100 Sermon Illustrations on Euthanasia

A federal judge ruled that the Constitution does not contain a so-called "right to die."

Article on next page details how a California initiative that would allow doctors to give lethal injections, failed.

Story about example of euthanasia - it shocks us, but in short order the act may become unquestionable. Public debate leads to public acceptance. Another example is homosexuality.

Carrie Coons, 86, was in a vegetative coma. Relatives wanted her unplugged because she had expressed a desire to die. But she began to speak and would not commit herself to having the feeding tubes removed. Her answer - it would be a difficult decision.

Sermon for Sanctity Sunday, 1993.

Deuteronomy 30:15-20

===========

CHOOSE LIFE

===========

I. The certainty of life and death.

A. Life and death issues are at the cutting edge of our society.

B. From extraordinary measures, to ordinary, to none, to positive

action to destroy unwanted life.

II. How much is your life worth?

A. We all have some basic worth.

B. World says we are worthwhile due to what we produce or experience.

C. Bible says we are valuable because made makes us so. Luke 12:24

III. When does life start?

A. The frontiers of science.

B. Dilemma of abortion faces this question head on.

IV. When does our life end?

A. Most families will face this question intimately.

B. The definition of death. Hebrews 9:27

C. Promoting death, providing life, or prolonging death?

V. Choose life. Deut 30:15ff

A. Life must be given the preference.

B. How long have you lived? REALLY lived? John 10:10

#2417

*

Princeton hires a pro-death ethicist vilified by the rest of the world.

Australian ethicist Peter Singer at least minces no words when he argues that the disabled and the unwanted should be killed. Not just passive euthanasia, but active, eugenic euthanasia for infants, the sick, and the elderly- everyone, to use his words, whose "life is not worth living."

No wonder he is so controversial in Europe and his home country that his speaking appearances are accompanied by angry protests from those he thinks are better off dead and those who care about them. In Austria, a major philosophy conference had to be canceled due to protests and threats from disabled groups. In Germany, he is compared to Hitler's theorist Martin Bormann. In Australia, he has been called the country's "most notorious messenger of death." Wherever Mr. Singer speaks, protesters in wheelchairs chain themselves to the barricades that have to be erected around his lecture sites.

In the United States, however, Mr. Singer is given an endowed chair at Princeton University. He has just been appointed to the Ira W. DeCamp Professorship of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values. This is a prestigious position at one of America's most prestigious universities, joining a faculty that once included Jonathan Edwards and J. Gresham Machen.

British philosopher David S. Oderberg reported in The Washington Times the significance of this particular appointment. According to Mr. Oderberg's summary of his thought, Mr. Singer believes that since infants are not "rational and self-aware," they should not be considered human until they are at least one month old. Up to that time, they could be killed. Newborn babies have, to use his analogy, the same moral value as snails. As "non- persons," they are "replaceable," much like chickens and other farm animals. That is, if parents chose infanticide for a "defective" child, say, with hemophilia, and later gave birth to a healthy baby, the total amount of happiness would be greater and thus their act would be moral.

Mr. Singer's ethical theory seems to be based on a curious quasi-mathematical attempt to calculate the sum total of human happiness that would result from a particular decision or policy. On this basis, he claims to be able to show not only that voluntary euthanasia (such as physician-assisted suicide) and non-voluntary euthanasia (for the mentally incapacitated who cannot decide for themselves) are morally justified. He also believes that involuntary euthanasia for anyone who has become a burden to society is a moral act.

Not only is Mr. Singer purportedly an expert in bioethics; he is a major theorist for the animal-rights movement, the author of Animal Liberation and Animal Rights and Human Obligations. Although he defends animals, strictly speaking, he does not believe in "rights" (as in "human rights") at all: He dismisses them as "a convenient political shorthand" with no basis in any kind of divine or natural objective moral order. Nevertheless, it is ironic that while Mr. Singer equates the life of a newborn baby with that of a snail, he would be likely to urge that the snail not be mistreated.

Not that Mr. Singer isn't qualified to be a bioethics professor at Princeton, at least according to the prevailing academic standards. Research content seldom sparks controversy-unless it leans in conservative directions. What counts more in American academia is the amount and the "importance" of one's publications. The online bookstore Amazon.com lists 38 books published by Mr. Singer. These include, significantly, a number of introductory overviews and edited collections of readings used as college textbooks.

Universities responding to the call for "values education" and liberal arts colleges trying to replace their old theology requirements are now instead requiring a course in "ethics." Very likely, they are using Mr. Singer's textbooks.

America is having to wrestle more and more with ethical dilemmas, especially those posed by the new medical technologies. Since religious teachings are ruled out of bounds by policymakers, our country is turning to secular experts for guidance on moral issues. Hospitals set up "ethics boards"; bureaucrats hire consultants to draw up policies; and universities such as Princeton establish a Center for Human Values and bring on recognized authorities such as Mr. Singer.

The mere invocation of "ethics" may do more harm than good, serving as a process of rationalizing what is actually profoundly unethical. The value of "ethics" depends on the worldview upon which they are founded.

There was a time when Christians and non-Christians alike could agree that certain moral truths are "self-evident," that human beings have been "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Today, with the very concept of a Creator jettisoned by the intellectual establishment, these truths are not self-evident at all, but in fact are coming under harsh attack.

In today's thinking, rights are endowed not by God but by the culture-or even the government. And what the culture or government sees fit to endow, it can also take away.

Contemporary Americans turn instinctively to the academic establishment whenever they need "expert" advice, but secularist academicians may be the very worst people to turn to today for moral expertise. They are the most likely to hold the postmodernist myth that culture creates values. And since the academic subculture gives more status and more endowed chairs to those who are "progressive" (advocating cultural evolution) and "cutting edge" in their fields (advocating ideas that are radically new), the kind of moral advice that will emanate from our halls of learning is easily predictable.

There are major exceptions, of course, such as Mr. Oderberg, who teaches at the University of Reading in England. His critiques of Mr. Singer exemplify the service academics should be rendering. But those looking for an expert on the intractable moral issues of our day would do better simply to ask a pastor or another leader who has studied the Bible, believes in it, and can apply it in a sophisticated way.

Preparing such experts used to be the mission of Princeton University. Now it endows a Center for Human Values that decenters human values. Now it hires an ethicist who dismantles ethics, whose teachings if put into practice would establish, as Hitler never could, a culture of murder.

[see also #4680]

*

God surprises us in dark places.

One of the saddest essays I have ever read appeared in the New Yorker in May 1995, written by a young man, Andrew Solomon, who was coming to terms with his mother’s death. She had been battling cancer -- and lost. The week she was diagnosed with it, she announced that she was going to kill herself.

And she did, less than two years later. She picked the day (June 19, 1991) and the outfit (her nightgown with pink roses), and following the step-by-step instructions published in “Let Me Die Before I Wake” (“a less explicit precursor of Derek Humphrey’s Final Exit”), she began the preliminary steps for “self-deliverance.” She took the antiemetics followed with a light snack. The Hemlock Society recommends having a plastic bag (and a taut rubber band) on hand as well. Step 11 of a manual published by ergo! (the Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization, started by Humphrey when he left the Hemlock Society in 1992) suggests that, in the event the pills don’t do it: “Place the plastic bag (or bags) over the head and draw the elastic bands over the bag, securing it firmly around the adam’s apple area. There must be no leaks.”

After tea and an English muffin, Mrs. Solomon nestled into her bed, and, as her family gathered around her, she spilled some 40 Seconal tablets onto her bedspread, scooped them, and like a “virtuoso” swallowed them all, “two or three at a time.”

“Surely this is better than your seeing me screaming in a hospital bed,” she said. For the subsequent 45 minutes of her final moments of consciousness, she said all those things that a wife and mother longs to say. And she said this: “I’m sad today. I’m sad to be going... .”

Her son wrote in retrospect: “Euthanasia is a legitimate way to die, and at its best it is full of dignity. But it is still suicide, and suicide is the saddest thing in the world.” He concluded, “How we die is, in fact, the least of it.... But when we die -- this is a powerful business.”

