I stumbled upon this story from The Point blog. It concerns a real-life scenario which illustrates the reality of physician-assisted suicide. Barbara Wagner of Eugene, Oregon has had a recurrence of lung cancer. She was notified by the Oregon Health Plan that they wouldn't cover the drug Tarceva which was ordered by her oncologist, but that it would cover (among other things) physician-assisted suicide, if she chose that medical option. Oregon is currently the only state in the country which has legalized this practice.
As some of you have heard me share in the past, this issue has touched our family personally. Back in 2001, my maternal grandmother passed away. About 6 years prior she had suffered a debilitating stroke and was left bed-ridden for the remaining years of her life. In her final days, she had been tranferred to the area hospital in Portland, Oregon.
My mom had traveled out to Portland from Indianapolis to be with my grandmother in those final days. The nursing staff asked my mom if she wanted them to administer a drug which would not only reduce the pain, but more importantly, hasten death. Being a nurse and a Christian, my mom declined, trusting that God would bring about the end in His time. My grandmother passed away peacefully the following day.
As our family has reflected on that experience, we still wrestle with the consequences had my mother chosen a different course of action. Imagine living with the knowledge of having been complicit in the death of a loved one. Those who promote physician-assisted suicide as the "good" death would have us believe that we have even a moral obligation to end the pain of our loved ones by whatever means necessary. But to do so, takes such monumental decisions out of the hands of God and puts them in the hands of human beings. As difficult it is to understand the reasons for pain and suffering, our finite fallibility will never surpass His omniscient infallibility.
These kinds of stories serve as a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of what many people still mistakenly assume is merely a theoretical issue. For Christians it is imperative to understand the various bioethical issues confronting us today in order to advocate for the kind of principles which promote a culture of life. 
'As difficult it is to understand the reasons for pain and suffering, our finite fallibility will never surpass His omniscient infallibility.'
God would not have interfered if people had gone ahead with the assissted suicide.
Only an infallible, omniscient being would know that the correct thing to do is never interfere with, or prevent, an assisted suicide.
Why would God not intervene in cases of assisted suicide?
Ours not to question why.
Ours only to draw the obvious lesson - never intervene to prevent an assisted suicide.
Posted by: Steven Carr | July 23, 2008 at 01:32 AM
Wow, that is hard to read. I actually had to read it a couple of times just to grasp the seriousness of where we are as a society. We are now at a point where we'd rather get rid of those that can't help themselves as opposed to helping those. Survival of the fittest, right? The theory of Darwinian evolution at its most fundamantal. It is funny, and hypocritical, that those people who claim to be for everyone, are really only for what benefits them. They claim to represent those that can't fend for themselves, unless its a baby, someone who is critically ill, a nation under tyrannical rule, and so on. Why spend tax dollars on welfare for those that really need it when we could save so much money and provide it to those that don't need it, but are too lazy to do anything about. that doesn't even begin to explain how nice our prisoners get it, even those that had a hand in an attempt on our destruction. Our unemployment system only requires that you bring in a classified ads section with some jobs circled. As long as you make an "effort", you'll keep getting paid. You can be completely fine, fit, healthy, just don't feel like working, and I have to support them. Which leaves less money for those who are unfortunante. I recently saw a sign that said "Work harder, people on welfare are counting on you". Sign of our times. Why should I work, when someone else can work for me. Unless I'm sick and then those same people will just kill me. I'm sorry, help me kill myself. Either way, my problem is solved. Sorry for rambling on, just frustrated.
Posted by: Jim Leech | July 24, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Well stated, Jim. You have succinctly articulated the reality of our culture. And it will continue down that same path unless enough of us choose to alter the trajectory.
Posted by: John | July 24, 2008 at 12:52 PM
First, bringing Darwinian evolution into a discussion about the choices of an individual is ridiculous. It is barely tangentially relevant and shows an uninformed oversimplification of the theory. Rhetoric.
“…that those people who claim to be for everyone, are really only for what benefits them.” How exactly does assisted suicide or abortion benefit the people who want to help those who can’t help themselves? More rhetoric.
Comparing murder to assisted suicide is also unfair to those who, regardless of your opinion on the issue, believe they are helping someone by putting them out of their misery. More rhetoric.
Rhetoric like this doesn’t further the discussion at all. I could make nearly identical arguments for the conservative movement. (For example, it also claims to ‘be for everyone’, but what about people who want to die, criminals, or people who need welfare?) Discussion like this not only shows a lack of understanding of the other point of view, but a desire not to try to understand. Both sides want to help people, it's just a question of who needs it most, and how to do it best.
The true question here is whether you believe someone should be given the choice to make a decision on these issues. As someone who promotes personal accountability (such as in reducing welfare benefits), I also trust individuals to make the right decisions on abortion and assisted suicide, even though I may not agree with the outcome. Freedom of choice and personal accountability are the common threads that support my opinions on these issues, regardless of the fact that it puts me at odds with both parties.
John- I am getting the dry heaves realizing that you think this post resembles reality. Disappointing.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | July 24, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Sorry to hear you're not feeling so well, R.A. Hope you get to feeling better soon. :)
For the record, it was Jim's comments on the state of our welfare system that primarily prompted my response. But to the main point of this post...
