The pro assisted suicide group Compassion and Choices, along with a compliant media, continues to romanticize self destruction as an answer to the problem of human suffering. Latest example: In Montana, a man murdered his wife, who had cerebral palsy, set his house on fire, and then, shot himself. How is the tragedy treated? As an advertisement for assisted suicide. From the story, byline Michael Jamison:
It was an act of love, Darryl Anderson said, an act of compassion and caring and bullets and arson and it didn’t have to be that way. “Basically,” Anderson said, “it was a mercy killing, to end the pain. They were good people, but there was terrible pain.” William “Ted” Hardgrove used to visit Anderson – Lincoln County’s sheriff – at work, showing off his inventions or detailing his own detective work on the latest unsolved case. He’d stay and chat and sometimes harangue, Anderson said, “and I thought he was just a super old guy.”
Hardgrove was 81, just like his wife Swanie. She was known for her baking, and her gardening and her lace-making, and for the fact that she had cerebral palsy as well as other crippling medical problems. In recent weeks, the increasing pain had completely overwhelmed her medication. On the last Saturday in August, Ted Hardgrove stopped the pain. He moved their valuables out of the Libby-area house and into the garage, then left a note explaining this final, desperate act of love. He took the household chemicals from the home, took the hunting ammunition and anything else that might explode or burn too hot. Anderson figures Hardgrove was protecting the firemen he knew would come. Then Hardgrove went back inside, shot his wife, set their home afire and shot himself. “It was a very carefully planned thing,” Anderson said. “He left that note, said he was tired of seeing her suffer so badly, and there was a better place.”
“An act of love”, “He stopped the pain:” In any other context, this would be looked at as a possible abuse scenario.
That point aside, rather than report on how this tragedy could have been avoided without death, the reporter goes to the Compassion and Choices representative–who despicably seizes upon the story to push the assisted suicide agenda:
But there was also, perhaps, a better way. “What we want people to know,” said Steve Hopcraft, “is there is help and information out there.” Hopcraft works with a nonprofit called Compassion and Choices, a group that offers free end-of-life planning, counseling and options. “We believe that these tragic and violent deaths are 100 percent preventable,” Hopcraft said. “It’s a matter, really, of getting the information out.” Information such as the fact that Montana is among three states – Oregon and Washington are the other two – where doctors are allowed to provide what’s known as “aid in dying.” They can prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients, who can then choose whether and when to use the pills.
Talk about a clueless reporter. First, notice he buys the euphemistic “aid in dying.” Second, there is no indication that Mrs. Hardgrove was terminally ill, she was elderly and disabled, nor indeed, that she even wanted to be killed. Third, when pain control fails, the answer isn’t murder, it isn’t a lethal prescription, it is to have a doctor improve the pain control. Fourth, what could Mr. Hardgrove have done to get further help–without resorting to ending his wife’s life? Was he overwhelmed with caregiving? What services could he have sought? Good grief, at least print the local suicide prevention phone number!
But not to worry, the reporter quotes a physician:
“No one, no matter what their condition, should feel they have to resort to violence when confronting advanced illness,” said Stephen Speckart, retired Missoula oncologist. “Patients need to feel safe talking with their doctors about unbearable symptoms and their feelings of desperation and desire for a peaceful death.”
Guess what? Dr. Stephen Speckart was a plaintiff in the case that brought legalized assisted suicide to Montana–and the reporter doesn’t so identify him! That is really journalistic malpractice.
This is really disgraceful: We have a story of a murder suicide, turned into a commercial for assisted suicide, in which most of the sources are assisted suicide activists, written by a reporter who treats Mrs. H’s death as a necessity, and doesn’t explore how people in such difficult circumstances can be helped. Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
September 4th, 2010 | 4:56 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Stand In The Gap. Stand In The Gap said: BIOETHICS WATCH => Compassion and Choices Uses Murder/Suicide to Advertise… http://dlvr.it/4jvhm #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tcot #tlot #sgp [...]
September 4th, 2010 | 7:28 pm
All I can say at this time is that we all make mistakes and hope that this reporter gets to read these constructive criticism and that most of his ESC do not harden their hearts.
I could go on and on explaining my thoughts and I might even bring tears to some people’s heart but I ask, what good would that do?
I’ll simply close by asking God to keep every soul and spirit in mind no matter what their believes are.