My father, like Mrs. Solomon, also had cancer and began his rapid decline last August. We thought the prostate cancer had been eradicated two years earlier when he had undergone surgery. In fact, my family and I were far more concerned about his other health problems -- emphysema and heart fibrillations. My father heroically battled through each day as these ailments conspired against him. So it took my sisters, my brother, my mother, and me by surprise when it became clear that the cancer, not the spasmodic heart or damaged lungs, would be the death of him.

In mid-August he posted this, his last E-mail message, addressed to my husband:

Date: Aug 15, 1995

Subj.: The Power of Prayer

Dear Bob: your prayers must have done it. Last nite i couldnt get in or out of bed without help. at 5 i woke up in wet sheets that were soaked from sweat. my pain was relieved almost entirely. it wont stay away but this is ok. thank you for your prayers. love, dad.

We did pray -- all the time -- for my dad. We didn’t know how to pray or what to pray for, but we rejoiced with him that day when his pain melted away into a bundle of wet sheets. But I knew, as my father did, that despite all the prayers in heaven and on earth, his pain would come back.

And it did. But in the course of these last weeks of his life, my father made a choice in the same way Mrs. Solomon made her choice. Apart from the bright yellow “Do Not Resuscitate” orders pasted indecorously on his bedroom wall for any and all to see, my father surrendered his dying into the hands of God, and we did, too.

The idea of “physician-assisted suicide” never entered his mind. So we waited and watched as he slowly left us: he stopped coming out to the kitchen table for meals; he stopped sitting up in his bed for meals; then he stopped eating altogether; then he stopped drinking. We saw him move from emotional connection to this life into quiescent assurance of his eternal destination, which gave way to paranoiac agitation, which gave way to delirium, to incoherence, and finally, silence.

He suffered. And we suffered, too. But neither he, nor we, took back that choice to let God have his way in this death, even when the pain and sense of powerlessness were so acute that we pondered the strangeness of God’s way of doing things.

Mrs. Solomon’s son explains in his essay that her intention to kill herself did not arise out of the desire to alleviate her symptoms (“she scarcely had any symptoms”). But rather, it was her way of “expressing a sense of outrage at the indignity of what lay ahead and a profound fear of losing control of her own life.” He said, “It was as though she wanted vengeance for the snub she had received from nature: if her life could not be as exquisite as it had been, she would have no more of it.... ‘I’m already dead,’ she said as she lay in her hospital bed. ‘What’s here for you to love?’ “

There are indignities that are inherent in the dying process, Mrs. Solomon is right about that. As the body weakens, functions that were once automatic suddenly become heroic. It is natural to want to avoid being reduced to these painfully humiliating exercises.

[Author talks about the humiliation her Christian father went through...]

If you have never tried it or helped someone else through it, you cannot begin to imagine how difficult it is to kill yourself,” wrote Andrew Solomon. But he adds, “We were among the lucky ones; we did not have to resort to plastic bags, or to watch my mother vomit over herself. It was that ideal death which plays out in Hemlock Society publications: the gentle, easeful death.”

After Mrs. Solomon had lapsed into unconsciousness, it came down to Andrew and his brother and father checking in intermittently to see if she was still breathing. “Her breathing sometimes seemed slower, but it was hard to tell,” he writes. “The discipline of not doing is usually more difficult than the discipline of doing, and of all the not I have confronted, the most painful was the not waking my mother as she slid by slow degrees from sleep to death.... In that room with her, I maintained a kind of empty silence, and wondered what stage of dying she had reached.”

There was no turning back for the Solomons. Mrs. Solomon had made her choice.

“Just after midnight,” he continues, “my brother, the most restrained and most reasonable of us, went to check and found that the breathing had stopped.”

It took five hours, from the moment Mrs. Solomon scooped up and swallowed the pills to the moment when her heart beat for the last time.

My father’s joyful acquiescence in response to his heavenly vision was interrupted when his pain management moved to a new level. He could no longer tolerate the pain with Vicodan only. It was time to introduce MS Contin -- morphine. By the end of the first week of the new drug, my father’s behavior was dramatically altered. He woke up in the middle of the night another time, this time panic-stricken that he did not have enough oxygen. He wanted to call 911, which we as family had all agreed not to do under any circumstances, since, presumably, they would be compelled to begin heroic life-preserving measures -- probably by putting him on a respirator -- which contradicted his own desires. (We would call hospice instead, in the event of an emergency.) My bedridden, frail father, who under normal circumstances at this stage couldn’t brush his own teeth, wrestled my poor mother for the phone and dialed 911.

Despite all apprehensions, my mother sang praises for the arrival of the paramedics, who immediately sedated my father (and, thankfully, didn’t put him on a respirator).

“The diagnosis is clear,” wrote my brother-in-law (a doctor) over the Internet the next day to all the family. “Delirium.”

He said that the disorientation and hallucinations, the “waxing and waning sensorium,” were the classic hallmarks of delirium. He said adjusting medication and “maintaining oxygenation” will help, but that some degree of delirium would probably continue. “There will be times of relative lucidity, though these times will be fewer and farther between as time goes on.”

There was no turning back. My father had made his choice.

One of the last devotions I had shared with my father comforted him and me, too: “He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces -- there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.”

A friend of Andrew Solomon’s, who had also “assisted” in a loved one’s suicide, told him, “It is a relationship that is not natural ... you scar forever.” But Solomon still concluded that in the light of the “simple logic of euthanasia in action,” with its “comfort and control,” it “astonished” him “how many people die by other means.”

The “other means” had the better of my father. We could not choose the day of his dying -- my plane reservations missed it by two days. And he had no clue what outfit he had on. There were moments when we all cried, and even laughed (what else could we do?) at what had become of this once unstoppable force of personality. We were cutting his T-shirts up the back at the end, to get them off and on him.

Euthanasia is logical, if comfort and control and a certain kind of “dignity” -- the hallmark of the American psyche -- form the defining paradigm of life. But when we seize that kind of control we are reduced to the outermost limits of human imaginings, which does not promise much.

Understandably, it is scary to relinquish control -- it takes us places where we may not want to go, like bedroom floors, on our knees, crawling around, groping for oxygen. But God comes to us in those places. In fact, more often than not in those places is where he resides, and sometimes it takes our going there to find him. He surprises us there: he may take us to an imaginary dock to pull in the boat -- or he may take us to the outskirts of heaven! Sometimes it is only in the dark places where our eyes can see him for who he is.

We are still left to wonder why death must be preceded by so many twists and turns before finally having its way with us. But in all the wondering, when we surrender how we die into the hands of the One who gave us life, we are freed from the limitation of human definitions of dignity, and worthiness, and beauty, and quality of life.

At one of the many crises we experienced in my father’s decline, I felt utterly helpless, powerless, and cut off (living a thousand miles away did not help). I wrote in my journal this prayer: What can I give him now? It is only You he needs -- only You can meet him where he is right now. That he would see You, even in the midst of his pain, that he could behold Your beauty in these dark moments, that is my deepest prayer for him now.

The Lord answered those prayers, in ways I did not expect or was prepared for. My father was right when he wrote that last E-mail to my husband: There is power in prayer. And my father’s assurance of that spoke prophetically about what would be required of us all to get through this passage. There is power, but not control.

Mrs. Solomon’s death and her son’s grief carry all the sadness that a human breast can bear. My father’s death does, too. Andrew Solomon is right: When we die is “a powerful business.” But still, most of us, despite the conveniences of euthanasia, do not make that choice.

But how we die -- “the least of it,” in Solomon’s words -- makes all the difference in my mind. For the “night is far spent, the day is at hand” and when we awake we shall “be satisfied with thy likeness.” How we die, with all its anguish, can be like “the light of the morning ... even a morning without clouds.”

