Here’s some of the reasoning behind the fight against Euthanasia
As we discuss the issue of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, it is critical that we not only understand what is going on in the world around us but that we also understand what the Bible clearly teaches about, life, death, pain, suffering, and the value of each human life.
First, The Bible teaches that we are made in the image of God and therefore, every human life is sacred (Genesis 1:26). In Psalm 139:13-16 we learn that each of us is fearfully and wonderfully made. God himself has knit us together in our mother’s womb. We must be very important to Him if He has taken such care to bring us into existence.
Second, the Bible is very clear that God is sovereign over life, death and judgement.In Deuteronomy 32:39 The Lord says, “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.” Psalm 139:16 says that it is God who has ordained all of our days before there is even one of them.Paul says essentially the same thing in Ephesians 1:11.
Third, to assist someone in committing suicide is to commit murder and this breaks God’s unequivocal commandment in Exodus 20:13.
Fourth, God’s purposes are beyond our understanding. We often appeal to God as to why some tragedy has happened to us or someone we know. Yet listen to Job’s reply to the Lord in Job 42:1-3:
I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] ‘Who is this that obscures My counsel without knowledge?’ Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,things too wonderful for me to know.
We forget that our minds are finite and His is infinite. We cannot always expect to understand all of what God is about. To think that we can step in and declare that someone’s life is no longer worth living is simply not our decision to make. Only God knows when it is time. In Isaiah 55:8-9 the Lord declares, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”
Fifth, our bodies belong to God anyway. Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians 6:15,19 that we are members of Christ’s body and that we have been bought with a price. Therefore we should glorify God with our bodies. The only one to receive glory when someone requests doctor-assisted suicide is not God, not the doctor, not even the family but the patient for being willing to “nobly” face the realities of life and “unselfishly” end everyone else’s misery. There is no glory for God in this decision.
Lastly, suffering draws us closer to God. In light of the euthanasia controversy, listen to Paul’s words from 2 Corinthians 1:8:
We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired even of life. Indeed, in our hearts we felt the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead.
Not only does He raise the dead but there is nothing that can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38). For an inspiring and thoroughly biblical discussion of the euthanasia issue, read Joni Earickson Tada’s book When is it Right to Die? (Zondervan, 1992). Her testimony and clear thinking is in stark contrast to the conventional wisdom of the world today. We must do the same.
What Will You Do? What Can You Do?
The Christian Medical and Dental Society has produced an excellent resource on physician-assisted suicide titled The Battle for Life.(9) As a part of the package they provide several cases to test your grasp of the principles involved and to help Christians be aware of the tough decisions that have to be made. I would like to share two of those with you and then discuss what you can do now to combat the “right to die” forces in this country.
Here is test case one:
Your 80 year-old grandmother has been fighting cancer for some time now and feels the emotional strain. She feels like she’ll become a burden to the family. Her doctor notes that she seems to have lost her desire to live. Should she be able to have her doctor give her a prescription expressly designed to kill her?
This is precisely what the courts have legalized in recent months and precisely what God’s word says is wrong. It is wrong because it would be taking her life into our hands and violating God’s sovereignty. Because physician-assisted suicide goes beyond letting someone die naturally to actually causing the death, it violates God’s commandment, You shall not murder. There is a clear distinction between allowing death to take its natural course in someone who is clearly dying with no hope of a cure, and taking specific measures to end someone’s life. There comes a time when the body is imminently dying. Bodily functions begin to shut down. At this point, people should be made as comfortable as possible, be supported and encouraged by their family and doctors, and allowed to die. This is death with dignity. Taking a lethal injection or breathing poisonous carbon monoxide takes life out of God’s hands and into our own.
Test case number two:
Your spouse has an incurable fatal disease, has lost control of bodily functions and is unable to communicate. Special treatment and equipment can extend your spouse’s life for a few weeks or even months but will involve much pain and exhaustion. Would it be morally right for you to not arrange for the treatment?
