A Moral Analysis Of Physician Assisted Suicide

It is often difficult to judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes. As such, one of the most challenging situations imaginable would be for someone in optimal health to counsel the terminally ill as to the proper response to legal physician-assisted suicide.

In this contentious debate, ghouls in lab coats give those wracked with the most horrible of afflictions the impression that the only alternatives available are a life of agony or an end hastened by an IV drip. However, those in the middle of this debate who relish neither the prospects of drawn out pain nor speeding up death as an end in itself can provide a bit of solace in light of life’s most intense existential crisis for their loved ones and colleagues.

Many times if these cases are looked at more closely, one does not find someone that is all that eager to embrace death as they are to ease overwhelming physical and emotional suffering. The goal in such situations ought not be to prolong life beyond what was intended but rather to allow the person’s existential voyage to reach its conclusion at a natural pace in a more serene manner.

Therefore, the best course of treatment to counsel the terminally ill consists of the various options to control the pain. Rae points out that, though there are cases where pain cannot be controlled, these instances are rare and should not be precedent-setting examples upon which a comprehensive policy is based (188). It is Rae’s assertion that most cases can be controlled through a high-enough amount of medication.

Under the principle known as “the law of double effect”, medical personnel could be permitted to administer a sufficient quantity of drugs to alleviate the pain even if one of the possible side effects of the treatment is death (188). To some, this may sound little different than euthanasia; however, the distinction of motive is critical as the patient and medical professionals are not deliberately seeking to end life but rather to alleviate suffering aware of the knowledge that death might be an potential outcome. When you come down to it, this would not be all that more ethically ambiguous than any other risky but necessary medical procedure.

In his lectures for the Trinity Theological Seminary courses in Apologetics, John Warwick Montgomery astutely observed that each of us is more preoccupied about our own deaths and those of loved ones than we are willing to admit. Even for Christians, that appointment none will be able to avoid other than through Christ’s Second Coming might not spark as much apprehension if we had better assurances from the medical community that everything within its power was being done to make the transition into the next realm as comfortable as possible.

In regards to the issue of physician-assisted suicide, its proponents often attempt to turn the tables on their Christian opponents with the following argument: “Since Christians should show mercy and compassion, they should therefore approve of physician assisted suicide.” While this may be difficult to counter initially in light of the immense pain the terminally ill often suffer from, upon closer reflection one will realize that mercy and compassion are not as intrinsically linked with this disputed medical practice as we have been led to believe.

For starters, often the terminally ill are not so eager for a headlong rush into death as they are terrified of becoming a burden or facing the cessation of life in this world alone. Thus, in such circumstances, mercy and compassion would manifest themselves not in a desire to let the dieing do themselves in but rather by standing alongside them as an advocate against maltreatment or to stand beside them as a companion, holding the hand of the ailing letting them know they are still loved despite their failing bodies and that they will be missed each day until we ourselves will be resurrected with them in eternity where we will no more endure the sorrow of death.

If the advocates of euthanasia point out that while such efforts might diminish psychological anguish they do little to ease overwhelming pain, the Christian can respond that the goal ought not to be so much hastening death but rather directing research efforts towards addressing this physical trauma. As Rae points out, the cases where pain cannot be managed are increasingly rare; and in especially challenging cases under the principle known as “the law of double effect”, physicians are justified in increasing the patient’s level of medication to levels nullifying the pain even if one of the potential side effects is death. In such a scenario, death is not the intended result but rather an unintended consequence.

In these debates, it is often considered impolite to call someone’s motives into question. However, since the advocates of physician-assisted suicide have already insinuated that Christians leery of this practice rank up there with the Marquis De Sade for allowing suffering to continue, it would be a fair question to ask whether euthanasia’s enthusiasts are really all that concerned about the comforts of the critically ailing or simply hide behind such a seemingly humanitarian posture out of more materialistic motivations.