________

Copyright (c) 1996 Christianity Today, Inc./CHRISTIANITY TODAY Magazine, Volume 40, No. 4, page 34

A television station in Oregon recently began airing a new how-to video. This one won't help you to install a bathroom sink or prepare a gourmet meal, however. No, this new instructional guide is about suicide, and how to get it right on your first try.

In 1991, Derek Humphrey, a founder of the Hemlock Society, published a best-selling suicide manual called Final Exit. Along with justifications for the act of suicide, the author identified the most lethal drugs, and offered tips on how to obtain them without a doctor's prescription. He even described how to mix a fatal dose in an easy-to-swallow concoction.

Now, in its newly released video format, "Final Exit, the movie," goes even further. Although Humphrey claims his advice is only for "self-deliverance of the terminally ill," he and the TV producers in Oregon are making it available to everyone -- for the terminally ill as well as for those who may have just had a bad day. And let's remember, researchers tell us that as many as twenty percent of Americans suffer from some form of depression.

Station managers claim they want to enable people "to make the hard decisions in their lives." But the truth is, people suffering from physical or mental anguish are the least able to make those decisions without intervention. As Pamela Cavallo, of the National MS Society puts it, "Many people who say they want to hasten death really want help with living." But sometimes they can't tell the difference.

Airing this kind of programming sends a powerful and destructive message, telling people that suicide is okay. Critics and advocates alike believe it will increase the number of suicides in that state. Portland psychiatrist Gregory Hamilton says, "For people ... on the edge, it pushes them over."

Suicide was the eighth leading cause of death in the United States in 1997. Among young people 15 to 24, the suicide rate doubled in the last decade. Fortunately, most suicide attempts are unsuccessful. But television advocacy will likely make suicide attempts not only more frequent, but much more successful. What started out as an impulsive act, or as a desperate cry for help, may now lead to irreversible tragedy.

What we need to see is that this is where the slippery slope of Roe V. Wade has brought us, with its easy acceptance of the culture of death. Not only have we become insensitive to the deaths of millions of unborn babies, but, more and more, we've ceased to value our own lives.

The answer to suffering, of course, is not death - it's care and compassion. Now, the law can't provide that, but it can encourage it. Right now, Congress is considering the Pain Relief Promotion Act. This important new legislation promotes palliative care to relieve the suffering of the terminally ill and bans the use of federally funded drugs in doctor- assisted suicide. We need to support these kinds of initiatives.

And you need to be prepared to speak out if you see that your local cable station may be thinking about airing this dangerous video. As Christians, we must also remember our calling to comfort the afflicted in a world that turns so quickly to despair. We need to be ready always to share Christ's love with those in need of hope and healing.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

It was a relatively calm day in my hospital's NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). Two other nurses and I were trying to have a conversation amid the customary sounds of ventilators and heart monitors. I was in mid-sentence when the shrill ring of the red emergency phone halted all conversation. "Come fast," the voice said urgently. "We need a neonatal nurse stat!"

Fear gripped my heart as I ran into the delivery room. Instantly, I knew the situation was critical. "What's happening here?" I asked.

"It's an 'oops abortion,' and now it's your problem!" responded one of the nurses. For us, an "oops abortion" meant the mother's due date was miscalculated, and the fetus survived the abortion procedure. A pediatrician was called to the scene. He ran by me with the fetus (now called a baby) in his hand and yelled in my direction, indicating he wanted me to follow him into the resuscitation room adjoining the delivery room. I looked into the bed of the warmer as I grabbed equipment. Before my eyes was a baby boy. A very, very tiny baby boy. The doctor and I immediately made an attempt at intubation (inserting a tube down the trachea from the mouth or nose of the infant to the tip of the lungs to ventilate, expand and oxygenate them). The doctor's effort at intubation failed, which further traumatized the baby. I glanced at the doctor and hesitantly asked, "Will you attempt intubation again?"

"You've got to be kidding," he replied. "It would be inhumane to attempt to intubate this poor little thing again. This infant will never survive."

"No, Doctor, I'm not kidding," I said, "and it's my job to ask."

The doctor softened for a moment. "I'm sorry, Sharon. I'm just angry. The mother doesn't want the inconvenience of a baby, so she comes to the hospital so she can pay somebody to get rid of it -- all neat and tidy. Then the whole thing gets messed up when the fetus has the audacity to survive. Then everybody takes it seriously, and they call the pediatrician, who's supposed to fix it or get rid of it." With anger in his voice, he went on, "Some lawyers will fight for the right to do whatever we want to our bodies, but watch out for what they will do when these abortions aren't so neat and tidy! A failed homicide -- and oops! Then all of a sudden everybody cares, and it's turned from a 'right' into a 'liability' that someone is blamed for!"

We looked at our pathetic little patient. He was lying in the fetal position in the wrong environment, trying to get air into underdeveloped lungs that couldn't do the job. In a calmer voice, the doctor said, "Okay, Nurse, I'm going back to the office. Keep him comfortable and let me know when it's over. I'm sorry about this. Call me if you need me. I know this is a hard one. If it helps, please know it's tough for me, too." Holding the baby's hand, I watched the doctor retreat and then glanced back at the infant before me. He was gasping for air. "Lord, help!" I prayed. Almost instinctively, I took the baby's vitals. His temperature was dangerously low. I pushed the warmer settings as high as they could go. His heart rate was about 180-200 beats per minute. I could count the beats by watching his little chest pulsate. I settled down a bit and began to focus on this tiny little person. He had no name, so I gave him one. Suddenly, I found myself speaking to the baby. "Tiny Tim, who are you? I am so sorry you weren't wanted. It's not your fault."

I placed my little finger in his hand, and he grasped it. As I watched him closely, I marveled that all the minute parts of a beautiful baby were present and functioning in spite of the onslaught. I touched his toes and discovered he was ticklish! He had a long torso and long legs. I wondered if he would have become a baseball player. Perhaps he would have been a teacher or doctor. Emotions swept over me as I thought of my friends who had been waiting and praying for years for a baby to adopt. I spoke aloud once again to the miniature baby. "They would have given you a loving and a happy home. Why would people destroy you before ever considering adoption? Ignorance is not bliss, is it, Tiny Tim?"

Hanging on meanwhile, Tim put his thumb into his mouth and sucked. I hoped that gave him comfort. I continued to talk to the baby. "I'm sorry, Tim. There are people who would risk their lives for a whale or an owl before they'd even blink about what just happened to you." Tiny Tim gasped, and his little chest heaved as if a truck were sitting on it. I took my stethoscope and listened to his tiny, pounding heart. At The moment it seemed easier to focus on physiology rather than on this baby's humanity.

He wet, and with that my mind took off again. Here was Tiny Tim with a whole set of kidneys, a bladder, and connecting tubes that functioned with a very complex system of chemistry. His plumbing was all working! I turned the overhead light up and Tim turned from it, in spite of eyelids that were fused together to protect his two precious little eyes. I thought about them. They would never see a sunset, a mother's smile or the wagging tail of a dog. I took his temperature again. It was dropping. He was gasping for air and continued to fight for life. I stroked him gently and began to sing:

"Jesus loves the little children, All the children of the world. Red and yellow, black and white, They are precious in His sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world."

A nurse walked in. "How's the mother?" I asked.

"Oh, she's fine. She's back in her room resting. The family said they don't want to see or hear about anything. They said, "Just take care of it." The nurse retreated with one last glance at the tiny patient. "For such a little person, he's sure putting up a big fight."

I looked at Tiny Tim and wondered if he knew that what he was fighting for so hard was life -- and I knew he was losing it. He was dying and his family was resting. Their words tormented me. Just take care of it! No muss and no fuss.

Then Tiny Tim moved and caught hold of my little finger. I let him hang on. I didn't want him to die without being touched and cared for. As I saw him struggle to breathe, I said, "It's okay, Tim. You can let go. You can go back to God."

His gasping started slowing down, but he still clung to my finger. I stroked the baby ever so slowly and watched him take his last breath. "Good-bye, Tiny Tim," I whispered. "You did matter to someone."

