Euthanasia

His pronouncements could hardly sound more drastic. In interviews and public appearances, Yusuke Narita, an assistant professor of economics at Yale, has taken on the question of how to deal with the burdens of Japan’s rapidly aging society.

During an interview in late 2012 he said, “I feel like the only solution is pretty clear. In the end, isn’t it mass suicide and mass ‘seppuku’ of the elderly?” Seppuku is an act of ritual disembowelment that was a code among dishonored samurai in the 19th century.

When asked by a school-age boy to elaborate on his mass seppuku theories, Dr. Narita graphically described to a group of assembled students a scene from “Midsommar.” This is a 2019 horror film in which a Swedish cult sends one of its oldest members to commit suicide by jumping off a cliff. Dr. Narita said, “Whether that’s a good thing or not, that’s a more difficult question to answer. So, if you think that’s good, then maybe you can work hard toward creating a society like that.”

At other times, he has broached the topic of euthanasia. He said in one interview, “The possibility of making it mandatory in the future … will come up in discussion.” Dr. Narita, 37, said that his statements had been “taken out of context,” and that he was mainly addressing a growing effort to push the most senior people out of leadership positions in business and politics—to make room for younger generations. Nevertheless, with his comments on euthanasia and social security, which appear clear enough, he has pushed the hottest button in Japan.

Possible Preaching Angle:

This is not a pleasant or positive illustration, but it does highlight the dangers of losing the biblical doctrine of the Imago Dei and the sanctity of every human life.

Conservatives are not alone in opposing the slippery slope that is the growing trend toward advocating for euthanasia. The liberal periodical The Nation, as well as liberal disability advocates, are raising the alarm as well. The reality is that the lives of Americans with disabilities are being devalued:

Disability is something people are taught to hate and fear. And people with disabilities are frequently not given the resources they need to live or the assistance they need to participate fully in society. The poverty rate for disabled people is more than double that of nondisabled people. Further, the unemployment rate for disabled people is more than double that of nondisabled people. The responsibility for care that is shirked by the state frequently falls on families, who are overwhelmed. Instead of being given the resources they need to thrive, many, if not most, people with disabilities are treated like expensive burdens.

Diane Coleman, the president of Not Dead Yet, has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair and a respirator. She says, “It is not the disabilities that ruin lives. It is the system and society that fails to support disabled people. It’s not religious, nor is it pro-life. It’s about going up against a ‘better dead than disabled mindset.’”

Coleman says medical professionals have devalued her life and others with disabilities. One member of her staff was told by his father that it would have been better if he’d died in the accident that made him a quadriplegic. Coleman said, “Those experiences are so well-known in the community.”

23-year-old Jules Good, assistant director of Not Dead Yet, said of her experience, shared by many others: “When I was 18, I got a pretty rough diagnosis. I was super depressed and attempted suicide. And when I went to my first counseling appointment with a new therapist, I explained my whole deal. And she looked me in the eye and said, ‘Yeah, I’d probably kill myself if I were you.’”

Kim Kuo tells of the 10-year-long battle her late husband, David, had with terminal cancer. David was the former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Much of his time was spent in pain from the vicious side effects of surgeries, radiation, and medications. But, instead of considering the alternative of euthanasia or becoming passive, he chose to focus his remaining time to spiritually touch the lives of people.

Especially in suffering, we can dive below the shallow waters and touch another’s heart and soul. Steve Jobs, who died of pancreatic cancer in 2011, shared this wisdom at a commencement speech at Stanford University: ‘No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because death is very likely the single best invention of life. It is life’s change agent.’

In 1997, only Switzerland allowed their residents to decide if they wanted to end their life, but “compassion for end-of-life sensibilities” (quotes added) has seen that number rise dramatically across the West.

Since 2015, ten countries (including Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and Germany), ten American states, and D.C. have legalized assisted dying. Countries that are largely Catholic, such as Ireland and Italy, are currently crafting legislation to follow suit.