Many would accept a decision not to arrange for treatment because that would not be killing but simply allowing death to take its natural course. Such decisions are not always clear-cut, however, and a physician and family members must take into account the pros and cons of intervention versus a faster natural death. Sometimes we rationalize that we need to keep the patient alive as long as possible because God may still work a miracle. But just how much time does God need to work a miracle? If God is going to intervene He will do so on His time and not ours.
Now that we have a better understanding of the issues, you may be wondering just what we can do about this threat among us. Three things:
Pray – Pray that God will turn the hearts of people back to Himself and back to protecting life. Pray for righteousness and justice in our legal system, that we enact laws that preserve life, punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
Speak Out – Present this information to other groups. Talk with your friends and family and discuss the reasons for protecting life.Contact your state and federal legislators and tell them to stand against physician-assisted suicide.
Reach Out – Visit the elderly, care for those who can’t care for themselves, comfort the sick. Consider joining or starting a church ministry to the elderly, handicapped, or other individuals with special needs. As Christians we must lead the way with our hearts and actions and not just our words. If we devote our energies to providing quality and loving care and effective pain control, the euthanasia issue will die from a lack of interest.
© 1996 Probe Ministries International
Notes
1. “Why is Life Worth Living: An Overview of Physician-Assisted Suicide.” The Battle for Life: An Educational Resource Kit. Christian Medical and Dental Society, P.O. Box 5, Bristol TN 37621. 1996.
2. Cited in “Kevorkian going on trial on assisted-suicide charge,” The New York Times, 12 Feb. 1996, National Report, A8.
3. C. Everett Koop. The Surgeon General on Euthanasia. Presbyterian Journal. Sept. 25, 1985:8.
4. David Cundiff. 1992. Quoted in review of Euthanasia is NOT the Answer: A Hospice Physician’s View by Debbie Decker. CURRENTS in Science, Technology, and Society. 1(2):20.
5. Jack Kevorkian. 1990. Quoted in “Kevorkian: A Glimpse into the Future of Euthanasia?” by Sarah Sullivan. Christian Research Journal 18(4)23-27, 1996.
6. R. Finigsen. 1991. “The Report of the Dutch Committee on Euthanasia.” Issues in Law and Medicine 7:339-44.
P.J. van der Maas. 1991. “Euthanasia and Other Medical Decisions Concerning the End of Life.” Lancet 338:669-74.
7. “California’s Proposition 161 and Euthanasia.” 1992. CURRENTS in Science, Technology, and Society 1(2):11. Published by Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, CO 80937-8069.
8. Robin Bernhoft, M.D. 1995. Quoted in Euthanasia: False Light. Produced by IAETF, P.O. Box 760, Steubenville, OH 43952. Running time: 14:48.
9. The Battle for Life is an educational resource kit produced by the Christian Medical and Dental Society. The Kit includes an award winning video, Euthanasia: False Light, a leader’s presentation guide with discussion questions, handouts for Christian and secular audiences, overhead transparencies, Biblical principles summary, research synopsis, cassette tape of public service announcements, and bulletin inserts. The Kit is available from the Christian Medical and Dental Society, P.O. Box 5, Bristol, TN 37621, Phone (615) 844-1000, FAX: (615) 844-1005. The retail price for the complete kit is $30. The Kit can also be purchased through Probe Ministries.
Ah, but I believe this would fall on deaf ears, for the most part — as most of those I have seen who support killing are not religious and reject the Bible, God, and everything else good in the world.
It’s a shame, Ogre, I simply don’t understand it–it’s practically beyond comprehension…but I’m proud of my beliefs, and the fact that we’re allowed to freely express them here in the US. No banned headscarves here, and no burning synogogues! Book publishing is not slanted, (at least to the point where there are book bans), so I think I can fairly say we still have freedom of the press. So as much as they talk about France being ‘more relaxed’ it’s really stifling and secularist. But a woman can be topless at the beach, lol…some consolation.
Cao, this too was a great post. I did some writing about the nursing home **** that is happening; life is good for those who can speak for themselves or those who are not robbing society of resources…but for those who are in any way not like the rest of us, it is becoming a very scary world to live in.