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Epilogue

A few years later, Sharon Dunsmore became the manager of a psychiatric unit. One day, Kathy, a young, severely depressed woman, came to see Sharon following an unsuccessful suicide attempt. As Sharon interviewed her, Kathy said she had gone through an abortion three years before, and she was having recurring nightmares. A baby was crying for help and kept calling her name. In her dreams, Kathy searched for the baby, but she could never find him or her. As Kathy gave the name of the hospital and the names of the doctors, a disturbing realization dawned on Sharon. Kathy was Tiny Tim's mother. Because of hospital regulations, she couldn't tell her what she knew.

Time passed. Sharon was no longer a nurse or a therapist. Kathy was no longer a psychiatric patient. They ran into each other at a restaurant, where Sharon gently unfolded the story that had been hidden for so long. Tears flowed as she gave Kathy the gift of answers. Her baby was touched and loved by a mother. He was given a name. He didn't die alone. He was sent back to a loving God.

As the visit neared an end, they held each other and wept. Sharon looked into Kathy's eyes and saw new strength and calm. There were scars, but she was beginning to heal. The nightmares were being put to rest. Sharon still lives with the haunting impact of this experience. A choice that was intended to be "no big deal" turned out to be a very big deal for everybody.

Sharon Dunsmore has Tiny Tim's story available in booklet form. For more information, write "Tiny Tim," P. O. Box 84, Smiths Creek, MI 48074-0084

*

Sermon on sanctity of life. Deuteronomy 30:15-20

AFFIRM LIFE

===========

I. Life has a tenacity about it.

II. No life is as complex as humans.

A. In what sense are we alive?

B. We can be spiritually alive on two levels.

III. The gospel of Jesus is life-affirming.

A. Jesus loves those whom the world rejects.

B. Jesus loves YOU.

IV. Evangelicals are noted for their views on life.

A. Often takes negative slant.

B. How we can affirm the life of others.

1) Helping with the extremes of life.

2) Witness to others about our faith in Jesus.

V. How we can get the most out of life.

A. Accept God's love for us.

B. Seek to improve the quality of your life.

C. Choose life even when it is hard.

VI. We all face choices.

*

Sir Francis Crick, decoder of DNA, in a lecture entitled “The Sociological Ramifications of Biology” before University College:

“Because of the population explosion in the face of diminishing resources, we have no recourse from the following steps:

A. We cannot continue to regard all human life as sacred. The idea that every person has a soul and that his life must be saved at all costs should not be allowed. Instead, the status of birth and death should be reconsidered.

B. If, for example, a child were considered to be legally born when two days old, it could be examined to see whether it was an 'acceptable member of human society'.

C. It might also be desirable to define a person as legally dead when he is past the age of 80 or 85, and then expensive medical equipment should be forbidden to him; old people might also be required to distribute a certain proportion of their property.

D. It is not right that religious instruction should be given to young children. Instead they should be taught the modern scientific view of man's place in the universe, in the world and in society, and the nature of scientific truth.

____________

from Nature 220, Nov.1968, pp 429-430

Man in a coma in the hospital, 92 yrs. old, fed through a tube inserted into his stomach. Kept alive for 12 yrs. What do we tell the wife who is heavily in debt for the part the insurance company has failed to pay over the years? Is it OK to pull the plug? (The national record is 38 yrs.)

In 1994, voters in the state of Oregon narrowly approved the first law in the United States allowing physician-assisted suicide. Three years later, an attempt to repeal the law was defeated at the ballot box. It is clear that the majority of voters in the Beaver State believe a person has a right to decide when his or her life should end.

In 1999, the Oregon legislature voted to expand the coverage of the state-sponsored health plan to include physician-assisted suicide. In the state of Oregon not only can a person end his or her life with a doctor's help, but he or she also can have the government foot the bill for the "procedure."

On Wednesday, April 17, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones rejected an attempt by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft to apply the Controlled Substance Act to Oregon doctors who use the physician-assisted suicide law to prescribe lethal doses of medication to those seeking to end their lives prematurely.

Ashcroft's decision held that assisted suicide is not a legitimate medical procedure, threatening to revoke the licenses of physicians who prescribed deadly doses of drugs to patients. Judge Jones disagreed with the attorney general and his ruling allows assisted suicide in Oregon to continue unfettered.

The majority is elated, asserting it is a victory for individual rights as well as the democratic process. The voters of Oregon have expressed their will not once but twice: If a person wants to choose the time, place and circumstance of his or her death, what business is it of the government? We are told that society is not harmed by such a decision.

One question: What if the voters in Oregon are wrong and their populist view concerning physician-assisted suicide is not a victory for an individual's right to die, but rather the next progression down the slippery slope toward forced euthanasia?

We must not too quickly forget the reality that occurred in Nazi Germany. In "Modern Fascism: The Liquidating of the Judeo-Christian Worldview," Gene Edward Vieth Jr. reminds us, "The first official legalized 'mercy killing' [in Nazi Germany] was the result of an emotional case brought before the Fuhrer himself. A baby named Knauer was born blind, missing a leg and part of a hand, and evidently mentally retarded. The father begged permission for the child to be put out of his misery. Hitler himself investigated and granted permission. More petitions followed."

Writing in "The Nazi Doctors," Robert Jay Lifton points out, "Of the five identifiable steps by which the Nazis carried out the principle of 'life unworthy of life,' coercive sterilization was the first. There followed the killing of 'impaired' children in hospitals; and then the killing of 'impaired adults,' in centers especially equipped with carbon monoxide gas. This project was extended (in the same killing centers) to 'impaired' inmates of concentration and extermination camps and, finally to mass killings, mostly of Jews, in the extermination camps themselves."

Those who favor physician-assisted suicide loudly declare, "No way infanticide and forced euthanasia will ever occur in the United States. We are too enlightened." They accuse people like me of knee-jerk reactions and of trying to impose our puritanical morality on the enlightened majority. Well, to that charge I have two words in reply: Peter Singer. Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He espouses both infanticide and forced euthanasia. Singer, who is a radical utilitarian, believes that a life incapable of "full life" should not be prolonged. He holds that the good of society must be considered in determining whether a life is worth preserving.

Peter Singer is only one man. His views seem too radical for mainstream America. However, what if one man -- as wrong as his views might be -- over time is able influence a majority? What then?

In 1930, Germany embraced the Nazi Party. Shortly thereafter the leader of the party, Adolf Hitler, was appointed chancellor. On March 23, 1933, Hitler pressed the German cabinet to pass the Enabling Act that would result in him being named legal dictator -- and the demise of democracy in Germany.

The Enabling Act involved altering the German Constitution, requiring passage by a two-thirds majority of the Cabinet. Hitler needed 31 non-Nazis to vote in favor of the act in order for him to become dictator.

One lone voice spoke in opposition to Hitler's grab for power. Otto Wells, leader of the Social Democrats stood and took issue with the head of the Nazi Party. In the end, Wells' voice was ignored and the Enabling Act passed. Hitler became the dictator because that was the desire of the majority. One man influenced a majority. The rest, as they say, is history. And history has proved the majority was wrong.

A majority of voters in Oregon approve of physician-assisted suicide. Thankfully, this view is still a minority in America. If this ever changes, and the majority embraces the view that life is disposable, we will all suffer.

______________________

(previous illustration with this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #22215)

It sounds like the baby shower from hell. As cake and punch are passed around, a doctor runs medical tests on a month-old baby. If he passes the tests, the guests welcome the child to the human community. But if the baby fails -- if he has, say, Down's syndrome, or cerebral palsy -- the parents bid him a sad farewell.

And then, the doctor snuffs out his life.

Believe it or not, a Princeton professor thinks parties like these would be a good idea. This is a tragic illustration that the killing of a month-old child -- once absolutely unthinkable -- has become a debatable moral question.

In an article entitled "Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong," philosopher Peter Singer writes: "Perhaps, like the ancient Greeks, we should have a ceremony a month after birth, at which the infant is admitted to the community. Before that time," he says, "infants would not be recognized as having the same right to life as older people."