For despite hiding behind a cloak of compassion, many calling for physician-assisted suicide are just concerned about the bottom line, claiming that limited resources would be better directed towards salvageable human capital. As former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm said, “We have a duty to die”, no doubt emphasizing this obligation for the common man rather than his own loved ones.

By Frederick Meekins

Does The Convergence Movement Meld The Strengths Of Protestantism & Catholicism Or Intend To Dupe The Pious Of Each?

Click On The Headline

It was complained that some would rather give money than to volunteer in church. But what if the church making the complaint will only accept your money and not allow you to volunteer unless you jump through a number of hoops that don't have very much to do with determining whether or not you are on some kind of offender registry. Given the deficits many churches run, shouldn't these ministry staffs be grateful for what funds people decide to give?

All Christians have a spiritual gift. However, can those in a congregation homiletically be bored a new one about not using their spiritual gifts in the context of a partcular congregation if that congregation does not have opportunities in which specific spiritual gifts can be used or does not allow an individual to exercise the spiritual gift that the individual believes that they may possess?

During the introduction to an episode of his broadcast ministry, Creflo Dollar remarked that he was disturbed by Christians that otherwise live by what they profess but that seem insufficiently transformed by grace. But so long as they live by what they profess, is it really a pastor's business as to the details of the person's life beyond that? Not everyone is going to be a superstar Christian. Often, those that present themselves as such result in the largest theological and existential trainwrecks that end up soiling the name of Christ. And just what does it mean anyways to be sufficiently transformed by grace. Is that some kind of code or euphemism that such souls have not targeted a sufficient amount of funds for Creflo Dollar ministries specifically?

Reprobate Denominations Embracing Infanticide & Moral Degeneracy Forsake Fossil Fuels As Sinful

Click On The Headline

Irreligious Jews Demand Christians Censor Lectionary Readings

Click On The Headline

Apostates Condemn Whites For Being Insufficiently Chummy With Muslims

Click On The Headline

In response to Ann Coulter’s observations regarding the narcissistic martyr complex often exhibited my missionaries, a Facebook theologian quipped that Albert Mohler is more doctrinally sound than Ann Coulter. Perhaps comprehensively, but not in regards to this issue. What Coulter has enunciated here is merely a different interpretation. It can no more condemned than Paul wanting to head in one direction to evangelize and Barnabas wanting to go in another. Coulter’s missiological strategy enjoys a sounder Biblical foundation and relies less on mere human opinion than Mohler’s insistence that the unmarried over the age of 22 in a congregation are little better than street whores that should be pressured into marriage by the COMMUNITY whether they want to be one not irrespective of whether or not they have kept themselves out of each others pants.

Lesbian Minstrel Threatens To Brainwash Church Youth Into Accepting Gay Marriage

Click On The Headline

Evangelical Elites Aroused Over Coulter's Missionary Position

A number of prominent Christian leaders are as outraged as Dana Carvey's Saturday Night Live Church Lady over Ann Coulter's remarks regarding the medical missionaries contracting ebola in darkest Africa.

Ann Coulter's remarks regarding missionaries weren't that far off the mark.

Those engaged in that particular form of ministry often get by with things that would never be allowed on the part of average mundane pewfillers.

For example, some of the throbbing neck vein pulpit firebrands that drone on and on how ungodly church bookstores and garage sales or flea markets are don't give second thought when allowing missionaries to hawk books and tapes as congregant walk by them on the way out the church door.

Coulter pretty much hit the nail on the head in asking why can't Christians serve God in America any more.

For example, I went from kindergarten through 12th grade in a Christian school setting.

A considerable number of foreign missionaries were brought in to speak to the students.

I can't recall any one being brought in to discuss how a Christian worldview could be applied here in America in culturally relevant areas such as mass communications, public service, or business.

Granted, assorted orations in honor of Ben Carson were held each February even way back then.

However, these exhortations were lifted up more so simply because he was Black for it is doubtful his medical aptitude would have been mentioned at all if he had not been born a politically correct hue.

