Jump directly to the content

Euthanasia Confusion

Newspaper accounts of end-of-life debates too often muddle the issues.

Let no one say America is a death-denying society. Our newspapers are full of articles reporting on battles over how we die. The Terri Schiavo controversy was not a blip of newsworthy gruesomeness on the pages of otherwise cheerful publications. Schiavo's story replicated others, on and off the front pages, that have been going on for more than 30 years. Death, once again, is changing in America, and we have been arguing about how to handle these changes since they began decades ago.

One hundred years ago, science made its first serious advances in pushing death later and later in life. Diseases like tuberculosis, pneumonia, cholera, and influenza struck towns and cities regularly until scientists discovered they were caused by germs that spread uninhibited in open sewers, trash heaps, and other unclean city sites. With the help of inoculations and public health initiatives, diseases of old age became the leading causes of death, especially heart disease and cancer.

Once again, death is changing. Stephen P. Kiernan writes in his new book Last Rights that further advances in medicine and public policy have displaced quick killers such as heart attacks, strokes, traffic wrecks, and other accidents. Instead, long-term illnesses have become the nation's leading killers. "In a recent fifteen-year span, deaths from chronic respiratory disease increased 77 percent. Fatalities from Alzheimer's disease have doubled since 1980. … People now succumb to congestive heart failure, lung disease, diabetes that leads to kidney failure, ALS (or Lou Gehrig's disease), Parkinson's, osteoporosis that results in falls, confusion and immobility." Despite massive research, AIDS and cancer, two other gradual killers, are on the rise.

For patients and their families, gradual death requires more sophisticated knowledge. This treatment or that one? At what point should treatment in pursuit of a cure end? For Christians, the instruction of the church in these situations is vital now that most of our information on the end of life no longer comes from personal experiences with the dying or the communal funeral rituals church communities once held, but from the media. Newspaper accounts of these situations do more to confuse a culture already bewildered by death, especially because of the difficulty in distinguishing between allowing a disease to take its course and actively pursuing death.

Public confusion

Last week, The Sydney Morning Herald reported on a controversy generated when an Italian man, after he spent years pleading for his respirator to be removed, finally succeeded. Piergiorgio Welby died soon after the respirator was removed. The Diocese of Rome refused permission for Welby to have a church funeral. In response, the former archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, wrote a letter to the Vatican asking for a reconsideration of its current position on end-of-life issues.

TheSydney Morning Herald, along with The New York Times, reported the story as a "right-to-die" case. The Vatican, they said, opposes euthanasia. While Cardinal Martini protested that "the wishes of the patient cannot be ignored," The Age made clear that the cardinal distinguished between active euthanasia—causing death by lethal injection or other means—and refusing "unreasonably obstinate" treatments. Yet The Age did not follow up with that distinction. It simply said, "The issue of euthanasia is regularly raised in many countries with some … more tolerant than others."


More from Christianity Today

The Latest in Movie News, May 20, 2013

Box office news, Benedict Cumberbatch, Cannes, and AFI honors Mel Brooks.
Divine Rehab

Divine Rehab

Whatever your addiction, God's grace is the only hope for a way out.
Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness

Lots of explosions but not much heart makes this a film that will please most but might leave fans disappointed.
Get Instant Access
Christianity Today Magazine
Subscribe now for a year (10 issues) at $24.95 for print, iPad, and instant web access.

International Orders

Comments

Displaying 1–3 of 5 comments

tolani

February 14, 2007  11:40am

euthanasia could be the best optioin for patients with terminal disease(painful suffering) or even poor patients. This is because it could have been medically proven that such illness have no medical breakthough.Nonetheless the doctor should not decide for the patient but give psychological encouragements because they are to preservr life not to terminate life.if a patient insists after the encouragement it should be asumed that such is unable to endure more pain and passive euthanasia could be helpful

olayinka afolayan

February 10, 2007  10:10am

There is no dignity in anyone who takes his life or human life. The right of life and death resides in the Almighty God. People should stop deceiving themselves, once you take your life, you are 'rail-roading' yourself to hell. Simple.

Dave

February 05, 2007  3:18pm

I try to think of it as what would have been acceptable 100 years ago in the treatment of end of life. I don't believe new technology should place a greater burden on those moral decisions.

See All 5 Comments
You must be a Christianity Today subscriber to post comments
(on articles open to the public, you must at least register for a free account).
Login
or
Subscribe
or
Register

Don't Miss

Forgiving Iran

Forgiving Iran

Long before I knew the true God, he helped me release my hatred.
Guilt Gone Wild

Guilt Gone Wild

The right kind of guilt can be healthy. But false guilt depletes your soul and ministry.

Training for "One Pitch" Preachers

Training for "One Pitch" Preachers

If you're stuck in a rut, this is how to mix things up.

more | current issue

Facebook

CT eBooks & Bible Studies


Shopping