"And as it is appointed unto men
once to die" Hebrews 9:27
Euthanasia
is becoming more popular every year. This issue of euthanasia is a by-product
of 20th century medical success. People who formerly would have died are now
kept alive by advanced medical treatments. Along with this prolonged life have
come difficult ethical decisions, and slogans like "the right to
die," "the choice not to suffer," "death with
dignity," "doctor-assisted suicide" and "living
wills." Some countries allow the publication of instructions for
do-it-yourself suicide!
Euthanasia,
sometimes called "mercy killing," literally means "good
death" (from the Greek words eu, "well," and thanatos,
"death"). The medical profession define euthanasia as "the
intentional taking of a human life for some good purpose, such as to relieve
suffering or pain. Commonly the word denotes the taking of an adult life,
though it can refer generally to taking any life after birth for supposed
benevolent purposes. Euthanasia is assisted suicide. The relationship between
suicide and euthanasia is so close that to justify either one is to justify the
other. Infanticide (killing an infant or child), euthanasia (killing an adult),
suicide (killing self), and even genocide (killing an entire race) are the same
in theory (killing for supposed benevolent ends); they differ only in
application.
Sometimes
you will hear the terms "active euthanasia," and "passive
euthanasia." What is the difference between the two? Active euthanasia
refers to taking a life (producing death), where as "passive
euthanasia" refers to allowing a death to occur without intervening
(permitting death). The former usually involves the injection of a
death-inducing drug, and the latter usually involves the withdrawal of medical
treatment which results in a disease or sickness naturally leading to death.
One must also be familiar with the terms "voluntary euthanasia" and
"involuntary euthanasia." In the former, the patient has requested a
desire to end life, and in the latter, a third party, usually a close relative,
decides to end life. When these four (active, passive, voluntary, involuntary)
are combined, we get four classes of euthanasia.
Throughout
history people have not supported a patient's right to die, but times and laws
are changing. Like the ancient Greek world, people are now divided over the
issue of euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is widely practiced in many countries
and active euthanasia is gaining popularity.
There
is no question that the world is traveling down the slippery slope from
abortion to euthanasia. The first paved the way for the latter when it gave up
the sanctity of human life. Even the pro-euthanasia advocates admit this. Abortion
is "fetal euthanasia" and infanticide is "postnatal
abortion."
There
are many moral questions surrounding euthanasia today. People will continue to
seek medical treatment and live or die as a result of their choice of
treatment. What is the church to do when faced with such a situation? We must
answer some difficult questions. The key questions in this issue include:
"Are we preserving life, or prolonging death?" "Will the patient
who dies be a victim of euthanasia, or a victim of a fatal ailment?"
"Are we taking a life, or allowing a natural death?" "Are we providing
the patient with natural means of sustaining life (food, water, air), or
artificial means?" "What are our intentions, to end a life
prematurely, or to avoid death?" "Do we desire the removal of
non-beneficial treatment, or death itself?" If we have to answer these
difficult questions one day regarding the care of a loved one, we must remember
our basic moral obligation: to prolong life, not to prolong death.
When
we turn to the religious community for answers to the problem of euthanasia we
don't get much help. Both Catholics and Jews oppose the practice, but there are
varying views among Protestants. Of course the religion of humanism is very
much in favor of it, recognizing an "individual's right to die with
dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide". The answer to this
difficult issue does not lie within medical, philosophical or theological
theories, but within the Word of God. What we need to do in this case, as with
any question, is go to the Bible for answers. We know that "it is
appointed unto man to die once" (Hebrews 9:27). The question is,
"When and how should man die?" It is clear from God's word that
euthanasia is immoral. Why? Euthanasia, like abortion, infanticide, suicide or
genocide, is intentional homicide or murder, and therefore immoral (Exodus
20:13).
Let's
take the case of King Saul who was mortally wounded in battle and begged his
armor-bearing to take his life. When Saul's servant refused, Saul attempted
suicide (1 Samuel 31:1-6). Later when an Amalekite passed by, Saul begged him
to take his life and the Amalekite did so with good motives. The Amalekite was
later judged for "putting forth his hand to destroy" (II Samuel
1:1-16). The case of Abimelech is similar (Judges 9:50-57). We find here that
killing, regardless of the request by the one suffering, and regardless of the
good motives of the one doing the killing, is immoral.
We
are given positive Biblical principles that address the specific situation of
old age. We have a Biblical command to care for the aged and not abandon them
(Deuteronomy 28:50; Leviticus 19:32; Isaiah 1:23; Matthew 15:3-5; Ephesians
6:2; James 1:27; 1 Timothy 5:4,8). We would do well to remember the words in
the Psalmist's prayer to God: "Do not cast me off in the time of old age;
Do not forsake me when my strength faileth" (Psalm 71:9). Remember also
the wisdom of Solomon: "Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter. O hold them back" (Proverbs
24:11).
Let
us remember the difference between "sanctity of life" and
"quality of life." The Bible teaches us that we must live on, even
though our "quality of life" may be poor. Human suffering is not to
be eradicated by death. We are to live with suffering, and learn from it
(Romans 5:3-4; 1 Peter 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 1:3-11). The pro-euthanasia
advocates, on the other hand, believe that a life has value and should be
prolonged only as long as it has some good "quality" to it. According
to them, when the "good life" is gone, it's time to die. The
"quality of life" argument was made back in 1973 by George Paulson:
"How long shall life be preserved when there is no redeeming social value?
If life has no apparent purpose, perhaps it is to the benefit of others that
such lives not be salvaged". The Church, on the other hand, believe in the
"sanctity of life." That is, every life, young or old, healthy or
sick, prospering or suffering, has value and should be prolonged because man
has a soul and is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6). In other
words, the Word of God teaches that life does not stop when the "good
life" stops; it does not stop when suffering sets in; it stops when God's
time for it to stop comes (Job 1:21). Life must go on, not because of the good
or bad of outward circumstances (quality of life), but rather because of its
inward value (sanctity of life). Euthanasia, then, is a convenient way to
remove suffering. We need more "compassion for life" and less
"passion for convenience". The end (relief from suffering) does not
justify the means (euthanasia). We don't need more "mercy killing"
for the those who suffer, we need more "mercy-service" to help them
live with the pain. We need less of Job's wife "Curse God and die!"
and more of Job "Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept
adversity?"
Currently
we kill the unborn (abortion), we kill the new born (infanticide) and we kill
the aged (euthanasia). Unless we do something drastic to reverse our
moral position on the sanctity of life, it will only be a matter of time before
we, like Adolf Hitler, kill with impunity all those in between (genocide). It
is really no wonder that we have the problem of euthanasia since we have a
generation of doctors and moral ethicists weaned on the evolution theory. We
are just animals, according to that theory. We kill our domesticated pets; we
kill our humans; no problem, we are all animals anyway. Animals kill their own,
why shouldn't we? But shooting a horse who is suffering, and injecting a drug
into an elderly patient suffering are not moral equivalents, because man is not
an animal. The Russian poet Dostoyesky remarked: "If God is not, then
nothing is morally wrong." May God give this world time to come back to
Him, back to the morals found in His word, the Bible, and back to the sanctity
of human life.
People
in pain may come to us and speak like the prophet Jonah once spoke: "O
Lord, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life"
(Jonah 4:3,8,9). When they do, let us not assist them in their death, but let
us act like God did with Jonah; care for them, comfort them and communicate
with them.