Given the state of healthcare here, where many financially struggle or are even go bankrupt to obtain it, why don't more Christian organizations conduct such outreach on behalf of their own countrymen?

By Frederick Meekins

CNN headline makes a fuss about women in the 60's being unable to get a credit card without their husbands cosigning for it. What's so wrong with that for either spouse if each can be legally ruined by the other's profligate spending? After all, the Bible teaches that two are one flesh.

Biomedical Developments Require Advanced Ethical Reflection

With advances in medical science, the line between when doctors should intervene to save a life and when they should step back to allow nature to take its course has become increasingly blurred. Since life sustaining support systems can be financially burdensome and because the average person emphatically projects themselves into such a situation and find that they are unsettled in the spirit when confronted with these devices, many make statements to their loved ones and even draw up legal documents that specify that they do not wish to receive such treatments to sustain their earthly lives. However, when the individual enunciates these kinds of concerns to their friends and family, they must be explicit as to what they desire or lawyers and related bureaucratic scavengers could very well descend around the withering remains to pick and claw as they play the word games for which their breeds are infamous amidst shades of ambiguity.

As an illustration, consider the following. A young mother with two small children has an accident one morning that does not kill her but leaves her in a coma. She is taken to the trauma center where she is placed on life support. Her husband informs the medical staff that his wife stated that she desired no treatment should she ever find herself in such a condition. Since her temperature is rising significantly, her physician believes she should be treated for an infection. Her husband does not approve.

To decide whose wishes should prevail (either her husband’s or the doctor’s), any bioethics committee called in to make a determination would first have to consider a number of factors. For starters, a bioethics committee would need to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary means of treatment.

According to Rae, ordinary means are those courses of treatment for a disease that offer a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient without being excessively burdensome; extraordinary means are those that do not offer such hope and place undue burdens on the patient (185). In other words, extraordinary means would include things such as respirators that temporarily extend a life that would come to an end without the intervention of such a device. Ordinary means would consist of those things that ordinarily sustain or improve the normal processes of life such as food and water. Antibiotics could be considered an ordinary means of treatment since these substances are administered to curb an infection threatening life and health rather than prolonging life that is beginning to fade away.

Second, the bioethics committee should look into the quality of the of relationship between husband and wife. While such a suggestion might seem nosy, in light of certain disturbing aspects of the Terri Schiavo case, it would be helpful to know whether the spouse is sincerely seeking to fulfill the wishes of their mate in these grim matters or merely looking for an easy way out to make their way on to their next victim, I mean partner.

This case is not that difficult for objective observers with a traditional Judeo-Christian worldview. Administering antibiotics to fight off the infection in order to bide more time to ascertain more fully God’s future plans for this woman would be a moral obligation.

More extensive life support measures would be a decision best left to the family. The most difficult task might be educating the husband as to the distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary means. Though some might consider it presumptuous to speak on someone else’s behalf, at the time his wife made the statement about not wanting treatment if she ever found herself in such a situation, she was probably not referring to treatments such as food, water, and regular medicines but rather to things more like breathing tubes and respirators. For example, one could argue that, if the “no treatment” criteria was to be upheld as an inviolable absolute, the administration of painkillers would have to be withheld as well since these are also a form of treatment.

Furthermore, the medical professional must make it clear that it is not over until it’s over. The antibiotics do not interfere with the chain of events set into motion by the accident, the outcome of which no mortal can know for certain. Rather, these substances prevent an otherwise preventable or treatable secondary matter from overtaking the body and weakening it further. By administering the antibiotics, the family can better prepare themselves for the ultimate will of God in the life of their loved one, which could consist of any number of possible outcomes such as death, healing, or life-long disability.

Even though a number of these states may be far from what we would consider ideal and we might even question them sometimes as mere human beings, it is not our place to be the direct cause of the conclusion of the process known as life. It is rather the duty of the family and authorized caregivers to make the loved one as comfortable as possible and this is most likely what a person means when they say they do not want to be subject to all kinds of extraordinary treatments.

By Frederick Meekins