Euthanasia: Not Our Burden to Bear

Our faithful canine friend was in obvious pain. He was an old dog, some sort of mongrel with perhaps Akita and Lab in his background. A gentle giant, Gunther had been hauling his 120 pounds around on three legs for years because of an injury to his knee, which in spite of the best veterinary medicine available, had never properly healed. Now we were taking him to the vet, knowing it might be the last time. The diagnosis was swift. He had bone cancer in the injured leg, and other cancers, too. He would only last a few days. He would spend them in agonizing pain. It was clear that the right thing to do was to euthanize the dog. I sat on the floor with his head in my lap and said good-bye as the vet administered a lethal dose of anesthesia.

A few months later Grandmother lay dying. Her aged body had been ravaged by years of diabetes, heart disease and strokes. Now, even feeding her had become impossible, as her veins would no longer hold up to an I.V. and her digestive system was not functioning. As she suffered, in and out of consciousness, I held her hand and prayed with her, and prayed that the Lord would see fit to take her soon.

Those who favor euthanasia might argue that an overdose of morphine would have been appropriate for my grandmother. After all, was her suffering not more important than that of a dog? What value was left in her living? Even she wanted out at this point.

Very often the issue of euthanasia, like abortion, is cast in the light of the worth of life. What worth is there in living a pain-filled, unconscious, or comatose life? Sometimes we even go so far as to question the worth of a life that is physically or mentally handicapped or simply unwanted by others. Of course the question of worth is answered by the Christian in terms of the image of God which all people bear--even the sick, the handicapped and the unwanted. There is worth in the eyes of God, even when we mortals cannot see it.

As important as the issue of worth is, though, I believe there is another important consideration that is often ignored.

That is the issue of authority and responsibility. To explain what I mean, let’s first remember the Creation and the Fall of man. God gave man dominion over the creation, though it seems that dominion did not include permission to eat everything. He gave mankind permission to eat fruit from every tree except one. The issue was not one of worth. In fact, when Eve was tempted to consider only its worth, and saw that it was good to eat, she took it and ate. In doing so she forgot about, and overstepped, the bounds of authority that God had given her.

Later, God said men would eat other vegetation, (Genesis 2:18), and after the Flood, gave man the authority to eat animal flesh. (Genesis 9:2, 3) Thus man had full authority over the lives and deaths of animals. Now, as we control the reproduction of animals and let them live or die according to our purposes, we are well within the bounds of authority God has given us.

Of course, with authority comes responsibility. We are bound not to mistreat animals. (Deut. 25:4) As we make the decisions about whether or not to put our pets or farm animals down, we consider their needs as well as ours. Perhaps there could be a twinge of guilt as we waiver in our decision. What if the diagnosis is wrong? What if the animal would have recovered? Responsibility is a burden and it weighs on those who wish to bear it well. But if we can be burdened with the decision about euthanizing a dog or cat or horse--when getting it wrong is of relatively minor consequence--what would it be to have to make that decision about a human being? Is that a responsibility we think we could bear?

God has not asked us to take that responsibility. He keeps it for Himself. When is the right moment to release a suffering soul to death? He knows. And He will do it when the moment is perfect.

The authority to take a human life is given to individual men under only one circumstance: a defensive emergency. (Exodus 22:2) The civil government is given the authority to take human life in fulfilling its responsibilities for administering justice and national defense. (Nehemiah 4:14, Romans 13:3-5) Euthanasia falls under none of these categories.

Often when we are tempted to take on more responsibility or authority than God gives, we fall into pragmatism to justify our actions. Pragmatism is an ethic that justifies means by expected ends. In other words, methods are judged by the results. It is pragmatic to suggest that a witness is justified in giving false testimony because it will help to convict a man that she knows is guilty. It is pragmatic to say that the government can take authority over feeding the poor, because families and the church will not do it well enough. Anytime we suggest that doing things as God instructs will not work, we are falling into pragmatism.

Often advocates of euthanasia are operating with just such a pragmatic ethic. We see a situation and come to the conclusion that this life is not worthy of existence. It seems the greater good would be served by the death of this person. Sometimes, we might even be right. Sometimes death is a great relief to the suffering. But it is simply not our responsibility to determine when that is the case, or to make it happen. God does not give us that burden. He reserves it for Himself.

So as I sit beside my dying grandmother, it may be proper for me to pray that God relieve her suffering and take her home, but it is not my place to determine when that happens. It is my place to offer comfort to the sick and the dying. It is my place to trust that God will do His perfect will in His perfect time, and that He will work all things for good.

Update: This post was contributed to the third Vox Apologia, available here. You can find there more on the topic of euthanasia.  For more information on the Vox Apologia apologetics carnival visit its host, RazorsKiss .

Comments

[rebecca]

Very thought provoking!

As important as the issue of worth is, though, I believe there is another important consideration that is often ignored.

That is the issue of authority and responsibility.

I see these two things (the image of God that we carry, and that the timing of human death falls under God's authority alone) as tied together. The image of God that we carry, even though marred by the fall, is somehow a reflection (or picture) of God himself and as such, God is the boss of it. He's the one who has the say-so as to when it's extinguished, because he's the one whose image it is.

[Hal]

Dory,

Thank you. That is one of the most clear explanations I think I've ever read and your presenting it in the light of Scripture really helped me.

It was a real blessing for me.

God's grace upon you.

[Kristofer]

I agree that it is not our responsibility. A christian surgeon I know also agrees but he has another problem, sometimes extending life to long with artificial measures also is a way of making decisions for God. There comes a point where the medical personal must say that now we can't do more, the rest lies in God's hands.

[Dory]

Kristofer brings up a very good point, that is, sometimes we must decide whether or not to keep trying to save a person whose death seems inevitable. In genuine cases, I see this as an entirely different issue.

What we need to work out is what sort of care can be ethically withheld. In my opinion, for example, feeding is never extraordinary care, and letting a comotose person starve to death is immoral and cruel. However, keeping a person with no hope of recovery on a heart-lung machine seems wrong, too. It's really a case-by-case thing, isn't it?

Sadly, reasonable care is often withheld from people who would survive, but are otherwise unwanted. Some Downs Syndrome babies are born with a blocked esophogus or a heart defect, both of whch are surgically correctable, but that correction is sometimes withheld, because the baby is not worth saving, in someone's opinion. In this case, withholding care becomes a less direct form of euthanasia, in my opinion.

I guess what it boils down to is that we need to provide the care and comfort we can, and yet, be prepared, when the time is right, to acknowledge that we are unable to do any more that is truly helpful.

[Phil S]

I really appreciated your take on the issue. Authority and responsibility are 4-letter words in our culture; people are unwilling to leave authority in another's hands, and even more unwilling to let an "invisible" God be responsible for something that can be so emotionally wrenching at times.

[RA]

You got it just right. But when it happens to christians, it is amazing how many will bow down to the idle of humanism instead of walking through the fire.

[Rob]

I've had a definition of euthanasia that you might find interesting. Euthanasia is putting someone out of *our* misery. How much easier it is to eliminate the suffering of someone else rather than to help that person bear their suffereing. It's the pragmatic way.

[D.C. Chang]

Some very thoughtful points. As a Christian doctor, I've witnessed firsthand the needless brutality that many family members insist on putting there loved ones through - ventilators, intravenous medications to artificially support blood pressure, feeding tubes, and countless procedures. While all these things have a place in medicine, they are often done for medically futile cases where the benefits are dubious. In these cases, doctors often remark cynically that we are "treating the family members" -- some probably feel guilty about neglecting or having a poor relationship with a parent while they were active and communicative, and so want to make up for it by "doing everything possible" in the last few days of their dying parent's life. There is a difference between euthanasia and allowing someone to die. In my opinion, the Terry Schiavo case falls into the latter. The position of Jeb Bush and some Christian conservatives therefore disappoints me greatly. I've told my wife that if I'm at the end of my life, with abysmal mental status, to let me die and be with the Lord.