This means that if the child is considered "defective" in some way, the parents would presumably have a different kind of ceremony -- one that ends with child being admitted, not to the human community, but to a grave.

This is morally acceptable, Singer says, because newborns, while indisputably human, are not really persons. They don't become persons, and acquire a right to life, until weeks or even months after birth because they lack "self-awareness."

Extreme beliefs, yes, but Singer is hardly alone in espousing them. As far back as 1972, University of Colorado philosopher Michael Tooley was saying that fetuses and infants are non-persons who "do not have a right to life."

American University philosopher Jeffrey Reiman agrees. He maintains that infants do not "possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them." I could go on and on. But suffice it to say that people who wish to destroy handicapped or just plain unwanted newborns have influential supporters. And they're getting more and more aggressive.

Well, we can't say we weren't warned. In the 1960s, as the abortion movement gained momentum, critics warned that the logic of abortion would lead directly from the womb to the cradle: Babies already born would become the next targets.

These critics have been proven right. Three decades after Roe V. Wade, influential voices are clamoring for out-and-out infanticide.

The reasoning behind it -- that newborns are somehow less than human -- is already seeping into society. Witness the rash of "dumpster babies" -- newborns thrown out by their mothers.

If this nation ever condones infanticide, we will be destroying the very principle that is at the heart of Judeo-Christian concepts of human rights and equality, namely, that it's always wrong to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Florida Congressman Charles Canady is among those trying to prevent this dangerous redefinition. He has introduced a bill called the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act." Now, I know the abortion issue has been around a long time, and people get weary of it. But I urge you to learn more about this bill, and you can do so by visiting our BreakPoint webpage (www.breakpoint.org).

A bill like this is a vital and important protection against those hideous "baby showers" that Peter Singer proposes -- celebrations that end only in death.

___________________

Copyright (c) 2000 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

Princeton University professor Peter Singer, dubbed the "godfather" of animal rights, says Christianity is a "problem" for the animal rights movement.

Singer, author of the book "Animal Liberation" and a bioethics professor at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, criticized American Christianity for its "fundamentalist" strain that takes the Bible too "literally" and promotes "speciesism" in a June 29 address to the national Animal Rights 2002 conference in McLean, Va., CNSNews.com reported.

Speciesism, as defined by Singer, is the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species."

Singer also expanded on his controversial position that a "severely disabled" infant may be killed up to 28 days after its birth if the parents deem the baby's life is not worth living.

"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people attending a workshop on "When Is Killing OK? (Attacking animals? Unwanted dogs & cats? Unwanted or deformed fetuses?)"

He singled out the "more conservative mainstream fundamentalist views" that "want to make a huge gulf between humans and animals" as being the most harmful to the concept of animal liberation.

Singer rejected what he termed "the standard view that most people hold" -- that "just being human makes life special." He told one questioner from the audience, "I hope that you don't think that just being a biological member of the species homo sapiens means that you do have a soul and being a member of some other species means they don't. I think that would trouble me.

"I am an atheist, I know that is an ugly word in America," he added.

Singer pointed out that the Judeo-Christian ethic teaches not only that humans have souls and animals don't, but that humans are made in the image of God and that God gave mankind dominion over the animals. "All three taken together do have a very negative influence on the way in which we think about animals," he said.

His mission, Singer said, is to challenge "this superiority of human beings," and he conceded that his ideas go very much against the grain of a country that mostly still believes in human superiority.

Singer also reiterated one of his most controversial positions regarding the right to kill a newborn infant within 28 days of birth if the infant is deemed "severely disabled."

"If you have a being that is not sentient, that is not even aware, then the killing of that being is not something that is wrong in and of itself," he stated.

"I think that a chimpanzee certainly has greater self-awareness than a newborn baby," he told CNSNews.com.

He explained that "there are some circumstances, for example, where the newborn baby is severely disabled and where the parents think that it's better that that child should not live, when killing the newborn baby is not at all wrong ... not like killing the chimpanzee would be. Maybe it's not wrong at all."

He said his original view, published in his book "Practical Ethics," that the parents should have 28 days to determine whether the infant should live has been modified somewhat since the book's release.

"So in that book, we suggested that 28 days is not a bad period of time to use because, on the one hand, it gives you time to examine the infant to [see] what the nature of the disability is; gives time for the couple to recover from the shock of the birth to get well-advised and informed from all sorts of groups, medical opinion and disability and to reach a decision.

"And also I think that it is clearly before the point at which the infant has those sorts of forward-looking preferences, that kind of self-awareness, that I talked about. But I now think, after a lot more discussion, that you can't really propose any particular cut-off date."

He now advocates that the life or death decision regarding the infant should be made "as soon as possible after birth" because the 28 day cut-off, based on an ancient Greek practice, is "too arbitrary."

He called his views on killing "non-speciest" and "logical" because they don't "depend on simply being a member of the species homo sapiens."

Singer was asked several questions about whether his concept of animal rights included the protection of insects, rodents or shellfish. "I think insects are, you are right, the toughest conflicts we generally face. I wouldn't kill a spider if I can avoid killing a spider and I don't think I need to," he said.

What if termites were threatening his home? "With termites that are actually eating out the foundation of my home, and this happens, this is a more serious problem and I think at that point, I would feel that I need to dwell somewhere and if I can't drive them away in some way, I guess I would end up killing them," he conceded.

When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard.

"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.

One woman at the workshop, who identified herself only as Angie, asked Singer if killing humans is acceptable to defend animals. "My name is Angie and I am not going to kill anybody, but I have a question about self-preservation, because I am thinking about doing a goose intervention where people are going to be coming to my neighborhood to kill geese. I am wondering, would it be my right to kill somebody that is harming, that is killing, 11,000 geese in New Jersey?"

Singer replied, "For starters, I think it would be a very bad thing to do to the movement." He later explained that he does not support violence to further the cause of animal rights, but he does support civil disobedience, such as "entering property, trespassing in order to obtain evidence."

Singer also defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk, and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."

Animal rights activists attending the conference had nothing but praise for Singer and his influence on the movement.

Singer, who was introduced as the "godfather" of animal rights, received three standing ovations during his keynote address, attended by about 400 people. Conference participant Jennie Sunner called Singer "fundamental to the movement's inception and its movement forward."

"I am so relieved he exists.... He's so well-reasoned and well-thought-out that it is hard for someone not to agree," she added.

"I think he's got a really important message and a really inspiring message," stated David Berg of the Utah Animal Rights Coalition.

Those participating in the conference had a wide variety of animal-related issues on their agenda, from anti-fur campaigns to promoting veganism to lobbying against "factory farming."

T-shirts and bumper stickers seen at the conference included the following slogans: "Stop Hunting"; "Milk is Murder"; "Animal Liberation: Wire Cutters are a terrible thing to Waste" (with an image of a cut farm fence); "Beef, it's what is rotting in your colon"; and a T-shirt featuring a cow with the slogan, "I died for your sins."

Barry Clausen, a critic of the Animal Rights movement and author of the book "Burning Rage," has studied the animal rights movement for 12 years and believes it is having an impact.

Clausen, whose book details the illegal activities of some members of the animal rights and environmental movements, believes the biggest threat animal rights advocates pose is their ability to limit animal medical research.

"If we can't have animal research, we can't have solutions to medical problems. You just can't stop everything to save a chimpanzee," he told CNSNews.com.

Clausen said some animal rights activists have been involved in acts of what he calls domestic terrorism. "Over the past 12 years, we have had over 3,000 acts of terrorism by environmental and animal rights extremists," he said.

Clausen does not pull any punches when it comes to his opinion of the animal rights activists. "I have not come across one of these people who I did not consider to be mentally ill," Clausen said.

But conference participant Sunner defended the animal activists.

"Being normal by nature means you will never do anything extraordinary, so everything revolutionary that is good has been preceded by that kind of ridicule and trivialization," she said.