More and more people who have seen their relatives suffer through chronic or incurable illnesses—and who may be worried they might face the same fate—are on a wave of activism to return the right to die to the individual and families, rather than the state.

In 2015, the state of Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act, which was copied internationally in places like New Zealand and all but one of the states of Australia.

One of the founding principles of classical liberalism was the right to self-ownership: one owns the rights and fates of one’s person. It’s the ultimate vote of confidence in not only the sovereignty of the individual, but in the principles which many of our Western countries were found upon.

Possible Preaching Angle:

One of the clear principles of the Word of God is “you shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13). As difficult as the end of life may be for a loved one or for yourself, we do not “own ourselves” (1 Cor 6:12). It is God’s expressed will that we entrust ourselves to him so that we pray “not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42).

In an issue of CT magazine, Dr. Ewan Goligher shares what he has learned as a Christian doctor receiving requests for physician-assisted dying. He notes that in the past five years, the number of patients dying with physician assistance in Canada has grown tenfold, from around 1,000 in 2016 to more than 10,000 in 2021. He writes:

When the hospital staff called me to my patient’s bedside, I could see her distress was severe. She was agitated and breathless, her face etched with discomfort and frustration. “I can’t take this anymore,” she cried. She had suffered for years with chronic illness and had been admitted to my intensive care unit with acute complications. She was debilitated and exhausted, and her grief and frustration had come to a head. “I just want to die,” she wept.

Her friend was standing next to me at the bedside, and he was clearly upset by her distress. He said, “Just ask for MAID,” (medical assistance in dying, often referred to as physician-assisted death). Then you can end it all now.” I was startled by his statement. Yet I saw that he was feeling desperate and helpless at the sight of her distress.

After some gentle exploration, we quickly realized that the patient didn’t really want to die. Rather, she needed relief from her pain and anxiety and to understand what her acute illness meant for her future. She still wanted time with her loved ones. We worked to address her symptoms and concerns, and she soon felt calmer and more comfortable. Watching her rest and converse with family made it hard to believe she was the same person who only hours earlier had cried out to have her life ended.

What is more unbelievable is that the ability to have one’s life ended on short notice is an increasingly acceptable option for Canadian patients—with implications that will reverberate around the globe.

Some patients with disabilities or mental illness reported that assisted death was proposed to them without their instigation. Patients have sought and obtained euthanasia because they were unable to access affordable housing. There are even reports that patients have received physician-assisted death based on misdiagnosis, discovered at autopsy. ... Some are even pushing to allow it in certain cases for children and youth.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Suffering cannot rob us of our true meaning—to know and commune with the One who gave himself for us. Indeed, by God’s grace it serves to deepen that communion. To depart and be with Christ is far better, but with patience and faith, we will wait for the Master’s call.

Cicely Saunders, a British nurse and social worker, later trained to be a doctor. And what she discovered, in 1950s England, is that hospitals had no idea what to do with patients who were dying. Doctors would tell the family, "There is nothing more that can be done.” And nothing more was done for this suffering person.

Cicely Saunders, who had become a Christian, refused to accept that. She spent seven years researching pain control and working among the dying. She began dreaming of a place serving cancer patients, but was afraid of stepping out and asking for financing for what would be the world’s first purpose-built hospice. Then one day she read Psalm 37:5 "Commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass."

So in 1961, Cicely Saunders opened St. Christopher’s in London. It was there where they did pioneering research on using morphine for pain control. And unlike hospitals, in her hospice, a patient can garden, or get their hair done, or enjoy art therapy, music therapy, drama therapy. Cicely believed, “You matter because you are you, you matter to the last moment of your life."

Her work helped create a new specialty in medicine, called palliative care. And when euthanasia began growing in Europe, Cicely Saunders strongly opposed it, because of her Christian faith, and because she had shown that effective pain control is possible.

In 2005, Cicely Saunders died from breast cancer--at the very hospice she had started. In a culture that viewed a dying patient as a medical failure, Cicely Saunders taught the world how to view that same patient as a whole person.