Peace
September 4th, 2010 | 9:36 pm
Victor: I hear you. I am being hard on the reporter because I fear the consequences of people reading this story when it has been presented in such a fashion. Good grief, it is as if suicide is now the favored thing to do.
September 4th, 2010 | 10:23 pm
[...] of Compassion and Choices” to use the incident to promote “aid in dying.” http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/09/04/compassion-and-choices-uses-murdersuicid… An 81 year old man shot his 81 year old wife (who had cerebral palsy) and then set their house on [...]
September 4th, 2010 | 10:39 pm
Reading this really reminds me of the book I have been reading called “Nazi Doctors”by Robert Jay Lifton. I know, everyone says that as soon as you use that term you lose the argument or the audience because the allusion has been so overused. However, I don’t really believe that in this case. The “life unworthy of life” concept is part and parcel of the pro-euthanasia movement.
September 4th, 2010 | 10:49 pm
Also in regards to the quote about “not having to resort to violence”. What? Murder is murder is it not? I suppose if one uses “medicine” (death by poisoning) to dispose of an inconvenient person it is so much better because it isn’t all messy with blood and bone and sinew everywhere. Oh, to murder someone with a bullet is so uncivilized but to murder them with prescription drugs is compassionate?
September 4th, 2010 | 11:19 pm
I agree, Wesley – this is pretty horrifying, precisely for the reason you mention: Murder/suicide as a compassionate solution to the suffering caused by illness.
This is proof that we (or at least the media) are now officially past the point of “safeguards” of requiring consent and the existence of terminal illness.
I’m almost surprised the C&C people didn’t recommend the Quietus.
September 5th, 2010 | 4:02 am
May I please correct an error in your excellent article, Mr. Smith, that I’m sure is based on a lie being spread far and wide by Compassion and Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society). Montana does NOT allow physician-assisted suicide (PAS). One lone Montana district judge decided that the Montana State Constitution does not prohibit PAS, and the Montana Supreme Court pointed out that there is a clause in the Montana State Constitution that an attorney, in defending a doctor who had assisted the death of a patient, could use as his defense, as it is possible that a jury might interpret said clause in such a way as to determine that the doctor should be acquitted, or they may not. A doctor could choose to take that chance. That court did not affirm that Montana’s constitution allows for assisted suicide and, therefore, it did not juridically legalize assisted suicide in Montana. As things stand now, a physician is subject to arrest, prosecution and jail time if he/she aids a patient’s death.
The Montana State Legislature, when it convenes in January, will need to decide definitively whether physician-assisted suicide is or is not going to be legal in Montana.
Why is Compassion and Choices lying about PAS in Montana? Because they do not have a lot of support at this time in most of the United States, but they want to create the impression that their cause is gaining ground.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
September 5th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Sandy: The trial judge’s constitutional rule was not followed by the Supremes because they said they need not reach the issue. But I think the Supremes did permit physician assisted suicide in the context of the law on advance directives. The most insidious part of that is they accepted the premise that “aid in dying” is a medical treatment.
September 5th, 2010 | 9:05 am
>>Raven said,
I don’t really believe that in this case. The “life unworthy of life” concept is part and parcel of the pro-euthanasia movement.<<
Forgive me Raven but I must disagree cause as far as I'm concerned it's kind of like saying that if Satan and/or his angels are helping out a teenager at a bus depot or where ever and then later collect by taking their soul, then "IT" is OK! The anology might not be right on but I think some will get my drift.
Society might not want to accept "IT" but that's who I blame. Having said that I also forgive them because Jesus tells me so.
I'll close by saying, God Bless their souls and "Man wake UP" before "IT" is too late!
I hear ya! What's sinner vic doing? :)
Peace
September 5th, 2010 | 10:58 pm
I was just saying that the pro euthanasia’s ideology is based on the eugenics movement and the NAZI regime founded their state sponsored euthanasia program on the doctrine of the eugenics movement, therefore ….never mind. I guess what I meant to say was that when one points out the similarity of the two movements’ tenets most people nowadays don’t see the connection because they are ignorant of history.
Both the NAZI regime and the pro-euthanasia movement use(d) the “life unworthy of life” concept to sell their program(s) to the populace.