_________________

Morano is a staff writer with www.CNSNews.com.

*

Kdo je doktor smrt

Nìkteøí øíkají, že Jack Kevorkian je andìl milosrdenství. Jiní ho považují za masového vraha

Kevorkian pomohlodejít ze života 20 lidem a od té doby více než stovce dalších. Nechal je buï vdechnout oxid uhelnatý, nebo jim píchl smrtící injekci. O svého posledního klienta, dvaapadesátiletého Thomase Youka, se "postaral" loni 17. záøí. Videozáznam jeho smrti pak poskytl televizní stanici CBS.

Posedlost

Jack Kevorkian se narodil 26. kvìtna 1928 v Pontiaku ve státì Michigan. Jeho rodièe byli arménští uprchlíci a v dìtství mu vyprávìli o zvìrstvech, která za 1. svìtové války na Arménech páchali Turci.

Medicínu vystudoval na Lékaøské fakultì Michiganské univerzity a v polovinì padesátých let zahájil v jedné detroitské nemocnici pokusy, za které si vysloužil pøezdívku doktor Smrt.Posedlost smrtí se projevuje i na obrazech, které maluje. Jejich hlavním námìtem je od šedesátých let násilí a smrt. Na obraze s názvem Genocida neváhal potøísnit rám svou vlastní krví.

Smrt na požádání

Kevorkian tvrdí, že mu kariéru znièil pouze jeho zájem o smrt.

Po tom coodešel do dùchodu,penze mu umožnila naplno se vìnovat "specializaci", kterou sám vytvoøil – ordinování smrti. V roce 1987 dal do místních novin inzerát následujícího znìní: "Lékaøské konzultace pro nevyléèitelnì nemocné, kteøí si pøejí dùstojnou smrt." Na vizitky si nechal vytisknout: "Dr. Jack Kevorkian. Bioetika a eutanazie. Úmrtní poradenství. Pouze po osobní konzultaci."

Smutná bilance

Pitva devìtašedesáti Kevorkianových klientù ukázala, že mnozí nebyli nevyléèitelnì nemocní, a nìkteøí dokonce ani nemìli žádný patologický nález. Hlavní soudní lékaø oaklandského okresu L. J. Dragovic prohlásil, že v ohrožení života bylo pouze šestnáct z nich, zatímco osmaètyøicet dalších trpìlo chorobami, které lze léèit. U zbývajících pìti se žádné pøíznaky nemoci nenašly.

Prvního záøí loòského (1999) roku vstoupil v Michiganu v platnost nový zákon, který asistovanou sebevraždu zakazuje. O šestnáct dní pozdìji aplikoval Kevorkian smrtící dávku chloridu draselného Thomasi Youkovi, který trpìl nervovou chorobou v závìreèném stadiu. Bìhem svého vystoupení v televizi prohlásil: "Musejí mì obvinit, protože jinak by to znamenalo, že mùj skutek za zloèin nepovažují. Další dùkazy pøece snad už nepotøebují, ne?"

Michiganský státní návladní jeho pøání vyhovìl a za úèast na Youkovì smrti ho postavil pøed soud. Letos v bøeznu ho porota shledala vinným z vraždy druhého stupnì a 13. dubna byl odsouzen k deseti až pìtadvaceti letùm vìzení.

Ve své závìreèné øeèi soudkynì Jessica Cooperová prohlásila, že proces nemìl rozhodnout o správnosti èi nesprávnosti eutanazie. "Byl jste souzen pouze vy, pane Kevorkiane, vaše nezákonné jednání, vaše arogance a neúcta ke spoleènosti. Mìl jste tu drzost objevit se v televizním vysílání, abyste svìtu ukázal, co jste provedl. Vyzval jste zákon, aby vás zastavil. Teï jsme vás tedy zastavili."

Not long ago, I listened to perhaps the most powerful and eloquent speech I have ever heard. It was delivered by Joni Eareckson Tada at a Prison Fellowship banquet. Many of you, of course, know Joni's story: As a teenager, she dove into shallow water and broke her neck. For thirty-five years, she has lived in a wheelchair, a quadriplegic.

It was this fact that gave her speech such power. You see, the subject of her speech was embryonic stem cell research, which has been dangled out as a “miracle cure” for dozens of different medical conditions -- including spinal cord injuries. Indeed, one the most aggressive proponents of this research is another quadriplegic: actor Christopher Reeve. Both Reeve and Joni know what happens during embryonic stem cell research: The embryo -- a tiny human being -- is killed as stem cells are plundered for use by the already born.

Reeve is willing to overlook this inconvenient fact; Joni is not. Unlike Reeve, she understands where such research will lead.

Consider what Joni said: “The weak, the frail, quadriplegics, the infirm, the handicapped, the elderly have never fared well in cultures which view life as a commodity.” Look what happened just more than fifty years ago in Germany, she said, when doctors first cast a cold eye on people whose lives they considered not worth living. “The first to be carted off down the long, dark, midnight hallways of institutions were the defective, or the handicapped, or the mentally disabled.” Specifically, they were “disabled people,” Joni said, “who had no visitors, no friends, no one to speak up for them.”

“And now we have the philosophers of this age,” she said, “people like Peter Singer insisting that folks like those with mental handicaps have no rights.”

And she added: Our dream of solving all medical problems is turning into a nightmare. “Our society doesn't seem to have a place for those who suffer. We want to avoid [suffering,] ignore it, eradicate it, medicate it. We have such contempt for suffering, and it's only a short philosophical hop, skip, and jump to where you begin to have contempt for suffering people. People who strain Medicare, people who drain the grandkids' college funds, people who contribute nothing more than bills to society.”

But, as Joni pointed out, it is not just the disabled who are at risk. “The lives of all of us are jeopardized when life can be bought and sold, copied and replicated, altered and aborted and euthanized,” she warned. We are all vulnerable “in a society that thinks nothing of creating a class of human beings for the purpose of lethal experimentation and exploitation.” Those are powerful words, given with such conviction.

Of course, we all want cures for disease and disability, as Joni said, but not at the price of human dignity. She knows, as Reeve does not, what a bad bargain it is. The promise of a cure is seductive, but it becomes a death warrant.

Unlike Christopher Reeve, Joni knows that there are worse things in life than being handicapped. There is the destruction of human dignity through cloning. And there is the creation of a cultural climate where first the weak, the small, the sick, and the suffering, and then all of us are carted down the “long, dark, midnight hallways.”

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION

“Bioethics and the Christian” -- In this “BreakPoint This Week” special with Wilberforce Forum Dean Nigel Cameron, Joni Eareckson Tada shares her thoughts on the “biotech century” and how Christians should respond. http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/Bioethics+and+the+Christian.htm A CD of this conversation is also available.

The “BreakPoint Christian Response to Cloning Kit” includes useful resources for Christians (laity and church leaders): to understand why they should stand up for human dignity and the sanctity of human life (an audio cassette of Joni Eareckson Tada's speech delivered at the Prison Fellowship banquet); to speak to their fellow believers about the issue; to speak to unbelievers about the dangers of human cloning; and to take the first step toward opposing all human cloning.

Learn about Joni Eareckson Tada's ministry, Joni and Friends. http://www.joniandfriends.org

Senator Sam Brownback, “A True, Complete Ban,” NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, 26 February 2003. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-brownback022603.asp

Roberto Rivera, “Attack of the (Real Life) Clones,” BOUNDLESS, 29 August 2002. http://www.boundless.org/2001/features/a0000620.html

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030226, “'An Obvious Moral Absurdity': A Secular Case against Cloning.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/An+Obvious+Moral+Absurdity.htm

BreakPoint Commentary No. 030103, “Creating and Killing: Bioethics and the Future of Humanity.” http://www.breakpoint.org/Breakpoint/ChannelRoot/FeaturesGroup/BreakPointCommentaries/Creating+and+Killing.htm

David Stevens, M.D., “Stem Cells -- Potential and Problems: Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells,” Council for Biotechnology Policy, 27 September 2002. http://www.biotechpolicy.com/BiotechPolicy/ChannelRoot/Features/Articles/Stem+Cells+Potential+and+Problems.htm

____________

Copyright (c) 2003 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was added to HolwickID #17203]

Four years ago, voters in Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide. Oregon became the first state where physicians may provide terminally ill patients with a lethal dose of drugs. In the past four years, seventy Oregonians taken advantage of this dreadful law. All used federally controlled substances.

