical calls, Orr said he relies on four factors -- medical indications, patient preference, quality of life and context. He said the first two factors rely on facts; the other two are not so clear.

“What is the condition of the patient? What was the baseline condition a week ago before he had this stroke and is in this condition now? And a big question is, ‘What’s the likelihood of getting him back to an earlier condition?’

“Prognosis is not a fact, it’s a guess,” Orr stated.

Orr said a patient’s preference might be discerned from the values he expresses, whether he was coerced or pressured by family, finances or physicians. Also, one must consider whether an advanced directive or living will exists or the context in which he expressed his wishes. “The piece of paper is much less important than having a conversation with the family to know their goals and values.

“Sometimes there’s a very poor prognosis and you have no idea what the patient wants,” Orr said. That’s when he considers quality of life for the patient in the context of his or her life prior to medical treatment.

“Christians get very nervous when I mention the phrase ‘quality of life’ because human life is sacred. I’ll be at the head of the line preaching the sanctity of life, but life does have its quality. We have a stewardship of life and resources,” Orr insisted.

Sometimes, monetary considerations should inform whether one should pursue extraordinary means in terminal cases, Orr said.

As for quality of life, Orr said doctors and nurses are bad at assessing it. Their perspective of a paralyzed patient who can’t breathe without a machine contrasts with the patient who seems more functional.

Orr told of being called to an ICU to decide whether to put a 53-year-old man on a ventilator who had severe cerebral palsy and mental retardation.

“My knee-jerk response was that this is a pretty poor quality of life.”

But after talking with the man’s mother, who was across the country for a family reunion, Orr said the picture changed.

“For 50 years she had taken care of him at home. When she was in her 80s she could no longer lift him and admitted him to a nursing home where she fed him twice a day.” Orr speculated the nurse didn’t know the eating habits of the man as his mother did, prompting a perceived swallowing problem.

“She said, ‘Do whatever you need to do, put him on a machine and I’ll be on the next plane.’”

A few days later Orr returned to find the mother at her son’s bed where he was communicating with her. “I could not understand one syllable, but I noticed he was looking at me and talking. She said he wanted to know what kind of car I drive.”

After Orr told the man he drove a Saturn, the man went into a monologue about the vehicle’s specifications since this was his particular interest.

“I had no idea there was anybody home. I knew that, first, I was a stranger and, second, he was sick and had a certain level of function, then got a fever and was functioning at a lower level.

“So don’t be so quick to judge the quality of life, especially when dealing with strangers,” Orr said.

Although healthcare originated as a religious service with hospitals and hospices begun by religious orders, the secularization of healthcare is nearly complete, Orr said.

“We still have chaplains, but don’t let them get in the way. God talk is excluded,” he warned.

A revival in spirituality in healthcare may open the door to talk with a patient about his spiritual life although “a lot of things under that umbrella are spirits that are not the Holy Spirit,” he said.

Orr said four non-intrusive questions help a person have a conversation about a patient’s relationship with God: Do you belong to a faith tradition? How important is your faith to you? Do you belong to a faith community? How does your faith affect your life and how I should take care of you?

*

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate