"What gives life its value? What gives life its meaning? If value and meaning are removed from life before life ceases to exist, is it then still life? Do potential value and potential meaning attach themselves to fetal life that is so embryonic as to be only potential, not actual? Who has the right to make decisions about life that is only potential? Is it the society? Is it the affected individuals or the bearer of that life? Does the sacredness ascribed by religious systems through the ages to human life reside in our biological processes? Is biological life itself sacred whether it be human or otherwise?

It is around these questions that debates swirl in this century on such ethical issues as euthanasia, assisted suicide, birth control, abortion, animal rights, the use of animal organs and parts in human attempts to combat diseases, vegetarianism and many environmental concerns. In most of these debates the emotional content is high. The person operates on the basis of an unstated but assumed answer to these questions that is passionately held. Frequently that answer is so deeply related to the core of the person's being that it allows no opposition. So the result is argument, not dialogue, and heat, not light.

One of these issues is today coming before the society with increasing rapidity and it requires of the Christian Church a response. Is active, as well as passive, euthanasia an acceptable practice within the ethics of Christian people? To state it more boldly, is assisted suicide an ethical option for Christians and, if so, under what circumstances? At our Diocesan Convention these issues will be a major focus of debate.

The first thing that must be noted is that these issues are peculiarly modern ones. A century ago and, in most cases, even fifty years ago, these issues would hardly ever have arisen. Throughout western history, society in general, and the medical profession in particular, has been passionately dedicated to the preservation of life. The assumption commonly held was that life was sacred, that it bore the image of God and that its limits had been set by God. So deep was this conviction in the Judeo/Christian world, that murder was not only prohibited among members of the same tribe, but it was also surrounded by powerful disincentives. In the biblical code, when murder occurred, blood retribution was the legal right and moral duty of the victim's nearest of kin. To escape immediate vengeance and to determine whether or not extenuating circumstances existed, cities of refuge were set up for those who accidentally killed a fellow Jew. In these centers the killer could find temporary sanctuary until the case could be decided and the verdict rendered by the society. If the murder was in fact accidental, then innocence and freedom was established. But if not, then guilt and the delivery of the killer to the family of the victim could be pronounced.

Of course the killing of an enemy was not covered by this prohibition. Thus the Hebrew scriptures had no conflict in proclaiming that the same God who said, "You shall not kill" as part of the Ten Commandments could also order Saul to slay every "man, woman, infant and suckling," among the Amalekites (I Sam. 15:3). Even suicide was rare indeed in this religious tradition, so deep was this sense of the sacredness of life.

But in that world surgery was limited to the sawing off of a limb. Antibiotics were unknown. Blood transfusions could not be given. Organ transplants were inconceivable. Intravenous feeding was unheard of. Finally, machines or medicines that could stimulate the heart and lungs could not be imagined. The time of death did seem to be in the hands of God. Human skill could do little to prolong it. So the idea grew and became deeply rooted in the pysche of the whole society that the sole task of medical science was to prolong life. That was a noble value then and it remains so today.

The realities of our world, however, have changed dramatically. That which was inconceivable, unimaginable and unheard of is now a part of our contemporary experience. We have extended the boundaries of life to where the values and definitions of yesterday collide with the technology and skill of today. That is why the debate on assisted suicide now looms before us and that is why this generation must question the conclusions of the past.

Let me pose the complexities of this issue by asking a series of questions. In what does the sanctity of life reside? Is life sacred when pain is intense and incurable? Is it a value to drug a patient into insensibility for pain while continuing to keep him or her alive biologically? At what point does the quality of life outweigh the value found in the quantity of life? Is life's meaning found in the physical activities of the body or in the relationships that interact with the person whose physical body is alive? If those relationships can no longer exist, should the body be allowed to continue functioning? Who should make the life and death decisions in this world?

Should that power be given to doctors? But doctors today are less and less involved with patients as medicine becomes more and more impersonal and complex. Since doctors still profit from hospital visits to their patients, we must recognize that there is a financial incentive to doctors to keep lingering patients alive.

Should this decision be left to the family members? But there are cases in which family members have profited from the death of a relative. Family members have been known to kill a parent or a spouse when they had a vested interest in that person's demise.

Should that decision then be left to chaplains, rabbis, pastors or priests? But the religious institutions today are too weak to carry such a responsibility, since perhaps half of the population of our nation is today not related to any religious institution. It might also need to be said that even members of this professional group of "God bearers" have not always been strangers to self-serving corruption.

Can the decision be left to the individual involved? Certainly that person needs to be involved in that decision if at all possible, but can it be solely the decision of one person? Should extraordinary care for terminally ill persons be allowed to bankrupt families? Where is the point where such care becomes destructive to the economic well being of the remaining family members? Because this generation is now capable of certain procedures, is there some moral necessity to use those procedures? Given the interdependence today of the health of the whole society through insurance rates, Medicare and Medicaid, extraordinary measures to prolong life universally applied would bankrupt the whole nation. Already this nation spends more than 80 cents of every health care dollar in the last year of the person's life. Should such life supports then be available only to those who can afford them? Would we then be equating the sacredness of life and the values that grow out of that concept with wealth? If health care has to be rationed, as it increasingly is in the managed care contracts, on what basis are extraordinary procedures to be withheld?

The values of yesterday are colliding with the technological and medical expertise of today, rendering the conclusions of the past inoperative for the future. That is why questions abound and debate rages around the issues of life and death at both ends of life’s spectrum. Even the word "murder" is being redefined in this debate. Is a doctor who performs an abortion a murderer? Is Dr. Jack Kevorkian a murderer? Should he be prosecuted for assisting people into death when hope for those persons had expired? Is it murder for a father who can no longer bear to see his child in intense pain or lingering malaise when all conscious function has been lost, to take matters into his own hands? Is it murder for a wife of long years to order no further food to be given to her dying husband in order to speed his death? Would it be different if she placed a plastic bag over his head? Would one be more moral than the other? The lines are so vague, the decisions so awesome, the fear so great, the values of the past so compromised by the technology of today, that by not facing these issues consciously, the society will drift into decisions by default and a new uncritical consensus will become normative. The debate must be engaged and Christians must be part of it.

I, for one, am no longer willing to be silent on this issue. I, as a Christian, want to state publicly my present conclusions. After much internal wrestling, I can now say with conviction that I favor both active and passive euthanasia, and I also believe that assisted suicide should be legalized, but only under circumstances that would effectively preclude both self-interest and malevolence.

Perhaps a place to start would be to require by law that living wills be mandatory for all people. A second step might be to require every hospital and every community to have a bioethics committee, made up of the most respected leadership people available, to which a patient, family members, doctors or clergy persons could appeal for objective help in making these rending decisions.

My conclusions are based on the conviction that the sacredness of my life is not ultimately found in my biological extension. It is found rather in the touch, the smile and the love of those to whom I can knowingly respond. When that ability to respond disappears permanently, so, I believe, does the meaning and the value of my biological life. Even my hope of life beyond biological death is vested in a living relationship with the God who, my faith tradition teaches me, calls me by name. I believe that the image of God is formed in me by my ability to respond to that calling Deity. If that is so, then the image of God has moved beyond my mortal body when my ability to respond consciously to that Divine Presence disappears. So nothing sacred is compromised by assisting my death in those circumstances.

So into these issues Christian people must venture. It is a terrain fraught with fear and subject to demagoguery by the frightened religious right. That is why the mainline churches must consider these issues in the public arena where faith, knowledge, learning and tradition can blend to produce understanding. This diocese will begin this process at our convention."

-- John McDowell (jmcdowell43@hotmail.com), March 22, 2002

Answers

Hey,

Hitler agreed with you one hundred percent. Was Hitler just terribly misunderstood? Do the ends justify the means?

John, are you also ready to write the parameters to decide on whether a person may be killed lawfully by a hospital or agent of the state?

Mateo el Feo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 23, 2002.

John,

Once again, you have plagiarised another person's writing:

This is from January/February 1996 (7 years old!), written by the Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark.

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox20196.html

Why don't you just give us a link and save us all the trouble? Enjoy,

Mateo el Feo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 23, 2002.

Mateo, just so other folks know, Spong is a wacko Episcopalian bishop, not a Catholic.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), March 23, 2002.

Cristina,

Thanks for the info. I forgot to mention that he was Episcopal in this thread. According to the website, he left Newark to teach at Harvard (Divinity School?) I found a bit about this guy at Harvard's website, including this excerpt from three lectures he was going to give on Christianity:

In his [series of three] lectures, Bishop Spong will analyze the birth, life, and demise of theistic thinking, and will describe a God beyond theism and a Christ beyond incarnation. He will seek to sketch out a portrait of a new humanity grounded in the spiritual reality of self-giving love, which he will argue is the next step in the evolutionary struggle to become fully human.

It makes you wonder why he doesn't become a Unitarian Universalist. It also makes you wonder what the Episcopal Church stands for if it permits this level of flexibility in interpreting Christianity.

It sounds like another theologian who moves up in the ranks of a church for sole purpose of spreading his own beliefs. He is a man who puts his teachings first and betrays the Episcopal Church who allowed him to hold such an exclusive title.

I pray that the Catholic Church always fight to protect itself from prideful men like this Episcopal Bishop.

Mateo el Feo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 23, 2002.

"It sounds like another theologian who moves up in the ranks of a church for sole purpose of spreading his own beliefs. He is a man who puts his teachings first and betrays the Episcopal Church who allowed him to hold such an exclusive title.

I pray that the Catholic Church always fight to protect itself from prideful men like this Episcopal Bishop."

Mateo el Feo.

And I pray for Catholic Bishops concerning their recent problems with sexual abuse and their holding of such an exclusive title. I pray the Catholic Church protects itself from such abusive men.

And I pray also for our Catholic theologians who pass on their belief systems and the Church who accepts and honors them. In peace, John

-- John McDowell (jmcdowell43@hotmail.com), March 24, 2002.

John's comments are in bold:

And I pray for Catholic Bishops concerning their recent problems with sexual abuse and their holding of such an exclusive title. I pray the Catholic Church protects itself from such abusive men.

Though all sinful behavior is bad, I am more concerned with Church leaders who spread the belief that there is no Objective truth. I pray for those who disobey and teach against basic Church doctrine, hoping to be more user-friendly to modernists who only search for the most convenient, "belief system" to justify their sinfulness.

Relativism has a profoundly damaging effect on all who subscribe to its tenets. I conjecture that you believe in Relativism. If so, I ask you to at least open your ears to the arguments against it. Like so many other things in life, it doesn't taste as good as it looks.

And I pray also for our Catholic theologians who pass on their belief systems and the Church who accepts and honors them. In peace, John I don't know exactly what you hope to express to God by praying for these theologians. Do you hope for God to support heterodox views?

Aside from the Bishops and theologians, please pray for me.

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 25, 2002.

I prefer to call a spade a "spade," Mateo.

Speaking of Mr. J. S. Spong, you wrote:
"He is a man who puts his teachings first and betrays the Episcopal Church who allowed him to hold such an exclusive title. I pray that the Catholic Church always fight to protect itself from prideful men like this Episcopal Bishop."

The honest facts are that
(1) the Episcopal denomination is not a "church" [a word reserved to a body that has maintained apostolicity, which is lacking in the Anglican communion] and
(2) Mr. Spong is not a "bishop" [a word reserved to a validly ordained man who is a successor of an apostle, neither of which is true of Mr. Spong.] As Pope Leo XIII ruled, Anglican orders are null and void.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 26, 2002.