We have to keep talking about this.
I know I will.
Yeah, it’s not over because Terri’s gone. Her death must not have been in vain. Her family is taking up the cause; and now Mae’s nephew. More people should know about the terror we’re facing before they wind up in a position where someone else is making the death choice for them when they’re unable to speak for themselves.
What scares me the most is what Ogre said.
Cao,
You highlight the fact God made us in his image. Given what we now know, this isn’t some “Jesus†we see in the movies but a stooped, hairy, knuckle dragging creature with practically no ability to think. To me it seems a little strange that, after billions of years of existence, God chose to evolve only over the last few thousand.
Or was it that the people who wrote the bible only had limited scientific knowledge?
It is a simple fact of life, if there was a God making medical advances for us, he would need to create cures and measures to save, savable people which could also be used to prolong the life of people who were not savable. People God chose to “terminateâ€.
In view of this, your concept that euthanasia should not be allowed is in direct conflict with your contestation that only God should have dominion over life and death.
When “God†gives a person a terminal condition, it is clear, his intention is to terminate. Anything that gets in the way of “God’s will†in the matter is, by your demonstrated words, an act against God.
There is in fact no such thing as a request for euthanasia. By the time anyone requests it we have passed the stage of “God’s will†and are keeping the person alive artificially. Or, to put it another way, if we had followed “God’s willâ€, the person would already be dead.
“Euthanasia†could therefore be seen as carrying out God’s will in the most caring manner.
Now I suspect your argument will be that God put the ability to keep the person alive in our hands and we should therefore use that ability. That’s why I made the note in paragraph 3.
So do you doubt the concept set out in paragraph 3?
Before you answer, consider the following scenarios:
A person broke their neck 5 years ago and they:
1. Were in the jungles of South America. They succumbed quickly and died.
2. Were in an extremely poor part of Africa. They were provided with pain killers and lasted a couple of days and died.
3. Were in India. They were put on the hospitals only respirator for a few months until someone with a greater chance of recovery required it and they were taken off and died.
4. Were in the Philippines but could afford a respirator. They lived two years and died.
5. Were in the USA and could afford mid range treatment. They lived for 5 years and died.
6. Are in the USA and money “is no objectâ€. They are still alive but their “quality of life” is so poor and deteriorating they want to take the course of “euthanasiaâ€.
So you believe, the only person God wanted to live, is the richest person and it is “God’s will†that they should live as long as possible?
Well, you see, I have a problem and it’s either with the previous statement or with the concept that euthanasia should not be permitted on religious grounds.
Which option do you prefer?
1. God loves the wealthy most, or
2. Doctors sometimes get in the way of “God’s will†and euthanasia should be allowed.
Othello
Cao,
Your point 12 was an excellent choice.
(But you shouldn’t use a genetics amateurs to explain genetics.)
You want to play games with jumping 1ft one week and 2 the next etc?
A man makes a paper plane and throws it, it flies. Man can’t make a jumbo jet because it has millions of parts and it’s a million times as big. Just because one situation has limitations doesn’t mean all situations have the same number of limitations. For example I could say macroevolution will end before every man becomes a god. That doesn’t mean its impossible to evolve to the current level and beyond due to a limitation theory.
For the record a flea has a need to jump 100 flea feet high and does. Humans have the bio-mechanical components to do so also, and if there was a real need, natural evolution would see your skater jump 100 feet.
Okay, so that logic doesn’t work…..
Next……
Princess and a frog?……
First there was 1 cell, mad, then it split and became multiple cells, ludicrous, then that became a primitive invertebrate, insane, then it became a vertebrate, absolute moron, then it became a complex vertebrate, how do these idiots keep coming up with these concepts?
Now take that ludicrous proposition and tell me, based on the factual time line data of physical archeological findings, the order in which life on earth has been discovered so far. Feel free to point me to the parallel single cell, multi-cell invertebrate and vertebrate discoveries at the same dig with the same age which leads you to the conclusion macroevolution is a joke, not feasible or not logical. Or is it possible to walk up to a cliff and see the essence of the Darwin timeline?
