My beloved nation of Canada took a progressive step this past week. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that preventing doctors from helping the seriously ill end their lives violated the rights of my fellow citizens. It decided that if someone suffered from an incurable disease that led to "enduring and intolerable suffering," they should have medical personnel available who could effectively and painlessly bring an end to their pain (see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31170569).
In a nation which increasingly rejects the Christian worldview this decision was unavoidable. The human rights movement sees it as a great victory. It is empowering for the individual to have full control over one's body. And while I feel great distress for those suffering with horrific and painful diseases, I can't help but see this decision as a great mistake. It is a decision which demonstrates the fact that while many believe we are giving greater dignity to human beings with rulings like these, the opposite is actually true.
The book of Genesis teaches that human beings are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). If we are made in the image of God, we inherently possess great dignity. It is unthinkable to take the life of such a valued creature. Murder is wrong. "'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image." (Genesis 9:6).
While it may seem compassionate to end a human being's suffering, it reduces his or her worth to that of a horse or dog that needs to be put down. We are of great worth and must be treated as such.
i haven't thought about this for a long time. i think i know why now... it's the hugest can of worms.
ReplyDeletei'm not entirely sure, but i'm pretty sure the sixth commandment is against murder, not killing in general. murder entails a certain degree of anger or contempt (matthew 5:21,22?). in the case of euthanasia, the emotions at work are probably the exact opposite.
that being said, accidental killing wasn't look upon favorably in the mosaic law either. in light of this, non-voluntary euthanasia shouldn't be legal imho. what if you killed a patient that didn't want to die yet?
voluntary euthanasia seems like a much more thorny issue. at the furthest end of the continuum, voluntary euthanasia is close to, if not the same as, conventional, everyday suicide. to be more specific, the killing is active; for example, a bullet to the head. if no action was taken, the person would've continued to live for the foreseeable future. on the other extreme, voluntary euthanasia is declining or discontinuing extraordinary measures that are being used to postpone certain, probably imminent, death. it's passive, but it's still not like refusing to eat.
i'm not okay with the former, but much more hesitant to come down firm on the latter. that being said, i'm not exactly sure where the line is drawn either. i think exactly how extraordinary the measures are is an important consideration, as is the likelihood of a recovery. manpower, money and medical resources that could otherwise be used to help other needy people more successfully may be being used to delay the inevitable in somebody else.
afaik, the reformers took the sixth commandment as an injunction to preserve life, but there is a real cost to doing this and this cost may come at the expense of another.