Does a person’s view of what it means to be human influence their ethical decision-making?

John Evans, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego analyzed data from 3,500 US adults in order to find out. The results: Those who believed humans bear the image of God held more humanitarian attitudes than those who did not.

The more that respondents agreed with the purely biological definition of a human, the less likely they were to view people as special. They were less willing to stop genocide and more likely to accept the ideas of buying kidneys, suicide to save money, and taking blood from prisoners. By comparison, those who believed humans are made in the image of God were less likely to agree with money-saving suicide or nonconsensual blood donation.

The editor of New Scientist, where Evans’ research was published, commented, “If this preliminary result is upheld by further research, it will come as an unwelcome shock to scientific materialists.”

Pro-life speaker and advocate Stephanie Gray tells the following story about treating each person—from the womb to the tomb—with dignity:

Every Friday morning, my friend Kathleen spends an hour playing Scrabble with a lovely 93-year-old lady at a local care home. It's Kathleen's simple way of helping the elderly find joy in their daily life. She's always praying for opportunities to talk to the woman about God, or to simply show her that she is loved. Finally, that opportunity came in full force.

After the game, the woman asked, "What do you think of doctor-assisted suicide?" and pointed to an article from the paper on the topic. Kathleen said, "I told her that I felt it was very sad that anyone should feel the need to take their life, and it's our failure as a society when anyone is left feeling this way. After some time discussing this, she expressed to me that she can sympathize with people who don't feel they have a reason to live in their suffering, as she too, often wonders why God still has her 'stuck in this wheelchair."

Kathleen concluded, "With tears in my eyes I was able to tell her what a joy she is to me, and that I look forward to visiting her every week. She teared up as well, shock in her eyes, and said, 'Really? Is that true?' I nodded, unable to get more words out. 'Well then, perhaps there is reason enough for me to be here.'"

An article from First Things relates the story of Valentina Maureira, a fourteen-year old from Chile who suffered from cystic fibrosis, and desperately wanted to take her own life. She even made a YouTube video begging her government to legalize assisted suicide. Valentina admitted that the idea to end her life began after she heard about the case of Brittany Maynard, the twenty-nine-year-old woman who campaigned for the legalization of assisted suicide before ending her own life.

Maureira did not have access to assisted suicide, because it was illegal in Chile and she was a minor. Good thing. She changed her mind after receiving first a visit from Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, a trained pediatrician. Valentina's father Fredy Maureira said his daughter especially was moved by a visit from an Argentine family whose children have been stricken by the incurable respiratory illness. He said she also was given hope by meeting a patient who has survived beyond age 20.

Before she died from the disease (not assisted suicide) she told the El Mercurio newspaper that "there are people who have led me to change my way of thinking." Her father complained that the media were only interested in her story when she wanted to die.

University professor Dr. Chris Gabbard used to believe that some human beings should be allowed or even encouraged to die. In his own words, Gabbard "grew up prizing intellectual aptitude … and detesting 'poor mental functioning.'" This led Gabbard to adopt the ethics of the contemporary philosopher Peter Singer, who argues that society has a right to exclude people who are not "persons." For instance, Singer and Gabbard believed that severely disabled people should either be killed or allowed to die.

But the birth of Gabbard's son radically changed his viewpoint. During childbirth, his son experienced permanent brain damage, and today he is a blind quadriplegic with cerebral palsy. Gabbard writes movingly about the first time he saw his newborn son in the intensive-care unit:

After his birth … I was deeply ambivalent, having been persuaded by [Peter Singer's] advocacy of … infanticide. But there was my son, asleep or unconscious, on a ventilator, motionless under a heat lamp, tubes and wires everywhere, monitors alongside his steel and transparent-plastic crib. What most stirred me was the way he resembled me. Nothing had prepared me for this shock of recognition, for he was the boy in my own baby pictures, the image of me when I was an infant.

