Recently in my social work class we discussed dying. Fun topic right? :) Well in this class we were talking abut Dr. Kevorkian, euthanasia, and whether one determines their life by quality or quantity. For example, would YOU (yes you reading this) rather die younger in a very quick or painless death while you were still healthy, active, and joyful? Or would you rather live a long life that you age slowly and die in a slower process? We then began talking about euthanasia and if someone has a right to decide when they die. Everyone, literally everyone, said we do not have that right to decide. Whether we become a vegetable or not, we need to let God decide when to take us away.
Although I agree that God is in ultimate control, if it were me and I was a vegetable, I would not want to live. I would rather spare those around me the emotional pain and financial burden of watching me live the remainder of my life as a vegetable. I received some scrutiny from this as others said "Don't you think God is sovereign? Isn't this like committing suicide?" Yes and no. I do believe God is sovereign. If I unplug my life machine and keep on living, obviously God wanted me to keep on living. However, I also believe that God wants his children to be happy. If I were to spend 5-10 years in pain, numb, without any chance of recovery and was miserable, would he not want me to be happy and spend those additional years in Heaven with him? I think God would rather us be pain-free, happy, and enjoying the abundant life He gave us. I believe those who are vegetables deserve a voice in saying whether they want to live this way or not. Think of "Million Dollar Baby" for example.
Now on to the topic of committing suicide and Dr. Kevorkian. The topic at hand was whether people should have a right to decide when they die, and whether assisted suicide should be legal or not. For those who do not know of Dr. Kevorkian, he was "assisting" people in their deaths. They would approach him, he would give them drugs, and they would die. These patients could have been mentally ill, physically ill, or just depressed, and Dr. Kevorkian would help them out. I think that part is wrong. I think that if someone is mentally ill, or so physically ill that it alters their thinking, then it should be illegal for them to decide to die. They are not in the right stable mind to make such decisions. I also question whether those who are healthy and somewhat happy should be allowed to take these drugs in order to die. But my question is, even if this did not exist, it's not like people have no options for killing themselves. They can overdose, drive their car off a cliff, and do any number of things to die. Those are legal, so what is the difference?
I realize how morbid I sound now haha. I am not saying that I agree with Dr.Kevorkian, that I think assisted suicide should become legal, or that people have a right to kill themselves. As a Christian, I think murder is wrong. No matter who it is against. I just have these thoughts bouncing around in my head and want to let them out. If any of my 3 readers want to input an opinion, it is more than appreciated :)
You have brought up a tough subject for sure. One made even tougher because of all the medical advances that prolong a life that would otherwise not survived naturally.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, with all due respect, I think that your argument that God wants us to be happy is flawed and unbiblical. While the scripture certainly teaches that God wants what is best for us, our definition of “best” and His are usually vastly different. When Joseph was thrown in jail, I don’t think that he would have considered that to be what was best for him – but God had a bigger plan. Our definition of “abundant life” is also colored by our culture and experiences. Compare a typical American Christian’s life with that of a believer persecuted, tortured and jailed in China. Is this Chinese believer’s life less abundant because of his circumstances? By American standards, yes. By God’s? Well, scripture is pretty clear that God holds those persecuted for his name in very high regard. God is much more concerned with our holiness than our happiness. A.W. Tozer said it this way: "No man should desire to be happy who is not at the same time holy. He should spend his efforts in seeking to know and do the will of God, leaving to Christ the matter of how happy he should be.”
Might the person facing the decision of euthanasia be very, very unhappy? Yes. But that does not in any way justify the unholy act of ending a life – especially one’s own life – on the basis of being unhappy.
In general, if a person can not be kept alive without a machine or other technology, then I don’t think that it is wrong for that person to ask to be taken off that support. Or, for example, if someone has cancer and has suffered through a number of treatments, but there doesn’t seem to be a cure, only ways to prolong life, then I would respect that person’s decision to stop treatment. I don’t think it is suicide in such cases – it is just a very sick person that (let’s be honest) would have already passed away has he been in the same circumstance 100 years ago. However, should that person partake in euthanasia to “speed up the inevitable” –then I do believe that would be wrong. Only God knows how that person’s life (however difficult) will be used to touch others or even to draw the person suffering into a relationship with Christ.
Our technology has presented some difficult ethical situations for sure.
I don’t know if that was helpful at all – but some food for thought I hope.
I LOVE you and am so glad you are thinking through some of this tougher stuff and not just going with the pat Christian answer. :-)
Jen,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the second major paragraph you said. (The one about machines and cancer) And I think that is what I was trying to say haha. :) Thanks for saying it a little clearer than me :) But yes I totally agree. And I think you make an interesting point about technology creating ethical dilemmas.
I love you too, and thanks so much for responding :-)