The Drug Enforcement Agency has argued that this use of federally controlled substances violates federal laws. Tom Constantine, former head of the DEA, warned doctors that they could lose their license and even be arrested if they dispensed controlled substances for something other than a "legitimate medical purpose."

Constantine was overruled by then-Attorney General Janet Reno. She prohibited the DEA from enforcing federal law in the case of doctors operating under the Oregon law. Last week, Attorney General Ashcroft did what his predecessor should have done: place the federal government squarely on the side of life.

In his memo to DEA head Asa Hutchinson, Ashcroft rejected the idea that dispensing controlled substances to facilitate suicide was a "legitimate medical purpose." He agreed with the DEA's original position and ordered its implementation.

Ashcroft's actions drew criticism from Oregon's elected officials. Senator Ron Wyden accused him of "undoing Oregon's popular will in the most undemocratic manner possible."

Oregon's governor agreed, and the next day, the state filed suit in federal court to block the DEA from enforcing the law. One day later, District Court judge Robert E. Jones issued a temporary restraining order against the DEA. On November 20, the state and the Justice Department will argue the case.

I agree with Wilberforce Forum's Dean, bioethicist Nigel Cameron, that "Attorney General Ashcroft's decision to turn the Feds loose on Oregon's killer physicians is an answer to prayer. This should nip in the bud the slow but growing move to use the prescribing of deadly drugs by doctors as back-door euthanasia."

I am sympathetic to state's rights, but not where the right to life is concerned. The Declaration of Independence is absolutely clear.

And talk about "popular will" shouldn't obscure the real issue here. What lies behind the drive for physician-assisted suicide is expediency and desire. The combination of suffering and limited healthcare resources leads us to look for an easy way out. It wasn't too long ago that one politician spoke candidly of the elderly having a "duty to die."

Polite public opinion professes to be shocked at such a thought. Still, an aging population, combined with the cost of medical care in the last year of life, makes physician-assisted suicide very appealing on an expedient basis. And all of us have that fear that we may be the ones doing the suffering one day.

But Christian ethics rises above the expedient. This is what the Gospel does. It doesn't ask what is easier, it asks what is right. Not what is, appealing though that might be, but what ought to be. Likewise, government's job isn't to cater to self-interest, it is to have the people rise above self-interest and do what is morally correct.

That's what makes Attorney General Ashcroft's decision so crucial. I urge you: sit down and write him a letter to tell him how much you appreciate his courage. And then I urge you to follow this case closely. Because our government must bring itself to side with life. One that doesn't has lost sight of its legitimate purpose.

For more information:

Press release from the Drug Enforcement Agency on physician assisted suicide ruling.

You can contact the Attorney General through the Department of Justice at or via e-mail at .

You can order a video of a debate on bioethics and physician-assisted suicide featuring Wilberforce Forum Dean Nigel Cameron from the Center for Bioethics and Culture (look under videotapes in the "resources for sale" section):

_________________________

Copyright © 2001 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

CHUCK COLSON: Yesterday was the twenty-ninth anniversary of legalized abortion. Many of you marched for life. That's good. But today there's more to the question of life than just abortion. Stay tuned to BreakPoint as bioethicist and Dean of the Wilberforce Forum, Nigel Cameron, answers the question, "What comes after abortion?"

NIGEL CAMERON: Yesterday we saw one of the great events in the American calendar, the March for Life. From all over the nation tens of thousands of people, young and old, came here to Washington to say once again -- on the terrible anniversary of Roe V. Wade -- "THIS SHALL NOT STAND!"

Yet Roe seems a long time ago now. 1973 was the year before my wife and I were married, and last year we became grandparents. That truly is one whole generation, and a lot has happened since.

Do you remember the stirring movie series WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? with C. Everett Koop and Francis Schaeffer? I was back in my native Scotland then and was asked to organize the premier showing to Christian leaders. Those five films had one theme: that abortion and infanticide and euthanasia are all at root the same thing, the killing of human beings, and that one will surely lead to another. And, back of that, as Schaeffer never tired of saying, your worldview determines everything else. How right they were. Abortion hangs like a black cloud over our civilization. And now Peter Singer at Princeton supports killing handicapped babies. And in Oregon physicians give their patients deadly drugs, and the law approves.

Yet this year something is different. Because in the past twelve months we have seen a dramatic step that back in 1973, or '83, or even '93, would have seemed like sheer science fiction. For human beings, tiny human beings, members of our species, have been cloned. They died very, very young, before they could even be used for the experiments for which sole purpose they had been made. Like all human beings, they lived, and they died. But unlike any other human being, they were made in a lab, photocopies of somebody else -- science fiction come true.

We'll return to that later in the week. I don't want to depress you, but in a fallen world there are often depressing facts to face. The evil of abortion has crept out of the womb, just as Schaeffer and Koop said it would, to threaten all of us with euthanasia. It's now being followed by a whole new set of evils. For the biotech firms have plans for us -- patenting our genes, cloning us so they can experiment on us and use "us" in our own treatment, improving us and letting us choose what kind of kids we want to have. What Huxley called the BRAVE NEW WORLD, and C. S. Lewis the ABOLITION OF MAN, has arrived.

All of a sudden, there is a lot more on the agenda than most of us ever realized. Our march for life just got longer, the road steeper, the challenges greater than we had ever imagined.

These BreakPoints are focused on those challenges because we want to help you get the big picture and see how the parts fit together. Then you'll be prepared to play your part in defending human life against the challenges, old and new, of the twenty-first century.

CHUCK COLSON: Thank you, Nigel. This assault on the value and meaning of human life is one of the greatest threats our civilization has ever faced. Christians must be leading the charge to protect human dignity and values.

For further reading:

Dr. Nigel M. de S. Cameron, THE NEW MEDICINE (Crossway, 1992).

Charles Colson, "Can We Prevent the Abolition of Man?", an address to U.S. Congress members and staff.

C. Everett Koop and Francis A. Schaeffer, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE HUMAN RACE? (Crossway, 1983).

Learn more about the Wilberforce Forum's newest initiative, the Council for Biotechnology Policy by visiting .

Join the "Shake the Nation" campaign in rattling Capitol Hill by urging U.S. Senators to confirm pro-life judges. Visit .

_________________________

Copyright © 2002 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. 'BreakPoint with Chuck Colson' is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

The story is, by now, a familiar one: A female boxer from Missouri takes a terrible beating in the ring and winds up brain-damaged. She's initially suicidal, but with the help of family and friends, she rallies, takes up painting, and speaks out about her life and the value of all life.

Wait a minute, you say: That's not how MILLION DOLLAR BABY ends. In the Academy Award-winning film, the injured boxer begs her coach to kill her because she can't face life as a quadriplegic, and he complies. But a real-life boxer, whose life story likely inspired the film, says the ending is bunk.

Like the boxer in MILLION DOLLAR BABY, Katie Dallam was a Missouri girl who grew up in poverty. In 1996, Katie began boxing. After just two months of training, her trainer urged her into a professional match and Katie stepped into the ring with a far more experienced boxer. By the end of four two-minute rounds, the referee stopped the fight, but it was too late. Katie had received 150 blows to the head and was comatose by the time she reached a hospital. Doctors told Katie's sister that she “probably wouldn't make it, and, if she did, would most likely be a vegetable.”

But Katie survived. She had to relearn how to walk and read. And her injuries affected her vision and memory. Deeply depressed, she attempted suicide. But instead of helping her sister kill herself, her sister, Stephanie, moved Katie into her home.

