At the church where I serve, we have been spending
our time together in a sermon series entitled “Vote for Jesus”. During this
series, our hope and our prayer is to accomplish three specific goals. First,
our hope and our prayer is to demonstrate that Jesus is not a republican and
Jesus is not a democrat. Instead, Jesus is God and as God Jesus is the one that
we are to place our hope in, not a political party.
Second, our hope and our prayer is to equip and
empower us to think critically and Biblically when it comes to the issues that
our culture is faced with that often find themselves expressed in the political
process. And third, our hope and prayer is to provide a framework from the
message and teachings of Jesus when it comes to how we as followers of Jesus
are to engage in the government and in the political process in way that
reveals and reflects Jesus to those around us.
This week, I would like for us to spend our time together addressing the issue of
euthanasia. Specifically, I would like for us to ask and answer the questions “What
policies would Jesus promote when it comes to euthanasia? Why would Jesus take
the position that He would take? How would Jesus engage in the conversation
regarding euthanasia?”
First, let’s make sure we are all on the same page
when it comes to what we are talking about when we use the term euthanasia. Euthanasia,
also known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, doctor-assisted
dying, and more loosely termed mercy killing, means to take a deliberate action
with the express intention of ending a life to relieve persistent and
unstoppable suffering.
There are two main classifications of euthanasia.
The first, which is referred to as voluntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia that
is conducted with the consent of the patient. Since 2009 voluntary euthanasia
has been legal in the countries of Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Switzerland.
Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, and California have legalized assisted
suicide. The second, referred to as involuntary euthanasia refers to euthanasia
that is conducted without consent. The decision is made by another person
because the patient is incapable to doing so himself/herself.
While this issue does not garner near the emotion as
the issue of abortion, those engaged in the conversation and debate surrounding
euthanasia use many of the same arguments to support their positions. At one
end of the conversation when it comes to the issue of euthanasia would be
politicians and others who advocate for the right to practice euthanasia. Those who
advocate for euthanasia use
three main arguments to support their position.
The first argument could be described with the
phrase “We need it” or 'the compassion argument'”. Supporters of
euthanasia believe that allowing people to ‘die with dignity’ is kinder than
forcing them to continue their lives with suffering. The second argument could
be described with the phrase “We want it or 'the autonomy argument'”. Advocates
for euthanasia believe that every patient has a right to choose when to die and
that everyone deserves to determine their quality of life.
The third argument could be described with the phrase
“We can control it” or 'the public policy argument'. Proponents of
euthanasia believe that euthanasia can be safely regulated by government
legislation. And many who advocate for euthanasia, who would be viewed in our
culture as being on “the left”, often paint those who are against euthanasia as
limiting the freedom of people’s rights over their bodies and the medical
decisions that they make with their bodies to help ensure that everyone
experiences the best quality of life.
On the other end of the conversation when it comes
to the issue of euthanasia would be politicians and others who oppose
euthanasia. Those who oppose euthanasia
point to several arguments to support their position. First, those who oppose
euthanasia argue that alternative treatments, such as palliative care and
hospices, provide the ability to control and relieve nearly all the pain and
symptoms that a terminally ill patient experiences. Second, those who oppose euthanasia
argue that there is no ‘right’ to be killed and there are real dangers of
‘slippery slopes’. Opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia could lead to
non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, by giving doctors the power to decide
when a patient’s life is not worth living. For example, in the
Netherlands in 1990 around 1,000 patients were killed without their request.
Third, those who oppose euthanasia argue that we
could never truly control it. Reports from the Netherlands, where euthanasia
and physician-assisted suicide are legal, reveal that doctors do not always
report cases of euthanasia. Fourth, those who oppose euthanasia argue that the
assumption that patients should have a right to die would impose on doctors a
duty to kill, thus restricting the autonomy of the doctor. Also, a ‘right
to die’ for some people might well become a ‘duty to die’ by others,
particularly those who are vulnerable or dependent upon others.
And fifth, those who oppose euthanasia argue that depression
in terminal cases can cloud perception and lead to faulty decisions concerning
euthanasia by a terminally ill patient. And many who advocate for the
prohibition of euthanasia, who would be viewed in our culture as being on “the
right”, often paint those who advocate for euthanasia as being immoral people
who are murdering innocent lives and deny the fundamental sanctity of human
life.
Now, with all
that background in mind, what policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the
issue of euthanasia? Specifically, what do the letters that make up the Bible
reveal about euthanasia?
Tomorrow, we will begin to answer those questions…
No comments:
Post a Comment