September 6th, 2010 | 2:02 am
Wesley, you’re being unfair to Compassion and Choices and once again reading far too much into this story. It’s the reporter not the Compassion and Choices representative who uses the murder/suicide to (as you put it) advertise doctor assisted suicide. What Hopcraft (who, to be fair, had presumably been contacted by the reporter to speak in his capacity as C and C rep) actually said was “these tragic and violent deaths are 100% preventable” and he talked about how people in these situations could be provided counselling and information. The compassion and choices website emphasizes working with the entire family and enabling the patient to make well-informed choices about end of life care, including chronic pain control and hospice care. They do not “romanticize self destruction as an answer to the problem of human suffering”.
I see very little evidence of a “culture of death” (It strikes me that people are increasingly concerned about controlling the circumstances of their demise because they are understandably interested in the experiences they have while living). I do however see evidence of a “culture of death denial” – a hysterical insistence that “life” is so important that it ought to be preserved and extended at any cost and a reluctance to accept the fact that death is the inevitable and natural end of every life. You write that the reporter “treats Mrs H.’s death as a necessity”. With reason. It was a necessity. The question was, as it is for all of us, when and how?
September 6th, 2010 | 12:53 pm
@Raven (September 5th, 10:58 pm)
There’s a huge difference between killing people who do not wish to die because we feel they are “unworthy of life” and assisting people who wish to die because they believe their lives are not worth living. Even if you find both voluntary euthanasia (based on “compassion”) and involuntary euthanasia reprehensible you should realise that these actions are miles apart in ethical terms.
Comparing a movement to Nazism often “loses the argument” not because “the allusion has been overused” but because it often reveals a shocking lack of perspective. A genetic counselling program which attempts to prevent carriers of a fatal genetic disease from mating which each other (or which sought to encourage the reproduction of those with favourable traits) would be “eugenic” but anyone comparing such programs to Nazi eugenic practices obviously profoundly misunderstands Nazism, the modern programs she criticises or both.
September 6th, 2010 | 8:03 pm
I actually feel that parallels to the Nazis are warranted more often than people like to admit and that the drive to cast such comparisons as alarmist is borne in part from a desperate effort to avoid facing the truth.
September 6th, 2010 | 10:03 pm
@ Raven Chukwu,
May I presume then that you are an immortal? Kinda big talk for someone that is probably not (immortal I mean) and could be one day a victim of some “kind” doctor’s benevolence if society and medical ethics keep heading in the direction they are going now.
Are you seriously suggesting that eliminating “defectives” from the species would be a boon to mankind? Are you kidding me? We all have “faults” and “failings”. That is what makes us human. You obviously have no idea how human it makes a person to have the privilege of taking care of someone who is not as “perfect” as you would like.
September 7th, 2010 | 12:17 am
To Raven Chukwu,
I am also interested to know what source you have used to discern my perspective on the matters I mentioned. What could you possibly know of my life experiences, my family history, etc?
Also, to not so subtlety imply that a person is ignorant just because they don’t agree with your opinion is a plebeian attempt to construct a rational argument. What is the evidence of the supposed ignorance?
I did mention I am reading a book about the T-4 program and the medical personnel that implemented it. I have read books about the eugenics movement (both the late 19th/early 20th century and the modern incarnation of the movement). I’ve also read many books about Nazism and other totalitarian regimes.
I am not a scholar nor do I claim to be. However, I do state my opinion based on what I have learned from school as well as from independent study.
September 7th, 2010 | 12:55 am
raven:”Even if you find both voluntary euthanasia (based on “compassion”) and involuntary euthanasia reprehensible you should realise that these actions are miles apart in ethical terms.”
Not in terms of Christian ethics. We do not own our own life – we belong to God and we do not have the right to murder ourselves anymore than we have the right to murder someone else.
Interestingly, we seem to have similar views regarding the “culture of death denial”.
September 7th, 2010 | 1:37 pm
@Raven (September 6th, 10:03 pm)
I apologise if my previous comment offended you. When I mentioned “ignorance” I did not mean this in a global sense (and I obviously was not suggesting you were stupid) – I simply meant that you were either unaware of certain facts or were wilfully ignoring them. I stand by that assessment. If, as you claim, you are very familiar with the history of Nazi Germany then I conclude that the lacunae must lie in your understanding of “the modern euthanasia movement”.
Parties may disagree without either side being wrong about the facts. This is something I am well aware of – and I approach each discussion with the presumption that my interlocutor actually knows what he or she is talking about until I am presented with evidence to the contrary.
Humanity would be improved by the elimination of defects (not by the elimination of “defectives”), by the elimination of disease (and not those with diseases) and by the elimination of disability (not the disabled). A quixotic “eugenic” program which seeks to prevent conscious persons from ever being in a position of having a defect is morally rather different from one which seeks out defective persons for destruction.
I have my own share of imperfections and several members of my extended family are living with disabilities. I assure you, Raven, that the “elimination of defectives” is not something I advocate (and I think you’ll have a hard time finding many members of the “right to die” movement who hold these monstrous views).
It is good to read books. It is better to understand them. This, I know, will once again come across as condescending and insulting. Please do not be insulted. Take those phrases as a poorly controlled expression of my exasperation. I understand that you feel legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide might have adverse societal consequences, might be the first step on a slippery slope to a world in which the elderly and infirm are summarily dispatched because third parties consider their lives “not worth living” – but it would be nice if you were to acknowledge that most of the individuals in the movements you describe are in fact morally serious individuals who hold these positions because they honestly care about the welfare of the terminally ill (or those with “intolerable” levels of suffering). You might feel that they are wrong, you may oppose them with every ounce of moral and intellectual energy at your disposal but at least recognise the fundamental integrity of their motives (most of them anyway) and please, please, please, give the frankly ridiculous comparisons to Nazism a rest. It might be emotionally effective but it’s intellectually dishonest.
September 7th, 2010 | 2:36 pm
OR Mom: Not in terms of Christian ethics. We do not own our own life – we belong to God and we do not have the right to murder ourselves anymore than we have the right to murder someone else.
I agree that from the point of view of fundamentalist Christianity, both actions potentially have equally grievous consequences (spiritual death and estrangement of the perpetrator from God) but even within the context of Christian ethics one sometimes speaks of a hierarchy of sins. Cheating on a midterm is a rather different sort of transgression from breaking into an invalid’s home to steal his wheelchair. Similarly, killing a man who begs you to end his suffering is a different type of sin from murdering an elderly (and unwilling) woman to claim her possessions.
Also, the use of the word “murder” in this context is problematic. We only ever use this word to describe killings we have already decided are unethical. We do not, for instance, (even if we are Christian ethicists) usually describe judicial killings or the slaying of enemy combatants during war as “murder” (even if we do acknowledge that the lives we have taken belong not to us, or the person we have slain, but to God). Not all deliberate killing is ethically proscribed. We ask questions about motives and context when we wish to evaluate the morality of killing humans and it is with respect to these that the situations outlined above differ.
September 7th, 2010 | 3:55 pm
R Chukwu, it is not only fundamentalist Christianity which holds the views I expressed, as I, a Catholic, am assuredly not one as the term is commonly used today.
You have however given a very good description of moral relativism, which IMO is our greatest modern day moral scourge. It leads otherwise good people to hold immoral views. I stand by my use of the word (self)murder for suicide.
September 7th, 2010 | 5:58 pm
OR mom:
Where exactly did I provide this description of moral relativism? Was it my statement that some Christian ethicists regard judicial killings or the slaying of enemy combatants as morally justified? Or my assertion that motive and context help determine the moral nature of a killing? Please clarify.
We should resist the temptation to describe ethical standards as “relativist” simply because we disagree with them (or have failed to determine what these standards actually are). I certainly believe that there are courses of action and moral perspectives which may be universally recommended and which should be consistently enforced. That, in and of itself, exculpates me of the “relativism” charge.
And I must apologise for my imprecise use of the term “Christian fundamentalist”. I certainly didn’t mean to use it in the (generally accepted) sense of fundamentalist protestant. I was referring to “fundamentalism” in the more general sense of strict adherence to the tenets of traditional Christianity (in that sense a strict Catholic is just as “fundamental” as a bible-thumping evangelical).
September 7th, 2010 | 6:42 pm
OR mom:
I’ll try to clarify why I think your description for suicide as “self-murder” is problematic.
You stated earlier that “we do not have the right to murder ourselves any more than we have the right to murder someone else”. On the face of it, this statement has a certain appeal. Things change however when we substitute the word “kill” for “murder” (suicide is, after all, defined as the deliberate killing of oneself).
