Posts
Two End-of-Life Issues: Abortion and Euthanasia
Part 2--Euthanasia
To Be or Not to Be
(That is a question for God to answer.)
by Samuel E. Ward
Introduction
A. Definitions:
1. Euthanasia: literally, "a good death.
2. Active Euthanasia: Causing a death to avoid suffering
3. Passive Euthanasia: Allowing death to avoid suffering
Dr. Norm Geisler, noted Christian philosopher and apologist, sees two types of passive euthanasia (allowing someone to die):
a. Unnatural passive euthanasia, i.e., "allowing someone to die by deliberately withholding natural means of sustaining life or from withdrawing unnatural means of resisting irreversible sickness"[1]
b. Natural passive euthanasia, i.e., "withholding unnatural means [which] leads only indirectly to the individual's death".[2] This is morally justifiable only when the disease is irreversible and terminal, not as a means to "end" suffering by causing death.
B. Four Positions Presented and Evaluated
1. Neither active nor passive euthanasia is more right than the other in and of themselves.
2. Euthanasia is always wrong but what was intended or foreseen must judge the action of caregivers.
3. Euthanasia solves dying's greatest problem—pain.
4. Causing a death to avoid suffering is always wrong (active euthanasia); allowing death to avoid suffering may be right (passive euthanasia).
I. Four Major Positions Concerning Euthanasia
A. Position One: Neither Causing Death to Avoid Suffering or Allowing Death Is More Moral Than the Other.
1. Many people believe that it is morally better to let someone die rather than to cause their death.
2. James Rachels believes this is the generally accepted difference between passive and active euthanasia.
3. Rachel, therefore, believes that since the end result is death, it makes no difference whether it came about because someone did nothing to prevent it or did something to cause it . [3]
4. Those who make decisions concerning whether to let someone die or to cause the death in the effort to avoid suffering, are just as right in making one choice as the other since the result will be the same.
B. Position Two: Euthanasia Is Always Wrong, But the Principle of "Intent/Foresight" Must Judge the Action of Caregivers.
David Oderberg offers three points of argument against the proposition that if the "end" (death) is the same for both passive and active euthanasia, then the "how" does not make any difference.
1. The very charactisation of what the [doctor or caregiver] does depends on what he intends. Is the doctor trying to kill the patient's pain? Or is he trying to kill the patient? What does he intend? There cannot be a more fundament reason for evaluating the doctor's behaviour.[4]
2. The issue should not be decided on the presumption that death is preferable to some pain. A high-risk treatment that is intended to improve the patient's quality of life but may likely cause death does not obligate the doctor to use it even if a lower quality of life with some pain is just as likely without treatment. The choice should not be based on the presumption that is would be better for the patient to die and have no pain than to live with some pain.
3. The issue should not either be that the doctor or caregiver foresaw death as a consequence of withholding treatment and that was, in his/her judgment, preferable to the consequence of pain or sparing the patient a "miserable life." [5]
C. Position Three: Euthanasia Solves Dying's Greatest Problem—Pain
Kenneth Cauthen represents a view of the use of euthanasia for the purpose of alleviating pain in the dying.
What is the best thing I can do [as a physician] to help my patients in whatever circumstances arise, given my special knowledge and skills? In nearly every case the answer will be to heal, to prolong life, to reduce suffering, to restore health and physical well-being, i.e., to preserve and enhance life. But in some extreme, hopeless circumstances, the best service a physician can render may be to help a person hasten death in order to relieve intolerable, unnecessary suffering that makes life unbearable as judged by the patient. This would be an enlargement of the physician's role, not a contradiction of it.[6]
It is noted that in Cauthen's view that where an "extreme" and "hopeless circumstance" exists, what is best for the patient is a hastened death, if the "intolerable, unnecessary suffering…makes life unbearable as judged by the patient."[7]
For Cauthen, then, this would raise active euthanasia to a morally superior action for this patient. The goal is to alleviate suffering; causing the death of the patient is the most humane means of accomplishing it.
D. Position Four: Causing Death to Avoid Suffering Is Always Wrong But Allowing to Avoid Suffering May Be Right.
Norm Geisler offers the following biblical support for this view. Italicized portions and passages have been added by myself to lend further support to Geisler's six biblical arguments for Position Four.
1. "There Is No Moral Right to Kill."
a. It is against God's moral law to murder.
Exodus 20:13 (NIV) 13"You shall not murder.
b. It is God's prerogative to bring to life and put to death.
Deuteronomy 32:39 (NIV) 39"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand.
Job 1:21 (NIV) 21and said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised."
c. It is God's right as Creator to determine the number of man's days.
Genesis 1:27 (NIV) 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Job 14:5 (NIV) 5Man's days are determined; you have decreed the number of his months and have set limits he cannot exceed.
d. Only in the cases of punishment for capital crimes as prescribed in the Law and just war (especially defensive) was man ever to be involved in taking another's life.