Today Gabbard is an advocate for the inherent dignity of severely disabled human beings. After pointing to a 2010 Gallup poll* that says that nearly half of Americans (46 percent) support assisted suicides, Gabbard writes, "Many such well-meaning people would like to end my son's suffering, but they do not stop to consider whether he is actually suffering. At times he is uncomfortable, yes, but the only real pain here seems to be the pain of those who cannot bear the thought that people like [my son] exist."

The story of Dr. Gabbard's change of heart serves as a powerful reminder of the inherent dignity of every human being as made in the image of God.

*The latest statistic, as of 2/2/24, now shows that 55% of Americans consider doctor assisted suicide morally acceptable

Fresh from a debate on whether or not humans can be moral without God, author and apologist Dinesh D'Souza offers a few reflections on his sparring partner, Princeton University's Peter Singer, a bioethicist:

Singer is a mild-mannered fellow who speaks calmly and lucidly. Yet you wouldn't have to read his work too long to find his extreme positions. He cheerfully advocates infanticide and euthanasia and, in almost the same breath, favors animal rights. Even most liberals would have qualms about third-trimester abortions; Singer does not hesitate to advocate what may be termed fourth-trimester abortions, i.e., the killing of infants after they are born.

Singer writes, "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality—and, consequently, a greater claim to rights—than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy."

Some people consider Singer a provocateur who says outrageous things just to get attention. But Singer is deadly serious about his views and—as emerged in our debate—has a consistent rational basis for his controversial positions.

To understand Singer, it's helpful to contrast him with "New Atheists" like Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Richard Dawkins. The New Atheists say we can get rid of God but preserve morality. They insist that no one needs God in order to be good; atheists can act no less virtuously than Christians. (And indeed, some atheists do put Christians to shame.) Even while repudiating the Christian God, Dawkins has publicly called himself a "cultural Christian."

But this position creates a problem outlined more than a century ago by the atheist philosopher Nietzsche. The death of God, Nietzsche argued, means that all the Christian values that have shaped the West rest on a mythical foundation. One may, out of habit, continue to live according to these values for a while. Over time, however, the values will decay, and if they are not replaced by new values, man will truly have to face the prospect of nihilism, what Nietzsche termed "the abyss."

Nietzsche's argument is illustrated in considering two of the central principles of Western civilization: "All men are created equal" and "Human life is precious." Nietzsche attributes both ideas to Christianity. It is because we are created equal and in the image of God that our lives have moral worth and that we share the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nietzsche's warning was that none of these values make sense without the background moral framework against which they were formulated. A post-Christian West, he argued, must go back to the ethical drawing board and reconsider its most cherished values, which include its traditional belief in the equal dignity of every human life.

Singer resolutely takes up a Nietzschean call for a "transvaluation of values," with a full awareness of the radical implications. He argues that we are not creations of God but rather mere Darwinian primates. We exist on an unbroken continuum with animals. Christianity, he says, arbitrarily separated man and animal, placing human life on a pedestal and consigning the animals to the status of tools for human well-being. Now, Singer says, we must remove Homo sapiens from this privileged position and restore the natural order. This translates into more rights for animals and less special treatment for human beings. There is a grim consistency in Singer's call to extend rights to the apes while removing traditional protections for unwanted children, people with mental disabilities, and the noncontributing elderly.

Some of Singer's critics have called him a Nazi and compared his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating those perceived as unwanted and unfit. A careful reading of his work, however, shows that Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by private individuals like you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.

Why haven't the atheists embraced Peter Singer? I suspect it is because they fear that his unpalatable views will discredit the cause of atheism. What they haven't considered, however, is whether Singer, virtually alone among their numbers, is uncompromisingly working out the implications of living in a truly secular society, one completely purged of Christian and transcendental foundations. In Singer, we may be witnessing someone both horrifying and yet somehow refreshing: an intellectually honest atheist.

Percent of U.S. doctors who treat the seriously ill who would be willing to hasten a patient's death by prescribing medication--11

Percent who would provide a lethal injection if asked--7

Percent who have done either--6