The new sentence reads “we do not have the right to kill ourselves any more than we have the right to kill someone else”. It becomes immediately obvious that though, in general, we have have no right to kill other people, there are certain specific instances when we do. It is generally considered ethically permissible to kill in self-defense, in war or in the execution of a sentence after the proper judicial process. Not all deliberate killings of other people may be regarded as “murder”. Similarly even if we do insist on describing some cases of suicide as “self-murder” our examination of the killing of others leads us to the conclusion that not all suicides may be ethically unacceptable. An altruistic suicide who kills himself while believing that his action saves others (a soldier who dives onto a grenade to save his comrades, for instance) should be praised rather than condemned. It seems ludicrous to describe such heroic actions as “self-murder”. Or imagine a wounded hunter with a broken leg, stuck in the middle of nowhere with a pack of snarling hyenas tearing at his flesh. If he happened to have a single bullet in his rifle would it be ethically unjustifiable if he shot himself?
If one agrees (as a Christian) that some deliberate killing of other people is morally justifiable (and that is, admittedly, a big “if”) it seems to me impossible to argue consistently that all suicide is ethically impermissible. Some suicides may be (from your perspective) legitimately described as “self-murder” but that judgement, IMO, requires an investigation into (wait for it) motives and context.
September 7th, 2010 | 11:03 pm
To Raven Chukwu,
You continue to speak but you don’t really say anything. You say you are not attacking someone as you attack them. You have not proved any argument. You use circular reasoning to prove your point which proves nothing. You have mastered the art of double-speak and congratulate yourself as you condescendingly pat the head ignorant fool that has the temerity to state an opinion that does not match your own.
September 7th, 2010 | 11:11 pm
To Raven Chukwu,
As a side note, if any of the hunters I know didn’t use that rifle as an impromptu crutch to hop his way out your hypothetical “nowhere”, I’d pretty much think they deserved to be eaten by the “snarling hyenas”.
September 8th, 2010 | 12:28 am
@Raven Chukwu,
I think the issue here is the concern that “legitimate” end-of-life legalization for the truly terminally ill will become a general “human right” with ever-expanding scope. Witness the growing spectacle of “suicide tourism” in Switzerland:
“But one Swiss organization is pushing this law to the limits, attracting an increasing number of foreigners who want to take their own lives, and raising serious ethical questions about an act most countries forbid.”
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/12/60II/main540332.shtml)
That article of course discusses an 81 year old man dying of Parkinson’s disease. But then there is this article from the DailyMail:
“[Nurse told to sort through bins of items] ‘Minelli said I should empty the sacks onto a long table – they were huge – and sort through everything. I opened one up and was horrified by what was inside. Mobile phones, handbags, ladies’ tights, shoes, spectacles, money, purses, wallets, jewels.
‘I realised these were possessions which had been left behind by the dead. They had never been returned to family members. Minelli made his patients sign forms saying the possessions were now the property of Dignitas and then sold everything on to pawn and second-hand shops.
‘I felt disgusted. You see these old photos of people in Nazi death camps sorting through the possessions of those who had been gassed. Well, right then and there, that is how I felt.’”
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127413/Cashing-despair-Suicide-clinic-Dignitas-profit-obsessed-killing-machine-claims-ex-worker.html)
Note also in that article that the director of the “Dignitas” suicide clinic has since classified “depression” as an “irreversible illness” that justifies suicide. They see the slippery slope they warned about for so long coming true before their eyes, all while you demand “context”.
In the Netherlands where assisted suicide is legal, doctors have created the Groningen Protocol, which spells out the circumstances under which a doctor may end the life of an infant who has an “irreversible illness” (like depression, Dignitas?) without consultation or notification of the parents. These were murders, plain and simple. Assisted suicide opponents see these and many other abuses and scream, knowing that any law will be “expanded” endlessly.
You also appear to be experiencing cognitive dissonance regarding the Nazi issue. While Nazi comparisons are (rightly) often frowned upon they are also unavoidable in this argument – not because of a sensational comparison of assisted suicide to Auschwitz (which everyone assumes when the “N” word is used), but the true factual understanding of the euthanasia programs that evolved in Germany *before* the large-scale incineration programs began. The euthanasia program was gradually implemented in Germany through the medical system, and the medical experts used their “superior intelligence” to frame the issues “in context” so that the public, while uneasy, went along with the “logic.”
