© 1996 Richard I. Bain
© 1996 The Christian Fellowship of Students of The Urantia Book
In the original Star Trek series, Captain Kirk informed us at the beginning of each show that space is the final frontier. This may be true for our civilization, but isn’t death the final frontier for us as individuals? Even if we have some idea of what death is about and what lies beyond, it is nevertheless an impenetrable and absolute barrier for the living. Death is a leap into a totally unfamiliar existence, from this familiar world of things and people. But is it the leap that we fear so much? I used to think that death is highly overrated as an object of fear until I realized that death is both a destination and a process. The destination may cause some anxiety because of the uncertainties it holds, but it is anticipation of our journey to this destination which often induces the most fear.
Modern medicine can be a great blessing for some, but it can be a two edged sword for those people reaching life’s end. The power to heal includes the ability to prolong life even when the wisdom of doing so is questionable. Dr. George M. Burnell [1] tells of his mother who was in the last stages of Alzheimer’s disease. She had a pacemaker and would soon require an operation to replace the battery. The doctor decided that it would be better if the battery were not replaced so his mother could slip away naturally and so save her and his family from further suffering. He was contacted by the District Attorney’s office who told him that the pacemaker company, fearing a lawsuit if his mother died, had filed a complaint. Dr. Burnell consulted with the hospital’s ethics committee who supported his decision not to replace the battery. The District Attorney’s office indicated that they would not actively pursue the case. He did not hear from the pacemaker company again, but he did hear from their lawyer who now worked for a right-to-life group. The group threatened to bring a suit against the doctor if he didn’t replace the battery. Leery of a long, costly, stressful, and possibly futile court battle, the doctor gave in and authorized replacement of the battery. His mother’s condition continued to deteriorate and she died a year after the battery replacement. The right-to-life group won; common sense and mercy lost.
It would be wonderful if everyone could have an easy death; go to sleep one evening and not wake up the next morning. A retired doctor once lamented to me that, before antibiotics, pneumonia carried away many terminally ill older people, but the invention of antibiotics enabled the medical system to keep them alive, sometimes to suffer a long and painful death. Is it progress when the advances of modern medicine enable a sophisticated medical team to keep a brain-dead body alive indefinitely, or even worse, to keep a conscious, suffering person alive despite the wishes of the person or the person’s family?
There was a time when many people died at home, surrounded by their families. Today we may spend our final days surrounded by strangers who control our bodies, but who are often either too busy, too stressed out, or too burned out to spare us any compassion. Even in a medical facility we may not be able to escape severe pain. Medical personnel are trained not to over-medicate so they may withhold pain killing medication from a cancer patient in his or her final stages of life for fear of addicting the person to the narcotics used for pain control. Small wonder that so many people are asking doctors to assist them in ending their lives.
There was a time when many people died at home, surrounded by their families. Today we may spend our final days surrounded by strangers who control our bodies, but who are often either too busy, too stressed out, or too burned out to spare us any compassion.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines euthanasiaas: “The act or practice of killing individuals…that are hopelessly sick or injured.” Euthanasia is not just one issue. It’s many issues, ranging from living wills and not using extraordinary means to keep a person alive, to giving a person in a coma an overdose of sedatives. For the purpose of discussion, I identify the following categories:
I have tried to list the various types of euthanasia in order of difficulty in dealing with the ethical issues. Passive euthanasia might be thought of as death by benign neglect. Our laws have changed to accommodate this option, and our social mores are evolving toward acceptance, but there are those who still disagree on religious grounds. In fact, conservatives have called euthanasia a “slippery slope,” no doubt fearing that it will not stop at passive euthanasia. They are right.
Option II, active voluntary euthanasia, is the frontier we struggle with today. This is the social arena where Dr. Kevorkian and others are doing battle with the law and society. Some groups, such as the Hemlock Society, prefer to call this option (when performed by a doctor) physician assisted dying, whereas the right-to-life groups prefer to call it assisted suicide. Getting this option legalized may be very difficult with the present level of opposition, but the Dutch have found a way to allow physician assisted dying without making it legal.
Physician assisted suicide (or dying) is not legal in The Netherlands, but it is practiced and doctors who follow certain guidelines are not prosecuted. The guidelines include: review of the case by other doctors and repeated requests for assistance in dying by the patient. Also, the doctor must insure that the individual is not suffering from depression. But even this last stipulation is now in question since the government recently declined to press charges against a Dutch physician who assisted a severely depressed woman to commit suicide. Some ethicists have expressed concern that we now seem to be slipping backwards on the “slippery slope.” Have the Dutch authorities stretched public acceptance to it elastic limits? What are the limits? Where can we find guidance on this subject?
Christians of all persuations are vigorously debating the issues concerning euthanasia. While the most strident voices emanate from conservative Protestant churches and the Catholic church, quieter voices from other segments of the Christian community are engaged in earnest debate and asking to be heard. In a recent article [2], John Burgess, a Presbyterian theologian, discusses the problem of euthanasia from a moderate Christian perspective. Burgess says that Christians must examine the issues in light of the scriptures, and in consideration of the effects on the Christian community of which the individual is a member. In considering the reasons against euthanasia, he points to the possible redemptive value of pain and suffering to the individual and to the Christian community. He feels that coping with pain and suffering in a supportive Christian community can deepen the faith of the individual and the community as well. Regarding the problem of individual rights versus the will of the Christian community he says, “On the one hand, Christians will respect others’ autonomy… On the other hand Christians will seek to persuade others of the truth they find in Christ; they will even seek to promote it in public policy.” Burgess makes another point about the legalization and promotion of euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. If we legalize and approve these two, will we be encouraging the disabled and aged to take their lives to avoid being a burden on society and their families? Burgess’s article reveals the delicate balancing act that the moderate Christian churches must do on this issue, and the difficulty moderate Christians face in trying to answer 20th century questions using theology from the Middle Ages.
The attitude of Dr. Leslie D. Weatherhead, a retired British clergyman, seems typical of that of liberal Christians. In one of his books [3], he makes his attitude abundantly clear with the following remark: “If proper safeguards are strickly imposed… I for one would be willing to give a patient the Holy Communion and stay with him while a doctor, whose responsibility I would thus share, allowed a patient to lay down his useless body and pass in dignity and peace into the next phase of being.”
I used to have a colleague who kidded me about my study of The Urantia Book. When a tough moral or ethical question would come up in conversation he would ask, “What does Your Answer Book say about that?” Wouldn’t it be convenient for students of The Urantia Book if they could flip open the book and find answers to questions such as the morality of euthanasia spelled out in detail? But, like Jesus, the authors of the book refrain from dealing with such social questions. Suicide is brought up a few times, but usually only as an anthropological fact regarding past cultures. In the case of Judas’s suicide, the authors say, “…this renegade mortal…committed the final act in the drama of fleeing from the realities of mortal existence-suicide.”(UB 139:12.13) Note, however, that Judas was not a terminal cancer or AIDS patient trying to avoid a slow and painful death. They really don’t address suicide under these circumstances, and their restraint is understandable. Any value judgment made might be in harmony with the mores of one age or culture, but not of another.
Even if the authors of the book would condone euthanasia as a merciful way of relieving suffering, it might not help us decide the issues. It is our world, and ultimately our personal decision as to what will be acceptable in making these judgments.
Even if the authors of the book would condone euthanasia as a merciful way of relieving suffering, it might not help us decide the issues. It is our world, and ultimately our personal decision as to what will be acceptable in making these judgments. What shall be our guiding principle in these cases? It seems to me that the most worthy general principle is to do what is in the best interests of the individual first, but at the same time being mindful of what is in the best interests of society. Hopefully, the interests of the individual will coincide with the interests of an enlightened society. This leads to the real question which is: What is in the best interests of an individual?
Patiently bearing our suffering may develop our characters, but is there a point beyond which suffering is no longer of value? Do we have the moral right to end our lives? The right-to-life proponet says that all human life is sacred and that only God can determine when we are to die; if we practice euthanasia, we are playing God. They tell us that suffering is God’s will so we should bear it and not interfere. And of course they know God’s will based on their interpretation of the Bible by their particular Christian sect. If they do indeed know God’s will, it would be foolhardy to argue with them. But if their belief is incorrect, then they are promoting needless suffering for innocent people.
On the other side of the question are the folks who say, “Look, when old Rover was blind, deaf, and in pain, I had the vet put him out of his misery. I hope someone does it for me if I can’t do it for myself.” Just one problem, it’s legal to end Rover’s suffering with a needle, but if you do it to his owner, the jury might call it murder. Can we really compare putting our pet to sleep with mercy killing of a human being? People have constitutional rights, souls, and other attributes that animals do not possess. You can buy a book that will give you the lethal doses of various drugs. Groups like the Hemlock Society work to get euthanasia legalized. Do some people too easily accept euthanasia and assisted suicide? Should we draw a line and say,“You may not go beyond this line?”
You would have to live on a remote island to ignore the euthanasia and assisted suicide issues. Dr. Kevorkian has had plenty of media attention while he tweaks the noses of the authorities with his actions. We may be a bit leery of endorsing his campaign; we may not be comfortable with his bold assisted suicides. It takes time for the mores to evolve and encompass new ideas. This is the social flywheel that prevents society from being jerked back and forth and torn asunder by the engines of change. The ethical issues to be resolved are complex and many.
In an article in Time Lines, John A. Pridonoff [4] cautions that the recent court victories for the pro-euthanasia movement in Michigan and Washington could create serious divisions in society as has happened with the abortion issue after the Roe vs. Wade decision. He advocates bringing as many people as possible into the process to reduce the divisiveness between euthanasia advocates and opponents. There will be some tough issues to deal with. Can a doctor or minister whose religious beliefs preclude euthanasia be supportive of a person who chooses it? These issues need to be resolved, but there is even more that we need to do.
Withholding life support is generally legal now and seems to be accepted by most people, and doctors are increasingly adapting to this situation. But what happens when and if physician assisted dying becomes a legal option? Dr. George Burnell, in a TimeLines report [5], points out that few doctors have the training or even the vocabulary to discuss this new responsibility they may have to take on. Deliberately ending a life is counter to the philosophy of much of their training. Further, few doctors know the right drugs and dosages to euthanize someone. It is obvious that training courses will have to be set up to deal with this gap in knowledge. And doctors are not the only ones who will need training. Ministers must learn to support those who are trying to decide on euthanasia, or have already decided, and to help the person’s family deal with the decision. People in both professions may need support groups to help them cope with the stress. Ministers and doctors will also have to serve on committees to decide who is a candidate for assisted dying and who isn’t. What will be their criteria for such decisions?
It is obvious that what is an acceptable quality of life to one person is unacceptable to another. The will of the person must be honored; only the individual can decide what is acceptable to him or her and what constitutes an acceptable quality of life.
We have heard much debate about the quality of life of terminally ill people. Unfortunately, this quality is as difficult to determine as what is in the best interests of the person. Part of the problem is that-at least in the case of a person who is conscious and mentally competent-one person may be willing to suffer intense pain and die naturally, while another may wish to die as soon as the pain becomes troublesome. It is obvious that what is an acceptable quality of life to one person is unacceptable to another. The will of the person must be honored; only the individual can decide what is acceptable to him or her and what constitutes an acceptable quality of life. But if the person is in a coma, who could decide to terminate the person’s life? Even if they had expressed such a wish in a living will, it would not be legal. Will the laws eventually allow a surrogate decision maker or ethics committee to make such decisions?
When I was part of a church visitation program, one of the people I visited in nursing homes was a man who was a retired engineer. He was intelligent and talented, but a stroke had seriously impaired his ability to speak and move about. Almost every time I visited him, he expressed, in his halting fashion, the wish to die. But he was one of the lucky ones there. Others lay mute and unmoving, eyes fixed on the ceiling. Or perhaps their hands fluttered slightly and they moaned unceasingly. Some could be sustained for months or even years like this. Some were mercifully unaware of anything; others were trapped in a living hell, isolated in a body that was only a prison for the spirit and mind. These are the most tragic ones, wishing to die, unable to die. It is a great temptation for a doctor or nurse to give such people a drug overdose if they can do it without being detected. If a person kept their pet alive under such conditions, surely we would wonder at their cruelty. Yet the mores of our society mandate that we keep these people alive, stored in nursing homes like old furniture in warehouses, placed conveniently out of sight so we don’t have to see their anguish and despair. Involuntary euthanasia may be a line that we can’t cross now, but mercy demands that we eventually legalize involuntary euthanasia to free them from a fate worse than death. Are we wise enough to explore this final frontier? With care, concern, and caution, we can. We must.
Dick Bain is an electrical engineer and an editor of Interface International. He is a long time studient of The Urantia Book.
Burnell, George M., M.D. Final Choices: To Live or to Die in an Age of Medical Technology. New York: Plenum Press, 1993. ↩︎
Burgess, John P., “Can I Know that My Time Has Come?”, Theology Today (July, 1994) ↩︎
Weatherhead, Dr. Leslie D., The Christian Agnostic, Abington Press (1965) ↩︎
Pridnoff, John A.“Courts Busy, Still no Affirmative Law.” TimeLines, Newsletter of Hemlock Society, (JulyAugust, 1994) ↩︎
Burnell, George M. "Chapter Leader, Physician Join Hemlock Board.” TimeLines (July-August, 1994) ↩︎