All posts tagged sin

Lesson 13: Euthanasia

by Scott Noon on October 29, 2011 in Doctrine with No comments

Euthanasia is often defined as mercy killing, meaning a relatively painless death. People use the term for a variety of practices that run from the passive withholding of treatment to the active use of lethal substances or forces to kill. Some are widely accepted, such as giving medications to relieve pain knowing that they may also result in death.

The debate revolves around many questions, some moral and some very practical. People acknowledge many of these are the result of modern technology’s tremendous power when they characterize the problem as knowing when to “pull the plug”.

Technology has destroyed any common understanding of what entails a “natural death”. Dying usually now takes place in a clinic surrounded by professional care givers and machines rather than in the home with family and pastor. It often involves the anxiety about making technical decisions rather than waiting for death to occur. Everyone has their own stories about medical interventions.

All the possibilities offered by technology make affordability a problem. Doctors speak of the cost of dying rather than the cost of living, citing figures such as 85% of medical cost occurring in the last 6 months of life. Although people often agree intellectually that rationing health care has become necessary, their emotional involvement prevents discussing what this means. Opponents of a national health plan easily got support when they claimed it would introduce procedures to “kill grandma”.

Pain management has become a priority. People now assume quality of life includes lack of suffering. They have come to accept suicide, if it relieves such pain. Just about everyone desires a quick, painless death rather than a slow one that would enable them to get their affairs in order and prepare for life after death.

Often the public debate centers on legal issues, such as living wills and power of attorney. It asks whether the government has the right to extend its license to kill beyond war and capital punishment, and even more whether that license should be extended to individuals and groups. It also raises questions about the separation of church and state, such as whether the government can force the treatment of minors if parents refuse for religious reasons.

Those on the right worry we are again on a slippery slope. They regard much of the talk about self determination and relief of suffering to be rationalizations for ignoring the “Always care, never kill” precept at the foundation of a moral society. I find it somewhat puzzling that even conservative groups, such as the Ramsey Colloquium, are willing to accept the rejection of treatment if it is deemed useless or “excessively burdensome”. Even though they claim this is justified if we judge the value of treatment rather than value of life and keep the distinction between “ allowing to die” and “killing”, the problematic “exceedingly burdensome” seems to be already part way down the slippery slope.

The easy part is listing the basic principles which Christians can assume: Life is a gift from God to be cherished and protected. Christian love is to care for each person as a child of God. That love always involves compassion, which is sharing the sufferings of another person. (There is no doubt some of the talk about not wanting to see others suffer really is about not wanting to suffer with them). A Christian does not abandon those in her or his care. Death is real; humans die, God resurrects.

The difficult part is working out how these relate to the highly complex and difficult decisions that have to be made in our society. Among the more extreme I faced in the ministry were: 1) A person unable to feed himself in the final stages of Lou Gerhig’s disease asks his family to stop providing nourishment for him. They ask me if it is right to honor his request. 2) A father with a chronic illness refuses treatment so his three sons have the money for college. 3) Doctors who do not want to make a decision on their own ask a pastor’s opinion about withholding treatment from people who can not speak for themselves. They say the alternative is to continue indefinitely with expensive measures that they believe will never offer a cure.

Lesson 12: Stem Cell Research

by Scott Noon on October 29, 2011 in Doctrine with No comments

One of the face-to-face classes discussed “Is stem cell research a sin?” thinking it might be less emotionally loaded than the other life issues, such as abortion, in vitro fertilization, contraception, genetic engineering, and euthanasia. People obviously find it easier to speak about using some of the 100,000 or so embryos left over from in vitro fertilization that will be destroyed anyway. The hope was to get beyond bumper sticker slogans and name calling to the really tough issues.

The problem has developed, because a great deal of past religious, moral, political, and medical wisdom believed each person is sacred and of equal worth so that none should be ever be treated as a means or instrument.

Those on the right believe personhood is conferred by God at conception so that the embryo, fetus, and newborn must always be treated as a person, always an end, and never a means. Any exception leads to a slippery slope.

For instance, it extends to the self-centered individual and unaccountable group the license to kill which has previously been reserved for the state in cases of war and capital punishment. They also claim it returns to the eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries, because it is willing to dispose of some life form evaluated as inferior. We often forget this was a very sophisticated program in the USA as well as Nazi Germany. Many Christian leaders advocated, among other things, sterilizing people on welfare. The right points out this resembles agricultural insemination of animals and plants, because it involves throwing away the inferior product.

Many on the right claim to do this is to “play God”. To make personhood a social construct or to use utilitarian norms in all ethical decisions inevitably leads to the accommodation of selfish human goals. We are not prepared or even inclined to set up significant indifferent oversight. Profit remains the determining factor. For instance, government studies always include “experts” who will profit from the research.

The primary argument from the left is that the research offers new ways to overcome human suffering, especially in its promise for new more efficient ways to overcome disease and injury. They ask how we can deny these benefits to people in need.

Their argument focuses on the dramatic changes in our situation. We are faced with critical problems such as overpopulation, which raise questions our forebearers could not foresee. Technology has made obsolete old concepts of what is “natural”. Medicine is constantly intervening in areas once regarded beyond human control. Everyone can point people close to them who have been helped. The left might acknowledge we are destroying some form of human life, but they do not believe this equates with the murder of a living person already engaged in social relationships

They insist ethical action always calls for the courage to do the best we can in the present situation. Having already given vast new powers to individuals and independent groups, we should be setting up methods for accountability. Not being able to foresee all the consequences of our actions, we should insure the correction of the bad ones. But beyond all that, we should be devoting our energies to the needs of persons living and suffering right now, rather than expending so much on arguments which are primarily academic.

Those who want a clear statement of the position from the right can turn to the Ramsey Colloquium’s response to the NIH. I find Gene Outka’s “The Ethics of Stem Cell Research” to be a very thorough and thoughtful presentation of all the arguments. I tend to agree with Outka that Christians can assume human beings are morally capable and accountable, but must also acknowledge they inevitably exalt themselves, flaunt God, and manipulate others. Still he believes we can take a “nothing is lost” position in this issue, because the innocent will die in any case and other innocent life will be saved. He still expresses great discomfort at the lack of oversight, the role of the profit motive, the government’s tendency of allowing too many decisions to be made by default, the question of affordability, and the prevalence of insurance company reasoning.

In some sense, the conclusion sidesteps the issues, because it deals with forms of life already slated for destruction. Still we have examined the basic arguments used in all the life issues. There is no doubt that we are going to be continually confronted with the challenges of the new technologies. And there is no doubt that we are not going to find a consensus about how to proceed. It is another area where we must proceed with faith in uncertain territory, being willing to “sin bravely” as we try to serve other people and relieve suffering. As much as we value the wisdom of the past we can not let it stand in the way of ministering to the situation in the present.

← Older Entries