Whilst you’re on the subject, again, explain why there is a set of discovered humans (each more advanced than the one before) based on age of the discovery.
Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?
Now to your botanist…..
I mean, really, where do you get these quotes? It seems to me like you’ve gone to the web and searched for “Idiot’s+evolutionâ€
Oh dear……
The concept of a peach not being able to be bigger or smaller? Maybe he’s just not skilled enough.
On the other hand what has a plants biological structure, that tells it there is no point in being so large it couldn’t hang on the tree or so small its seed would be endangered so it refuses to genetically mutate, got to do with macroevolution?
What kind of moron would try to get a rose to bloom all year knowing the amount of energy that a plant requires to bloom all year it would so deprive the plant of resources it would die. Not to mention the fact that, even if the botanist attempting to change the plant is an idiot, the rose knows it’s no point in creating seeds at a time when they would simply fall to the ground and die.
What these examples should highlight to anyone is that even idiots intervening can’t override macroevolution
However If you go as far as to accept “microevolution†you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolutionâ€.
And it appears you have accepted microevolution
The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.
So to a Christian, in Darwin’s day, it was all a totally ridiculous concept that couldn’t possibly happen. Now part has been proved, “Oh well, yes of course, THAT PART is correct, it’s just the bit you can’t prove yet that’s wrong……â€
And what happens each time a new part is proved as fact? What? That becomes “obvious†until you simply have no way out?)
So, the comment regarding bacteria……
I guess it wouldn’t embarrass you if I highlighted the level of ability to monitor genetic modification in the mid 1800’s or perhaps highlight to you the number of bacteria there are in the world. Even today they’d have trouble monitoring the bacteria in your gut.
Here’s a quote you can freely use:
Othello Orson October, 2006 stated: “In over 150 years of bacterial research there is no evidence that a proportion of bacteria have not undergone macroevolution.â€
And that I can state (without any ability of another person to contradict) is at least as accurate a fact as the fact you quoted.
(Note here: Major changes in one bacteria leading to a different species would not wipe out the original species (remember mutation only occurs if the conditions seem appropriate: you can use black, white, red, yellow humans as an example) therefore the existence of bacteria existing today [in its thousands or millions of forms] is irrelevant to macroevolution.)
Small lesson here:
Things mutate in order to adapt to their needs and progress, not for the fun of it (which is incidentally why a birds beak may grow larger in a drought and then return to normal when the weather reverts).
Now it’s time to be sarcastic…..
What a dumb theory that a single cell could possibly have the genetic material to develop into something as complex as a modern man. How stupid is that?!!!
In fact, if something as stupid as that was true, living organisms wouldn’t come into existence complete. They’d start from a single cell!!! Try to imagine that concept!!!
Oh, wait a minute, they do start as a single cell? Well, that doesn’t help the argument. Wish I hadn’t thought of that one.
Your celebrated “bacteria man†(I don’t store the names of people, in my view, are idiots) advised that bacteria can mutate every few hours.
We know that, depending on complexity, organisms can change in hours, days weeks years.
Even complex living organisms such as, short lived, mammals can be genetically manipulated over a few generations over a period of months.
But lets say, like the new strain of flu each year, it takes 1 year to mutate and micro-evolve (noting bacteria can do it in a few hours).
Take one original cell and evolve it.
We know life has been on earth for around 3.5 billion years based on early Archaean fossils.
We also now have a formal declaration of 19,599 coding genes in the human genome (we won’t discuss why God would include large masses of “junk DNA†in the human genome but every Christian knows it’s not a result of macro-evolution disgarding the bits not needed).
So, at only one mutation per year, we are saying that there would be at least 3,500,000,000 mutations to a maximum of 19,599 genes in the original cell to get to man.
By all means go and ask any geneticist if they believe 3,500,000,000 mutations would lead to micro-evolutionary or macro-evolutionary changes. (Since you like numbers that’s more than one change to every one of the human roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs.)
