It has been frequently observed that anti-Christian humanism, the philosophy that reigns throughout much of our American culture today, is a philosophy of death. Death, not life, is the consequence of man’s sin, and death is his “way of life.” Solomon stated it succinctly: “He who finds Me the LORD, as “wisdom”, finds life . . . . All those who hate Me. love death” (Prov. 8:35, 36). The philosophy of death has expressed itself in many ways throughout man’s history, especially in war and the tendency toward self-destruction. Today we also see it in the abortion movement, and with increasing emphasis in the euthanasia movement.
Many TV programs and articles are appearing in the popular papers and magazines promoting the concepts of “death with dignity” and “the right to die.” Two notable examples of this promotional effort are the best-selling book, Last Wish by Betty Rollin (condensed in the October, 1985 Good Housekeeping), and the “60 Minute” segment, “The Last Right” aired January 5, 1986, which depicted the euthanasia movement in Holland. In that country, we were told, one out of six elderly people opts to die by lethal injection or self-administered overdoses of drugs after signing a so–called “Living Will.”
Euthanasia, the “Good Death”
The concept of “euthanasia” on the surface appears to be not only a harmless concept, but a positive good under certain circumstances. The word literally means “good death” and who could be against that?
A “good death,” according to this philosophy, is a death promoted by either active or passive measures in order to alleviate the suffering of the incurably ill and terminal patients who have no hope of regaining a pain-free and decent quality of life. Have you ever seen a person pray to God for death and deliverance from his or her unbearable suffering? How could anyone be so unfeeling as to deny that person his or her request for a quick, merciful release through an injection or at least the withdrawal of all those miserable “life support” contraptions which only prolong the agony, but cannot stop the inevitable? Such is the case for “the good death,” euthanasia. For a more detailed description read the aforementioned article in Good Housekeeping. It veritably drips with sentimentality.
Background of the Euthanasia Movement
The Euthanasia Society of America was formed in 1938 to work for “lawful termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of avoiding suffering.” Analysts tell us that “assisted suicide was in view, but so was the destruction of the institutionalized incompetent.” On February 28, 1975 this Society changed its name to the Society for the Right to Die—a more acceptable name and more disarming to the American public which was prejudiced against the word euthanasia. A companion foundation, the Euthanasia Educational Fund, founded in 1967 to advance the concept of the “Living Will” changed its name in 1978 to Concern For Dying An Educational Council. Another more brazenly anti-Christian euthanasia group is the Hemlock Society, headed by Derik Humphrey. (The reader should know that this name comes from the famous incident in Greek history when the philosopher Socrates voluntarily drank poisonous hemlock and died a “noble” death.)
The Living Will
On August 8, 1985 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, meeting in Minneapolis, approved the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. This Act is to serve as model legislation for the states for the “Living Will.” Thirty-five states presently have some form of Living Will statute. The vote at the conference by the commissioners from the 50 states was as follows: 35 states in favor, 10 opposed, and five abstentions. The push is on for all the states to adopt this form of the Living Will. (As we write, Living Will legislation is presently before the South Dakota Legislature.)
The Living Will is a signed declaration authorizing one’s attending physician to withhold or withdraw “life-supporting” medical procedures if a terminal condition exists. The purpose of the Living Will is not to grant a consenting adult the right to refuse medical treatment for himself, for whatever reason, as that right is a basic constitutional right for all Americans. Rather, the purpose of the Living Will is to “create a new standard of medical care, one that would involve physicians in starving or dehydrating their patients to death,” according to Curt Young of the Christian Action Council (Action Line, Sept. 9, 1985). This legislation goes far beyond the older provision of removing the respirator from a ”brain dead” patient. During the Commissioners’ debate in Minneapolis, the proponents “admitted that intravenous feeding, nasogastric tubes and spoon feeding were all encompassed under ‘life-sustaining treatment’ that could be withheld” (C. Young, source cited).