Here is a comparison for you. Here are excerpts from two assisted suicide laws:
1. “[A person who] has been determined by the attending physician and consulting physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, and who has voluntarily expressed his or her wish to die, may make a written request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner.”
2. “[T]hat persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.”
Which one was signed by Adolf Hitler?
Finally, since this forum is discussing this issue from a Christian viewpoint, why don’t we commit the one allowable fallacy and appeal to authority?
“Whosoever will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” — MARK viii. 34.
Exactly where does Christ say “Suffering is optional. Take it until you are in too much pain, or too depressed, then let the doc juice you and sell off your stuff to the pawn shop. This is the way to salvation.”
That was instead the way of Judas.
You sir I believe are effectively undermining one of the central tenets of Christianity by your arguments. You should beware your logic’s destination.
September 8th, 2010 | 1:18 am
@Raven (September 7th, 2010. 11:03 pm)
Forgive me. I have offended you. (Your flowers and chocolate are in the mail.)
September 8th, 2010 | 2:15 am
Dave: I think the issue here is the concern that “legitimate” end-of-life legalization for the truly terminally ill will become a general “human right” with ever-expanding scope. Witness the growing spectacle of “suicide tourism” in Switzerland:
I appreciate that this is a real concern – but it’s important to realise that a “general human right” (of any description) is rather different from the state sponsored killing of “undesirables” who are not themselves willing to die.
Dave: ‘I felt disgusted. You see these old photos of people in Nazi death camps sorting through the possessions of those who had been gassed. Well, right then and there, that is how I felt.’
The analogy is appealing on a superficial and emotional level – but it is one without intellectual foundation. It is because of this emotional appeal and the visceral revulsion we feel towards anything to which we attach the label “Nazi” that I insist on sending all those who casually drop the reference into discussion to the back of the class (where they may reflect on their transgressions).
In the Netherlands where assisted suicide is legal, doctors have created the Groningen Protocol, which spells out the circumstances under which a doctor may end the life of an infant who has an “irreversible illness” (like depression, Dignitas?) without consultation or notification of the parents.
Without the consultation or notification of the parents? Really? I thought parental consent was one of the main requirements under the Groningen Protocol. Am I mistaken (as I frequently am) or is this just one of those scare stories that get scarier each time you tell them?
While Nazi comparisons are (rightly) often frowned upon they are also unavoidable in this argument – not because of a sensational comparison of assisted suicide to Auschwitz (which everyone assumes when the “N” word is used), but the true factual understanding of the euthanasia programs that evolved in Germany *before* the large-scale incineration programs began.
Aha. But when critics compare “the modern euthanasia movement” to Nazi practices they aren’t referring to the voluntary euthanasia of patients on compassionate grounds. They refer instead to the “elimination of the unfit” for reasons which have nothing to do with their own desires or wellbeing. Raven (she who shares my name), for instance, firmly in the grip of this poisonous analogy, referred to both ideologies as being grounded on the concept of “life unworthy of life” (this “worth” presumable being judged by a third party) and actually imagined I would support the elimination of “defectives”. That is how the comparison poisons discourse. It leads us to completely misunderstand the motivations and perspectives of those whose ideas we oppose.
The Nazis had assisted suicide laws based on compassion and presumably laws about armed robbery and rape and surgical protocols for the treatment of cancer. Were all of these immoral? Of course not. Your point is presumable that these assisted suicide laws were themselves a “pre-malignant lesion” – that the mindset which allows these laws to develop inexorably devolves into one which rides rough-shod over the rights of others. There is no evidence for this – the specific social and intellectual forces which contributed to this moral degeneration are simply not active today (or, at least, not active in quite the same way). Our motivations are different and so is the ethical zeitgeist. There is no reason to expect that the moral trajectory traced by the Nazis would be replicated now (by people who share none of their core beliefs).
Exactly where does Christ say “Suffering is optional. Take it until you are in too much pain, or too depressed, then let the doc juice you and sell off your stuff to the pawn shop. This is the way to salvation.”