When considering this note:
We have examples of tools made by Homo erectus 400,000 years ago so although this species was extremely primitive, it was not a monkey.
We have tools up to 2.2 million years ago.
“Human†created fire 1.2 million years ago.
Neanderthal man had a tiny brain but buried people, used tools and han clothes around 200,000 years ago. Clearly not a monkey (not and Adam either).
Neanderthal man’s DNA (with anomalies) is close enough to modern man to view him as close to (but not) a direct descendant. Nonetheless his larynx bone was identical to modern man putting him an a category that could speak, clearly not an animal.
The point here is, if the world could progress from nearly, but definitely not, animal around 2 million years, what about 3,500 million years and noting the need for much less dramatic change in the early stages?
Primitive man started finger painting on walls and was lucky to live around 20 years, 17,000 years ago. Today he is close to being able to flying to Mars and back and is approaching an average life expectancy of 80 years. Any idea the rate of genetic progress that is? Compared with 3.5 billion years?
That said…..
..….Macroevolution possible?
A virtual absolute certainty.
Seen the latest on the “laboratory formation†of the beginnings of life?
Time is running out for the Creationist theory which will probably be defunct within 20 years.
What then?
Cao,
Your point 12 was an excellent choice.
(But you shouldn’t use a genetics amateurs to explain genetics.)
You want to play games with jumping 1ft one week and 2 the next etc?
A man makes a paper plane and throws it, it flies. Man can’t make a jumbo jet because it has millions of parts and it’s a million times as big. Just because one situation has limitations doesn’t mean all situations have the same number of limitations. For example I could say macroevolution will end before every man becomes a god. That doesn’t mean its impossible to evolve to the current level and beyond due to a limitation theory.
For the record a flea has a need to jump 100 flea feet high and does. Humans have the bio-mechanical components to do so also, and if there was a real need, natural evolution would see your skater jump 100 feet.
Okay, so that logic doesn’t work…..
Next……
Princess and a frog?……
First there was 1 cell, mad, then it split and became multiple cells, ludicrous, then that became a primitive invertebrate, insane, then it became a vertebrate, absolute moron, then it became a complex vertebrate, how do these idiots keep coming up with these concepts?
Now take that ludicrous proposition and tell me, based on the factual time line data of physical archeological findings, the order in which life on earth has been discovered so far. Feel free to point me to the parallel single cell, multi-cell invertebrate and vertebrate discoveries at the same dig with the same age which leads you to the conclusion macroevolution is a joke, not feasible or not logical. Or is it possible to walk up to a cliff and see the essence of the Darwin timeline?
Whilst you’re on the subject, again, explain why there is a set of discovered humans (each more advanced than the one before) based on age of the discovery.
Provide any factual proof of modern man being the only man descended from one man, Adam without macroevolution taking place. If you can’t, what viable theory have you got to replace the theory of macroevolution?
Now to your botanist…..
I mean, really, where do you get these quotes? It seems to me like you’ve gone to the web and searched for “Idiot’s+evolutionâ€
Oh dear……
The concept of a peach not being able to be bigger or smaller? Maybe he’s just not skilled enough.
On the other hand what has a plants biological structure, that tells it there is no point in being so large it couldn’t hang on the tree or so small its seed would be endangered so it refuses to genetically mutate, got to do with macroevolution?
What kind of moron would try to get a rose to bloom all year knowing the amount of energy that a plant requires to bloom all year it would so deprive the plant of resources it would die. Not to mention the fact that, even if the botanist attempting to change the plant is an idiot, the rose knows it’s no point in creating seeds at a time when they would simply fall to the ground and die.
What these examples should highlight to anyone is that even idiots intervening can’t override macroevolution
However If you go as far as to accept “microevolution†you have no option but to accept the very likely possibility of “macroevolutionâ€.
And it appears you have accepted microevolution
The mechanism is identical. As pointed out, genetic mutation leading to change.