Genesis 9:6 (NIV) 6"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
Deuteronomy 20:3-4 (NIV) 3He shall say: "Hear, O Israel, today you are going into battle against your enemies. Do not be fainthearted or afraid; do not be terrified or give way to panic before them. 4For the LORD your God is the one who goes with you to fight for you against your enemies to give you victory."
2. "It Is Not Merciful to Kill a Sufferer."
On the contrary, death is not always a merciful end to an individual. Otherwise it would not be used as a means of judgment which could send someone into an eternity of suffering.
Psalms 9:16-17 (NIV) 16The LORD is known by his justice; the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands. Higgaion. Selah. 17The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.
Luke 16:22-24 (NIV) 22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,£ where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
3. "There Is Much to Be Learned Through Suffering." (Jas 1:2-4; Job 23:10)
James 1:2-4 (NIV) 2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
Job 23:10 (NIV) 10But he knows the way that I take; when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold.
4. "There Is No Price Tag on Human Life."
Mark 8:36 (NIV) 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?
5. "The End Does Not Justify the Means."
Romans 3:8 (NIV) 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
6. "Humans Are Not Animals."
2 Peter 2:12 (NIV) 12But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.[8]
Note that men can sometimes be described figuratively as acting like brute beasts, but that is not their literal nature. Humans are not merely creatures of instinct but are guided by their thoughts relative to their accepted values (good or bad).
II. Analysis of Views Concerning the Question of Whether Allowing Death Is More Moral Than Causing Death
A. Analysis of the View That Causing Death Is Always Wrong; Allowing Death May Be Right
From the Christian point of view, it can be said that God is interested in the "thoughts and attitudes" (NIV) or "intents (KJV) of the heart" (Heb 4:12). It is a basic function of God's Word to do just that. However, even apart from the Christian view, intent does count in the practice of society. In our society, it makes a difference in non-terminal cases as to the intent of one who is involved in the killing of another—it is either justifiable or not, accidental or purposeful, premeditated or impulsive. Whether those responsible are punished (or to what degree they are punished if found liable) depends upon these differentiations. It should make a difference at any stage of life from conception to the near point of death.
The conservative Christian view says let God be responsible for the beginning and ending of life. It is the only option that truly leaves every man or woman free to become what they will be for as long as they can be it. No one else, besides God, should have a say in the matter.
B. Analysis of the View That Neither Causing Death Nor Allowing Death Is Morally Superior in Contrast with the Principle of "Intent/Foresight"
With the view neither causing death nor allowing death is superior morally to the other, there is a presumption that pain is to be avoided at all costs; there is no possible value to pain. Yet there have been many who have written on the very subject of the positive effects of pain.
James Thorton writes in his article, "Euthanasia Is Contrary to Christian Beliefs," uses C. S. Lewis to support his claim for positive purpose in suffering.
The great Christian author C.S. Lewis reminds us that man is a fallen creature, rebellious and filled with self-will. God reminds us in many ways that we must be dependent on Him and must restrain the impulse to "go it alone." One of those ways is through pain. Pain is an evil, without any question, but it is an evil permitted by God for a specific purpose. "The human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it," Lewis comments… "God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains; it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world."… Pain tempers the rebellious human spirit, reminds us of our dependency on God and of our fragility, and turns us and our thoughts to the spiritual and the eternal.[9]
For the Christian, the previous arguments apply that were used to support allowing the birth of children who will suffer handicaps and thus be guaranteed challenges that healthy children would not be pre-disposed to face. There is purpose and growth in suffering. In summary, from the Christian perspective, some degree of suffering in death is a likely event for all. It is the consequence of a fallen and sinful nature. Secondly, there can be good outcomes for even terrible suffering. Christians are called to endure death for God's sake and purposes as Paul writes in his letter to the Romans.
Romans 14:7-9 (NIV) 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
Since death is a part of every human's suffering, we must acknowledge the value of Christians dying well as one of the greatest testimonies they can ever offer to those who are in bondage to the fear of death.
2 Corinthians 1:3-5 (NIV) 3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. 5For just as the sufferings of Christ flow over into our lives, so also through Christ our comfort overflows.
How could anyone know that comfort and grace was available for the suffering that accompanies dying if no one had experienced it? Pain is terrible, to be sure; but finishing the course by the grace of God so that comfort to others can be supplied is selfless, it is sacrificial, and it is Christ-like. Anyone can testify to the goodness of God outside the experience of pain, but it needs to be known that He is still there and still good in the midst of it.
Sources
[1] Geisler, Christian Ethic, 162.
[2] Ibid., 163.
[3] James Rachels, Applied Ethics:
[4] David S. Oderberg, Applied Ethics, 76-77.
[5] Ibid., 80.
[6] Cauthen, Kenneth. "Assisted Suicide Is an Ethically Acceptable Practice for Physicians." Opposing Viewpoints Series, 2000.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Geisler, Christian Ethics, 160-162.
[9] James Thorton, "Euthanasia Is Contrary to Christian Beliefs," in The Ethics of Euthanasia, ed. Daniel A. Leone (Greenhaven Press, 1999).