Who is promoting the Living Will legislation, and why? First, all the euthanasia societies are promoting the Living Will as a first step toward getting more active euthanasia legislation on the books. The goals of the euthanasia groups are four-fold, according to Mary Senander of the Human Life Alliance of Minnesota: passive euthanasia (letting a patient die by withholding needed care), active euthanasia (taking m easures to actively end the patient‘s life), assisted suicide, and suicide clinics! The Living Will is a conditioning measure to get the public and legislators and medical personnel accustomed to the idea that everyone has a right to die when and where and howsoever he pleases.
Others who are promoting the Living Will and the euthanasia concept in varying degrees are physicians who see this declaration as relief from legal liability, to which they are now subject, in decisions to withhold or withdraw treatment from their patients. Of course we can also understand why the health insurance and hospital industries would want to see the speedy demise of certain patients who would be a financial liability to them. It has been suggested that Living Wills be put into the V. A. hospitals so that the “human wrecks” could be removed, saving the government $2 billion annually. Then there are the many elderly who fear a prolonged, agonizing death under the control of tubes and respirators and other “death prolonging” measures. We can sympathize with those who are revolted by the use of such equipment to prolong the inevitable. Indeed, “there is a time to die,” says Solomon.
But the hidden danger of Living Will legislation, a danger cleverly concealed by the pro–death advocates, is that life-sustaining treatment can include insulin for the diabetic, dialysis for those with kidney disease and many other incurable, but treatable, disorders. And even food and water are defined in many instances as “life-sustaining treatment” which the physician can choose to withhold or withdraw if he so chooses, under the terms of the Living Will.
Dr . C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General of the United States, gives an example of the potential danger of a Living Will. He said, “You and I could be in the same accident—you a young man with a Living Will and I, an old man without one. As a result . . . you might be allowed to die and I might live.”
Euthanasia, An Enemy of Biblical Christianity
Behind the euthanasia movement in general and the Living Will legislation in particular is the Anti-Christian concept that a person has the right to take his own life, to assist others to take their own lives, or to sign away his life in advance.
It is an ungodly death wish when a person thinks his life is his own to do with as he pleases, irrespective of the will of God; when he believes there is no judgment of God to face for breaking the Sixth Commandment which forbids the taking of human life, either actively or passively. The Heidelberg Catechism explains the Sixth Commandment in question 107: “. . . God requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves, to show patience, peace, meekness, mercy, and kindness to him, and to prevent his hurt as much as possible . . . .”
It is a Godly death wish when a believer in Jesus Christ resigns his body and soul to the loving care of his Heavenly Father and leans on the grace of God to strengthen him in the act of dying. He longs to die and to be with Christ which is far better than any quality of life in this world (Phil. 1:23). But he patiently waits God‘s providential ordering of events.
This promise of God remains for the suffering Christian: “No temptation has overtaken you, but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted (tested) beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it” (I Cor. 10:13). The sufferings of the body, no matter how severe, are said to be light and momentary, and are designed by God to produce for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison (II Cor. 4:17).
God’s grace must be seen as sufficient to strengthen the suffering Christian against cowardice in the face of wracking pain (II Tim. 1:7; Rev. 21 :8 NASV). He can and shall persevere to the end enduring his afflictions. The Church of God consists of heroes, men and women who face martydom and prolonged agony simply because God so ordains it. They rejoice with Paul “in filling up that which is lacking in Christ‘s afflictions” (Col. 1:24). “If we suffer with Him . . . , we shall also be glorified with Him” (Rom. 8:17; I Pet. 4:13).
Indeed , we are to “bear one another‘s burdens ” (Gal. 6:2), and minister in every way possible to the suffering, but euthanasia has absolutely no place in the thinking of the child of God; and for a priest to administer the last rites to a person before that person receives, by his own request, a lethal injection (as practiced now in Holland) is a most damnable abomination!
Norman L. Jones is the pastor of the Reformed Church in the U. S. (Eureka Classis) at Pierre, South Dakota.