| |
Return to Sermons Page
“Good Death”: The Question of Euthanasia
Exodus 20:13
Sixth Commandment - Part II
by
William L. Hogan
March 1, 1987
Are you aware that being an unwanted baby can be a capital offense? In 1982 a baby girl suffering from Down’s Syndrome and a defective esophagus which made it impossible for her to take nourishment by mouth was born to a couple in Bloomington, Indiana. Surgery could have saved her life, but her parents, believing that she would never be able to have a completely normal life, refused to give permission for the operation, and directed that she not be fed intravenously. The situation was brought to the attention of legal authorities who sought a court order requiring the needed surgery. The media picked up the story and the whole country talked about this baby whom we knew only as “Baby Doe.” There were offers from ten different couples who wanted to adopt her, but the parents would not give up custody. In the end the court decided for the parents, and the baby was allowed to starve to death. It took six days.
Were those parents unloving or intentionally cruel? I think not. I am sure they grieved over the condition of the baby they very much wanted to have, and I imagine that their decision was not lightly made, but was terribly painful. Why, then, did they do it? They did it because they had accepted the increasingly popular philosophy which says that when life does not measure up to a certain quality it ought to be terminated.
The “Baby Doe” case was by no means an isolated incident. There are hundreds of other cases just like it that never make the headlines. There is a growing acceptance in our country of euthanasia. The word is from two Greek words, eu which means “good,” and thanatos, which means “death.” The idea is that under certain circumstances death is a good thing, or at least, better than life.
This is not a new idea. The ancient Greeks and Romans practiced it, and such great minds as Plato and Aristotle endorsed it. The spread of Christianity put an end to this and other barbaric customs, like gladiatorial combat for instance. Today we are seeing a resurgence of this pagan philosophy. And it is not being advocated merely by a few kooks on the fringes of rationality. There are many with extremely respectable credentials who are calling for a new ethic which permits the active termination of life which is determined to be not worth living.
I think, for example, of Drs. James Watson and Francis Crick, co-winners of the Nobel prize for discovering the structure of the DNA molecule. Watson has suggested that we change the legal definition of “person” to apply only to infants older than three says, in order to give parents time to decide if they want the baby kept alive or killed. And Crick recommends that it be mandatory for all persons over eighty years of age to be put to death.
I think, too, of a textbook on ethics written by Millard Everett which suggests that all persons suffering “social defects” that would make life difficult be put to death. Among the sort of defects he has in mind is anything that would make others tolerate the company of an individual only from a sense of pity or mercy. It is astounding, is it not, that a professor of ethics would suggest that a condition which evokes feelings of compassion or mercy would deserve the death penalty?
What we are seeing in the debate over euthanasia is not merely a disagreement over how the sixth commandment ought to be interpreted. It is a disagreement over whether there is any God-given, transcendent Law at all. Most of these advocates of euthanasia do not believe in God. They are secularists. To them, this world is all there is. There is no unseen world, no life beyond the grave, and no such thing as absolute standards of right and wrong.
With such thinking biblical teaching is on a collision course. There are fundamental, irreconcilable differences between the two. Let’s note some of the differences.
I. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
In the first place, biblical teaching and secular philosophy disagree as to the origin of human life. Biblical thought at this point rests upon the presupposition that God is directly involved in the process of procreation. To note just one illustration, Genesis 25:21 tells us that “Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived.” Here we see clear evidence of God’s sovereignty over human conception. For one thing, it is viewed as a proper subject for prayer, and for another, in answer to Isaac’s petition, God reversed Rebekah’s infertility. In short, the failure, delay, and final success of her conception are under the control of God. The biblical viewpoint is summarized in Psalm 127:3 which says, “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD; the fruit of the womb is His reward.”
Because he believes that all life comes from God, the Christian, if he is consistent with his presupposition, recognizes that every characteristic with which one is born has been providentially ordered by the loving and sovereign God. When God called Moses to confront Pharoah and to lead His people out of slavery in Egypt, Moses demurred. “I am not eloquent,” he protested. He was convinced that he did not possess the gift of persuasive speech which was required to do the job. Exodus 4:11 records God’s reply: “And the LORD said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Now then go, and I, even I will be with your mouth, and teach you what you are to say.”