We are human. Suffering comes with the territory – but exactly where does Christ say that we may not avoid suffering if that option presents itself? Obviously we are encouraged to “do the right thing” even at great personal cost. We are urged to “take up our cross” and follow Christ, to “endure to the end” but there is always the implication that we are, in each instance, striving towards a goal. Our suffering ought to be purposeful. A Christian who refuses to take painkillers or accept a local anaesthetic is not performing a moral action – he is inflicting unnecessary suffering on himself and it is arguable that a person at the end of his life who decides to exit the world prematurely on his terms (rather than endure a few more hours, weeks or months of meaningless torment) is committing an ethically justifiable action. Suffering and pain should not deter a Christian from striving for a worthwhile goal but I don’t remember any Bible passages which would lead one to assume that suffering, in and of itself, is a thing to be embraced.
September 8th, 2010 | 7:31 am
[...] Wesley J. Smith points out how the media romanticizes even murder/suicide situations and makes them into “ads” for assisted suicide.He also notes how the upcoming World Suicide Prevention Day on September 10 seems to send mixed messages. [...]
September 8th, 2010 | 2:54 pm
[...] is an interesting discussion underway in the thread from a previous post among two valued SHS commenters, as to whether the Dutch infanticide that has flowed illegally, [...]
September 8th, 2010 | 9:13 pm
R Chukwu: “Our suffering ought to be purposeful. A Christian who refuses to take painkillers or accept a local anaesthetic is not performing a moral action – he is inflicting unnecessary suffering on himself”
If you want to know how suffering can be purposeful, read about the last illness and death of St. Therese of Lisieux and how she viewed it.
“I don’t remember any Bible passages which would lead one to assume that suffering, in and of itself, is a thing to be embraced.”
Christ suffered a horrible passion and death. There was more to redeeming mankind than just His death. The suffering was also necessary because it was the will of the Father. We are asked to do as Christ did and accept the suffering that comes into our life to the best of our ability. That doesn’t mean that we can’t pray to have it removed (as Christ did) or make use of medication or therapists.
There is a saying in 12 step programs – Don’t leave before the miracle happens. It is the same thing with suicide. Don’t check out before God wills it because you don’t know what miracle you might miss.
September 9th, 2010 | 2:27 am
OR mom:
We are not in disagreement about suffering. It is often, from the Christian perspective, one of the many tools God uses to shape us into something wonderful – it sometimes serves as the metaphorical fire through which our imperfect lives pass to be purified.
The question isn’t whether any suffering has value (we have established that, from the point of view of the Christian, it sometimes does) but rather if all suffering is to be embraced. Is it always wrong to embark on a course of action because it diminishes the amount of suffering we experience? Your willingness to accept the use of analgesia suggests that your answer to that question is the same as mine.
You write that one ought not to “check out before the miracle happens” and I have to admit that I find that an interesting phrase. It strikes me that we are not to live in the expectation of miracles i.e. although we are to acknowledge that God (being who He is) is capable of intervening in a dramatic fashion on our behalf we are not to expect that he will actually subvert the laws of nature so that things work out to our advantage. If such wonders occur we are to be thankful – but we are to carry on with our daily lives believing that the laws of biology, chemistry and physics will run along the tracks he has laid down from the foundations of the Earth. The death of a Christian is, after all, not a terminus but a point of transition from the brief flash of mortal existence to the eternity which lies beyond. It is not something which ought to be feared.
Of course contemporary Christians also tend to use the word “miracle” to describe implausible events which are nonetheless well within the bounds of possibility e.g an unexpected alleviation of symptoms without a removal of the underlying disease process. A faithful Christian might be expected to leave himself open to the possibility of these minor “miracles” but it seems a little extreme to describe as unethical a course of action (such as suicide) which reveals that he does not.
It also strikes me as interesting that we have gotten to the point where the only argument being offered to demonstrate the immorality of suicide is a religious (and specifically Christian) one. By what line of reasoning may one convince an atheist that suicide is unethical?
September 9th, 2010 | 4:49 pm
R Chukwu, I was actually referring more to the miracle of spiritual growth that often occurs as death approaches. The grace of surrender, which sometimes only happens when we have nothing else to hope for, can be a true miracle and healing gift from God – to be able to place oneself entirely in His hands as a child rests safe and secure and trusting in it’s Father’s arms.
Those who surrender themselves to suicide when it all gets too tough only surrender to the same self that has already failed them.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact