Euthanasia

Dying to Go?

Advances in medicine mean that we now have increasing control over both ends of human life. Children who were once inconceivable are now healthy toddlers. The timing and manner of death is now more manageable. However, increasing control also means increasing dilemmas.

Euthanasia is back in public discussion. Consider these scenes ...

·         Uncle Jack is in the last stage of a terminal illness. The family say their farewells, request no extra treatment and he passes away.

·         Uncle Jack still has days to live but he is given medication to stop vital functions and passes away.

 There is a vast difference between these two scenes. The first is a decision not to prolong the dying process and is akin to the prayer ‘Your will be done. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord’. Many of us have been part of these decisions and may even have provided for it through an Advance Medical Directive. This is not euthanasia. There are few issues here - providing that the decision to abandon curative treatment is not taken too early and providing that there is open discussion with relevant people.

 The second scene involves intentional acts to end a life. It is not an action that leaves the life in God’s hands, but is an act that asserts ‘my will be done’ – whether the ‘will’ is that of the patient, the family or the doctors. This is euthanasia and raises serious Christian issues.

 The Bible teaches that all human life comes from God – it is his to give and take (Gen 1:26-27; Job 1:21; Ps 100:3). Because all human life bears God’s image it has a sacred quality and God calls us to account for any wilful taking of a human life (Gen 9:5-6). We are to help the gravely ill and not harm them. Euthanasia is ‘not on’.

 There has long been a tacit understanding that doctors sometimes cease active treatment and switch to purely palliative care – perhaps in consultation with patient and family. In some places, there is now an explicit permission for active euthanasia. This is generally with supposedly tight controls over what kinds of patients can be killed, under what circumstances and with carefully specified consent mechanisms. Evidence from the Netherlands suggests that the safeguards readily break down and people are being killed without their informed consent. This is a dangerous path. How long before aggressive social engineers create a new holocaust by euthanizing certain categories of people such as people with disabilities, people from unwanted ethnic groups, or just people who are expensively old?

 The Christian church has largely lapsed into silence with respect to the abortion of yet-unborn children. Let’s not repeat that silence at the other end of life. In God’s name, we must protect the vulnerable.

 The medical and family issues associated with death are complex and the line between allowing someone to die and hastening their death can be blurred. Families do well to consider these issues in advance, seek competent advice (perhaps including a pastor) and take their time.

 However it is basic to a Christian view of life’s beginning and ending that it is God’s life and not ours. Let’s set our moral compass around this point and encourage others to do the same.

David Burke

Homosexuality

Many Christian churches include men and women who struggle with homosexuality, along with such heterosexual issues as premarital sex and adultery. They also include people who struggle with greed, selfishness, hatred and such like.

That should not surprise us, for Paul saw the same struggles when he looked at the early church (see 1 Cor 6:9-10 for a fuller list). The mix may vary from time to time and place to place, but the same struggles occur among Christian people across time and space boundaries.

Some activists claim that as many as 10% of the population are homosexual. This may well be overstated. However, there is a significant number of people struggling here, whether they are 'out' or maintaining a life of quiet concealment.

What can Christians say about same sex relationships?

Let's first distinguish between orientation and action. Someone may may a disposition to homosexuality but choose not to act on it. (As may also be true for other struggle areas.) Another may give may to homosexual thoughts as a purely private and inward action. (As again may happen in other areas.) Yet another may act out their thoughts. The last two are problem areas in Christian perspective, for Jesus teaches that our inward thought actions are morally significant, along with outward body actions (eg Matt 5:21-29).

The Bible teaches that homosexual action is sin (see Lev 18:22; Rom 1:25-27; 1 Cor 6:9). On the basis of Matt 5:21-29, this surely includes homosexual lust as well as outwards homosexual behaviour. It is sin because it is against the God’s ‘order of nature’. Our sexuality is a good gift of God. But like all good gifts it can be put to sinful uses when driven by our fallen nature. Because our sexuality is so powerful, it does greater damage when misused (1 Cor 6:12-20).

While homosexual action is sin, it is no worse than other sexual sins. (In some cases it may be less worse - for example consensual homosexual activity between adults is surely less of a problem that rape or pedophilia.) Along with other sexual sins, it draws God’s judgement if it continues (1 Cor 6:9). Along with other sexual sins, it draws God’s grace if it is confessed and repented with faith in Jesus (1 Cor 6:11).

How should we react to proposals for decriminalising homosexual behaviours, or allowing homosexual marriage?

On the one hand we can bear strong witness to Christian moral values. And, we can argue a ‘public benefit’ case that society gains by reflecting Christian values in legislation. However, we need care. Why legislate against homosexual behaviour while being legally silent on heterosexual sins which are far more common? This seems to be an area where it is an odd discrimination to punish a minority sexual sin while leaving the majority ones untouched.

We need a good sense of priorities. Rejection of God’s rule is the root problem, not homosexual actions or other sinful behaviours. Romans 1:18-32 gives a clear perspective on this. We need to focus on ministering to the homosexual at this root problem rather than being distracted by the symptoms. We may get a lead from John 8:1-11. Try substituting ‘homosexuality’ for ‘adultery’ in this passage and see where it takes us.

My point here is that it may not be productive to attack the fruits of rejecting God's kingship in such a way as to cloud the root issue. We may well start with the fruits of rejecting God, but this should be done in such a way as to talk of a person's need of Jesus and offer them grace. This is especially so with regard to the homosexual community which sometimes makes strident accusations of homophobia against Biblical Christianity and Christians.

From a pastoral note, there is a vast difference between the homosexual struggler and the one who denies the sin. The struggler labels their behaviour sin, confesses it, and battles against it with God's help. Their is an apt word of absolution and encouragement for this person (1 Jn 1:5- 2:2; Heb 4:14-16. The homosexual who denies the sin and revels in it needs to hear a sharp gospel message of God's judgement and God's salvation.

We are all sinners and strugglers at one point or another. What matters is that we confess sin and struggle against it. Christ came for people like all of us (Lke 19:10). Let us extend his welcome to one another, whatever the point of struggle.

Organ Trade

The Gift of Life, or Organised Trade?

My friend was a 19 year old medical student when she diagnosed her own kidney problems. Disease lurked and death loomed. Finally her mother donated one of her kidneys and a successful transplant gave two decades of extra life.

This is a touching story of filial love. It has rich echoes of the news that Jesus donated his life in love for his estranged spiritual family (Jn 10:15-18; Rom 5:8). That goes way beyond organ donation and is filial love to the max!

Organ ‘donation’ is back in the news. The media reports proposals to allow ‘compensation’ for kidneys supplied by strangers and for human eggs supplied for research. Some reports suggest that the compensation for a kidney could be five or six figures.

How do Christians respond? There seems to be no Christian problem with organ donation, so long as there is no undue pressure or harm to the donor, and so long as the donated purpose involves no ethical dilemmas. (The later may be an issue with egg donations.) In these cases it may be a noble act of love to give an organ (or other body tissue) to benefit another. This is the gift of life.

‘Donation’ and ‘gift’ are key words in this discussion.

Few will object if donors are compensated for their time and expense and are given coverage for any medical expenses arising from the donation. However, it’s a worrying sign as enlarged compensation threatens to turn the gift into a trade. How many figures does it take for ‘compensation’ to become an ‘inducement’? Consider a poor person in a debt trap who faces a choice between giving a six figure kidney or facing debtor’s prison.

Our sense of human depravity cautions here, for the Bible urges God’s people to care for the vulnerable and not exploit them (eg, Lev 25:17, James 1:27). Organ donation is an act of grace. Organ trade easily becomes a means by which the sick rich and greedy middlemen find a new way to exploit the poor.

Let’s not turn the gift of life into organised trade.