It would be nice to think that people will make the right decisions on such critical issues like abortion and euthanasia. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that the child being aborted might have a difference of opinion there, were they ever given the chance to exercise that opinion. And as the Terri Schiavo case and others illustrate, even those at the other end of the life cycle may not necessarily be in agreement with the decisions being made on their behalf. I continually find it ironic that those who are not in the helpless position of being either an unborn child or a debilitated invalid, whose life or death is dependent on the "wisdom" of others, are the ones assuming they know how to responsibly exercise such decisions.
It is much easier to assume such things when one is further removed from the realities of the situation. As Dr. Peter Singer, a euthanasia advocate and one of the leading bioethicists in the world, revealed when challenged about pulling the plug on his own mother who suffered from Alzheimer's, his practices aren't always as consistent as they should be. He couldn't end his mother's life, because as he put it, "She's my mum." (Of course, this is the same Dr. Singer who has publicly advocated that parents should have up to 28 days AFTER a child is born to determine whether or not that child is viable, and if not, to exterminate the child.) It is suggestions such as these from the designated experts that undermine my tendency to share your same optimism at the ability of people to make these kinds of "responsible" decisions.
Posted by: John | July 25, 2008 at 12:53 AM
RA,
I am sorry to hear my post made you sick however I feel much the same way after reading yours. I believe the rhetoric goes both ways. While you got me on the simplification of evolution, I let my sarcasm take over. That being said, my thoughts there centered on the survival of the fittest argument. If someone is not fit for a normal life (their opinion of normal), let's get rid of them. No more drain on society, the economy, our thoughts. That's how assisted suicide benefits the people doing the killing. And yes I do see this killing as murder.
mur·der
–noun 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
It is MY opinion that assisted suicide fits in this defintion of murder. I also feel that abortion fits under this definition as I feel a life is created at conception. My opinion, I know, but if one can believe that humans formed from fish and then monkeys over billions of years, it shouldn't be such a stretch to believe life begins at conception.
Also, no where do I state I am for reducing the benefits of welfare. All I feel is that there should be more restrictions on who gets it and how.
To suggest that I have no understanding of the other side or don't want to try to understand is a gross oversimplification of my point of view. While my sarcasm may be a little oveer the top sometimes, I'd have to think that the fact that you responded to my post and I'm responding here did in fact further the discussion. It also led me to be able to get another point of view from another side. I still disagree whole heartedly, but I did take your views into account and I did think about those. That being said, I did not change my mind other than I will try and be less sarcastic in the future. Wait, probably not.
Posted by: Jim Leech | July 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM
The helpless, by definition, are unable to make the decision on their own. That is precisely why we come to this dilemma. They may have another opinion on the matter, but unfortunately, they aren't in a position to express it. So, the question becomes who should make that decision for them? Someone who doesn't know them, never spoke with them, never met, or certainly never loved them? Or, the closest relative they have available, who ideally has their best interest at heart?
The people who would impose a ban on abortion or assisted suicide are no more 'helpless' than the people they oppose, so your sense of irony should extend to them, as well.
I think the Dr. Singer example proves my point exactly. In most cases, the right decision will be made because children do love their parents, husbands do love their wives, and mothers do love their unborn children. The beautiful thing is that he had the choice.
What if the prevailing opinion was that you must always pull the plug, or always give teenagers abortions? (Not completely out of the realm of possibility - think China.) Would you feel that a government imposed answer is the solution then?
Posted by: Resident Atheist | July 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM
One other thing RA - One of the defintions of rhetoric is "the art of making persuasive speeches".
Thanks for the compliment - Jim
Posted by: Jim Leech | July 28, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I'm familiar with the definition - I was intending the standard usage from this century.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | July 28, 2008 at 12:25 AM
Jim-
I am always up for a little sarcasm. I certainly have been known to partake. (Feel free to call me out when I inevitably do so.) But you're treading on some pretty touchy issues here, and the message gets lost easily. Feel free to use sarcasm. Just don’t be surprised when everyone ain’t laughing.
I understand how you are trying to tie assisted suicide to survival of the fittest. I just wanted you to know that your cheap shot at evolution didn’t go unnoticed. Tying these emotional issues to this concept doesn’t invalidate the logic of the theory…just muddies the water.
I understand why you believe abortion and assisted suicide are murder. I would submit that in order for it to be murder, the intent has to be to harm another individual. If the desire of the caretaker is the best interest of the helpless, then I wouldn't call that murder. It’s impossible to tell what’s in the heart of another, but I have faith in my fellow man. You, on the other hand, think that physical harm trumps everything, and therefore it must be murder. That's fine and a valid point of view. The point I was trying to make is that calling someone a murderer is ignoring that very important difference; malice.
“Also, no where do I state I am for reducing the benefits of welfare. All I feel is that there should be more restrictions on who gets it and how.” I fail to see the difference between those two statements.
Posted by: Resident Atheist | July 28, 2008 at 12:49 AM