So to a Christian, in Darwin’s day, it was all a totally ridiculous concept that couldn’t possibly happen. Now part has been proved, “Oh well, yes of course, THAT PART is correct, it’s just the bit you can’t prove yet that’s wrong……â€
And what happens each time a new part is proved as fact? What? That becomes “obvious†until you simply have no way out?)
So, the comment regarding bacteria……
I guess it wouldn’t embarrass you if I highlighted the level of ability to monitor genetic modification in the mid 1800’s or perhaps highlight to you the number of bacteria there are in the world. Even today they’d have trouble monitoring the bacteria in your gut.
Here’s a quote you can freely use:
Othello Orson October, 2006 stated: “In over 150 years of bacterial research there is no evidence that a proportion of bacteria have not undergone macroevolution.â€
And that I can state (without any ability of another person to contradict) is at least as accurate a fact as the fact you quoted.
(Note here: Major changes in one bacteria leading to a different species would not wipe out the original species (remember mutation only occurs if the conditions seem appropriate: you can use black, white, red, yellow humans as an example) therefore the existence of bacteria existing today [in its thousands or millions of forms] is irrelevant to macroevolution.)
Small lesson here:
Things mutate in order to adapt to their needs and progress, not for the fun of it (which is incidentally why a birds beak may grow larger in a drought and then return to normal when the weather reverts).
Now it’s time to be sarcastic…..
What a dumb theory that a single cell could possibly have the genetic material to develop into something as complex as a modern man. How stupid is that?!!!
In fact, if something as stupid as that was true, living organisms wouldn’t come into existence complete. They’d start from a single cell!!! Try to imagine that concept!!!
Oh, wait a minute, they do start as a single cell? Well, that doesn’t help the argument. Wish I hadn’t thought of that one.
Your celebrated “bacteria man†(I don’t store the names of people, in my view, are idiots) advised that bacteria can mutate every few hours.
We know that, depending on complexity, organisms can change in hours, days weeks years.
Even complex living organisms such as, short lived, mammals can be genetically manipulated over a few generations over a period of months.
But lets say, like the new strain of flu each year, it takes 1 year to mutate and micro-evolve (noting bacteria can do it in a few hours).
Take one original cell and evolve it.
We know life has been on earth for around 3.5 billion years based on early Archaean fossils.
We also now have a formal declaration of 19,599 coding genes in the human genome (we won’t discuss why God would include large masses of “junk DNA†in the human genome but every Christian knows it’s not a result of macro-evolution disgarding the bits not needed).
So, at only one mutation per year, we are saying that there would be at least 3,500,000,000 mutations to a maximum of 19,599 genes in the original cell to get to man.
By all means go and ask any geneticist if they believe 3,500,000,000 mutations would lead to micro-evolutionary or macro-evolutionary changes. (Since you like numbers that’s more than one change to every one of the human roughly 3,000,000,000 base pairs.)
When considering this note:
We have examples of tools made by Homo erectus 400,000 years ago so although this species was extremely primitive, it was not a monkey.
We have tools up to 2.2 million years ago.
“Human†created fire 1.2 million years ago.
Neanderthal man had a tiny brain but buried people, used tools and han clothes around 200,000 years ago. Clearly not a monkey (not and Adam either).
Neanderthal man’s DNA (with anomalies) is close enough to modern man to view him as close to (but not) a direct descendant. Nonetheless his larynx bone was identical to modern man putting him an a category that could speak, clearly not an animal.
The point here is, if the world could progress from nearly, but definitely not, animal around 2 million years, what about 3,500 million years and noting the need for much less dramatic change in the early stages?
Primitive man started finger painting on walls and was lucky to live around 20 years, 17,000 years ago. Today he is close to being able to flying to Mars and back and is approaching an average life expectancy of 80 years. Any idea the rate of genetic progress that is? Compared with 3.5 billion years?
That said…..
..….Macroevolution possible?
A virtual absolute certainty.
Seen the latest on the “laboratory formation†of the beginnings of life?
Time is running out for the Creationist theory which will probably be defunct within 20 years.
What then?