I know a couple, a minister and his wife, whose first child was born with severe handicaps. When the baby was born and the father learned of the child’s deformities, he went to the telephone and called his parents to break the news. One of the nurses overheard what he said and the news of his triumphant spirit in the face of apparent tragedy spread through the hospital. He told his family of the problems, and then he said, “But we are resting in the Lord. We believe what He said to Moses in Exodus 4:11.” He quoted the verse and then said, “We know He is sovereign, He is loving, and He makes no mistakes.” They viewed life from God’s perspective, and thus were willing to accept the life He gave.
Secular thought denies God’s role in conception. To the secularist, it is purely a matter of chance as to which spermatazoon reaches the ovum first, a sort of “Fertilization Sweepstakes” as one writer called it. And if by chance this conception lottery happens to produce a “loser,” it should not be allowed to live.
II. THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE
Second, the Biblical ethic and the secular ethic differ over the basis of the value of human life. Scripture says that human life is sacred because it is made in God’s image. Moreover, this is a fact which extends throughout the entirety of one’s life. It is not limited to those times and circumstances when one happens to be strong, independent, healthy, and fully conscious of his relationships to others. God loved us before we were able to think. The light of His love shines even into the darkness of the womb. As the care of loving parents precedes and surrounds their child before his thinking processes develop so our Lord acknowledges His love and care for us at the mindless edges of life.
But the secularist replaces the idea of the sacredness and inherent worth of human life with the concept of the quality of life. Life has value only if it is useful and productive and has hope for happiness. Where life does not measure up, it should be snuffed out.
III. THE SUPERIORITY OF HUMAN LIFE
These two philosophies differ, in the third place, over the question of the superiority of human life. To Biblical thinking, the image of God makes human life superior to all other forms of life. Secular thought, however, denies the idea that one species is superior to others, because is rejects the idea of the image of God in man. One ethical philosopher has defined “person” in such a way that he can say that some members of the human species are not persons while some members of other species are. Thus he concludes that it is worse to kill a chimpanzee than to kill a deformed human being which is less than a person. That same writer has coined a slur word for those of us who believe that being a member of the human family gives one superiority over other forms of life. He calls us “speciesists,” which is like “racist.” It is unwarranted bigotry, he argues, to believe you are superior merely because you belong to the human species. Of course, it is true that in almost every aspect of human life an animal can be found in which one particular thing or another can be done as well or better than by any human. Still, the biblical teaching is that human life is made in the image of God and thus is superior to all other forms of life at the point where it matters most, namely in the capacity for relationship with God.
IV. ATTITUDE TOWARD THE WEAK
AND DEFENSELESS
Fourth, the two philosophies differ in their attitude toward life that is weak and defenseless. We have already noted the secularist’s lack of concern for those who are unable to live productive lives. What a contrast Scripture presents as it shows us a God who has a bias in favor of the weak and defenseless and those not highly valued by society, and who teaches His people that they are to reflect His compassion and concern for those who are in need of care and protection.
You see this in the repeated biblical injunctions to show compassion to those whom society might tend to devalue and neglect. In Deuteronomy 10:18, for example, the Israelites were told that God “executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing.” Then in the next verse they were told to remember their own distress during their slavery in Egypt and to identify with the special needs of others: “So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” In chapter 14 they are told that their experience of the blessing of God would be dependent upon showing compassion for those in need. Verse 29: “And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do.” God’s values are not man’s values. Society may neglect the fatherless. He does not. And his people must not.
God’s concern for the weak and defenseless is evident in the ministry of Jesus, too. While some propose that severely handicapped infants be allowed to die from neglect, Isaiah prophesied that Messiah would not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoking wick. He came to minister to the weak and heal the sick and love those who had been rejected by society.
V. THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE LIFE
Fifth, they differ over who has the right to terminate a life. Biblical teaching gives that prerogative to God Himself. To whom would the proponent of euthanasia give it? That is part of the problem. There is nothing in secular philosophy which can answer that question in any absolute way. Some would leave the decision to the doctor, sometimes in the consultation with the family and sometimes not. Some would give the final say to the family alone, some would involve the individual himself if he were able to participate in the decision. Some would opt for an independent panel who would consider all the factors in the decision. But the decision as to who has the right to make the final decision is, in the final analysis, purely arbitrary. And when we consider the terrible abuse of death control in the twentieth century totalitarian governments, the question begins to take on an Orwellian shape.
There are, of course, some tough situations for which the Bible does not supply specific and sharply defined guidance. Many American families face the agonizing dilemma of caring for elderly, or even not-so-old, loved ones who are afflicted with very debilitating, often terminal, illnesses. The sixth commandment prohibits the taking of life. That does not mean, however, that there is a moral obligation to provide treatment which has no hope of succeeding. There is a big difference between seeking to extend life and merely prolonging the agony and inevitability of death. There are situations in which no known medical treatment can reverse a genuinely hopeless prognosis. In these cases, it is unnecessary to give useless treatment. While we must concede that there are gray areas in which ethical decisions are very difficulty, it is nevertheless plain that the Christian conscience cannot tolerate either the withholding of treatment that has reasonable hope of extending life or the active taking of a life. Only God who is the Giver of life has the right to take it.
That principle applies to suicide, too, which can be thought of as a self-inflicted euthanasia. We must be compassionate and realize that sometimes people reach a point where they believe they can no longer endure the pain of living, and so they put an end to their misery by suicide. There was a day when the Church refused Christian burial to suicide victims. That was wrong. Suicide is a sin, but it does not rob a true Christian of salvation.
We must insist, however, that no one has the right to put an end to his own life. To destroy what is made in the image of God is to destroy something of intrinsic worth. It is an affront to God whose gift life is. It is to usurp the authority of God who alone has the right to take life away.
There are exceptions. When a soldier throws himself on a live hand grenade and thus sacrifices his life to save his buddies, for example, that is not wrong. But even here there must be guidelines. The person who would sacrifice his life for the sake of others should have good reason to believe that there is no other solution, and that his sacrifice has some hope of being effective.
VI. THE VALUE OF SUFFERING
Sixth, the two philosophies disagree over the question of the value of suffering. Scripture says that God has a purpose in everything, even our pain and sorrow. Dale Evans reflects that attitude in her touching book, Angel Unaware. It tells of the severely handicapped daughter born to her and Roy Rogers. She was the sort of child whom many would have allowed to die, but the Rogers family showed her love throughout her brief two years of life, and believed that she had been sent by God to bless their lives. Dale writes,
I believe with all my heart that God sent her on a two year mission to our household, to strengthen us spiritually and to draw us close together in the knowledge and love and fellowship of God. It has been said that tragedy and sorrow never leave us where they find us. In this instance, both Roy and I are grateful to God for the privilege of learning some great lessons through His tiny messenger, Robin Elizabeth Rogers.
The secularist dismisses discussion of divine purpose as pious wishful thinking.
VII. AUTHORITY OVER LIFE
The ultimate disagreement between the Bible and secular philosophy is a fundamental one. It has to do with where ultimate authority lies. In short, it is a battle over Who is God. Edith Schaeffer, widow of Francis Shaeffer, wrote this insightful paragraph:
So often human beings feel they are better than God. When they cannot understand all that God has commanded, they draw up another set of rules, and feel pious about it too, thinking their rules are not only better, but more compassionate and full of love. What twisted love! What twisted compassion!
What lack of trust!
And we could add, what rebellion! It is a re-enactment of the drama of Eden. It is puny man declaring his independence from the sovereign God. It is a mortal man, whose every breath is dependent upon God, shaking his fist in the face of the Almighty and saying, “I am the master of my life.”
VIII. THE NATURE OF DEATH
Finally, the debate is over the nature of death. The secularist says that death is the natural and inevitable end of life. The Bible says it is not natural. It is an intruder. Man was not created mortal, he became subject to death because of sin. Moreover, it is not the end. Death is merely the transition point between this life and the life to come. The Bible says, “It is appointed unto man once to die, and after this …” This life is not all there is. There is something after this: “after this, the judgment.” We step out of this life into the presence of our Maker, the Judge of all.
The advocates of euthanasia say that we should make dying as peaceful and dignified as possible, even if we have to take steps to hurry the process. But they are deluded if they think that even the most peaceful death is a “good death” when one is not ready to meet the Maker. Death is an enemy. The sting of death is sin. The sequel to death is judgment. How can dying possibly be considered “good” if one departs from this life without forgiveness, without salvation, without hope?
Listen to Paul’s description of a death that is truly good (II Corinthians 5:6-8): “Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord - for we walk by faith, not by sight - we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore also we have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him.”
Only those who know that Jesus pulled the sting of death by dying in their place, paying the penalty for their sins, and bearing the judgment they deserve, can face death with well-grounded confidence. Only those who believe that He conquered the grave and will one day raise all the redeemed and give them bodies which, like His own resurrection body, are no longer subject to death and decay, have reason to call death good.
ProLifeForum.org
A Ministry of Proclamation Presbyterian Church
278 Bryn Mawr Avenue
Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
Voice: 610-520-9500
Fax: 610-520-5240
|
|