Unable to go back to her counseling job, Katie took up an earlier interest and began painting again.

Seeing MILLION DOLLAR BABY gave Katie nightmares. But it also led to her decision to talk with others about life after a devastating brain injury. As Katie told the NEW YORK TIMES, the fictional coach in MILLION DOLLAR BABY “took the easy way out by killing [the boxer] rather than having to deal with what her life would have been like.”

Katie's sister, Stephanie, is convinced the film writer, F. X. Toole, now deceased, based the film on Katie. Too many similarities, she says. So Katie wants to set the record straight. People, you see, can live on after terrible injuries and live rich, productive lives — people like Joni Eareckson Tada, a quadriplegic who suffered a spinal-cord injury, who also paints and has a wonderful ministry.

As Joni and Friends journalist Sanda Allyson writes, “In the face of devastating injury, many people feel they want to die. But they move from depression and feeling that there is nothing for them” into a new hope and even joy.

“We can have peace and happiness,” she writes, “in the midst of situations that might have previously been thought of as unendurable. That is just one reason why virtually all disability advocacy groups ... are so vehemently opposed to this idea of 'helping' someone die, which may sound warm and fuzzy, but in the searing light of truth, is just murder.”

So tell your neighbors that the real-life story behind MILLION DOLLAR BABY that exposes the Hollywood fiction and its values for what they are: propaganda. We can live life to the fullest, even with great disabilities, if we don't fall for the secular siren song that says that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.

The film MILLION DOLLAR BABY may have won Academy Awards, but the true-life story wins a much greater award for courage and human dignity.

FOR FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION:

• Rick Lyman, “Far from Hollywood, a Boxer Whose Dreams Died in the Ring,” New York Times, 9 March 2005. (When archived, article costs $2.95 to retrieve.)

• David Usborne, “Katie Dallam: Million Dollar Woman,” The Independent (London), 10 March 2005.

• Meredith Gould and Ruth Harrigan, “Judging Million Dollar Baby,” Godspy, 25 February 2005.

• Sanda Allyson, “'Million Dollar Baby' Cost Too High,” Joni and Friends, 4 February 2005.

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 050301, “And the Winner Is: Death, Depravity, and Dullness.”

• BreakPoint Commentary No. 050211, “Fighting for What's Important: Million Dollar Baby and House.”

• Learn about Joni and Friends, a ministry and advocacy group for individuals with disabilities.

• Peter J. Colosi, “What's Love Got to Do with It?: The Ethical Contradictions of Peter Singer,” Godspy, 25 February 2005.

• Roberto Rivera, “Lean on Me: Dignity and Dependency,” BreakPoint Online, 28 January 2004.

________

Copyright © 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #27239]

On Good Friday Jesus died as a substitutionary atonement for the sins of mankind. This is what Christians commemorate. In dying, Jesus established, as a defining mark of a Christian society, the principle of human dignity and the sacredness of life. Fallen sinners?all made in the image of God?are so precious in God's sight that He would sacrifice His only begotten Son for them.

What an irony this presents this year. Jesus died so that we could be free and saved. It was a noble death, if there ever was one. But another death occupies the headlines today, one that mocks the death of Jesus. It is Terri Schiavo who is being killed by judicial fiat. For what reason?

She is being killed so that society can get rid of a nuisance. She is being killed so her husband can be free to marry the woman he has lived with for years and who has borne his children. Her husband, allegedly, profited from the damages paid because of the medical injury to Terri. She is being killed so that medical funds can be saved.

Good Friday marks a day on which God established the principle of the sanctity of life once and for all. One man died so that all men could be free. The Terri Schiavo case marks the triumph of utilitarianism over that Christian view of life. It is victory for the likes of Peter Singer, the ethicist at Princeton, who favors infanticide and euthanasia and who argues that the governing ethical principle in life has to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

But no life is safe in a utilitarian society. I am seventy-three. One of these days a committee of doctors could say that I am too inconvenient or cost too much to keep alive. “It is time,” as former Governor Lamb once provocatively said in Colorado, “to do my duty and die and get out of the way of the younger generation, like leaves swept up off the streets.”

The retired folks in Florida and elsewhere, many of whom are privately thinking they really would like to keep this principle of assisted suicide intact because they may want to avoid suffering, are turning the decision of whether they live or die over to others. Do they really want to do that?

We used to say in law school, “Bad cases make bad law.” This is a very bad case. Medical data concerning Terri is old and ambiguous. There is conflicting testimony about whether she really is in a persistent vegetative state. She certainly does not look and act like she is in one. She was not being maintained on life support. She was simply being fed and receiving water as any other human being would expect. So if we can kill Terri, who is next?

Thundering out of the heavens this Good Friday come God’s words: “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses, now choose life so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God.”

I shudder to think what is going on in the heavenly councils at this moment, as on this day of all days, black-robed judges in courts are ordering that an innocent woman starve to death. Choose life? Can anyone hear those words today?

________

Copyright (c) 2005 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

*

QUESTION: Why is the church against euthanasia in instances where people are in terrible pain?

ANSWER: Let's respond to this question through the eyes of the family caring for a sick or dying loved one, because that is the context in which most of us face this agonizing issue.

We do not like to see loved ones sick, dying, or in pain. It goes against nature, moral training, and Christian faith to sit happily by when they suffer.

Our first instinct will be to try to find a way to save their lives. We will be supportive of aggressive treatment for as long as our loved one, the rest of the family, and the medical team hold out hope for a cure.

When such hope is no longer realistic and death is imminent and certain, we try to make our loved one as comfortable as possible. There will be little debate that even if the family ends now-futile medical treatments (such as chemotherapy), all reasonable efforts must be made to alleviate suffering. Beyond hoping for a miracle, all who love the dying person will pray for a peaceful death soon.

So far, so good. The question, however, seems to presuppose that this strategy is not good enough when the dying person is in “terrible pain.” At that point, it is implied, Christians are hardhearted in not supporting euthanasia.

This is a widely held view today. But it is wrong.

First we need to define some terms. Most thoughtful bioethicists or physicians accept the legitimacy of withholding or withdrawing medical treatments when they are no longer bringing benefit to an irretrievably dying patient. Nor is there any opposition to aggressive use of painkillers and other forms of palliative care.

But euthanasia is a different thing when it means (more than simply withdrawing medical treatment) ordering or implementing some act that kills a dying person: whether it is a lethal injection, an overdose of drugs, intentional starvation, or a gunshot to the head. Morally, it matters little if we do the deed ourselves, give our loved one the means to do the deed, or pay the doctor to do it. In any case, we are involved in an act that directly brings about the death of another human being.

The question is correct in implying that the church, or at least the great majority of its moral thinkers and traditions, opposes euthanasia. This opposition is based ultimately on the commandment “You shall not murder,” but is articulated in various other ways, including:

• the belief that the intentional taking of the life of a person who poses no threat to the community is a form of murder and is thus intrinsically wrong, even if it is done with good motives;

• the fear that the freedom to put to death sick or dying people is a violation of the mandate of the medical profession and would thus deeply corrupt it;

• the fear that base motives such as financial gain will interfere with the family decision-making process and lead to what is essentially sanctioned family murder of the old;

• the fear, based on historical experience, that political leaders will take over the power to kill the infirm and sick and use it to cut the government's medical expenses or advance some kind of perverse vision of the common good;

• an intuitive sense that a good and loving family, or a good and loving nation, will find some way to show its compassion to the sick and suffering that does not involve directly taking their lives.

Fundamentally, Christians oppose euthanasia because it simply does not fit with core Christian theological convictions. God is Creator, not us (Gen. 1:1). Human life is in his hands (Job 1:21). Illness and death are a tragic part of life in a sin-sick world (Gen. 3:19), and we must fight them hard — as Jesus fought them hard (Mt. 4:24). The time will come when every person's earthly life is over. At that point, our only hope lies in the resurrection promised to those who belong to Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:50-56).

We are called to heal the sick where we can, comfort the dying always, and entrust the dead to God. But we are never called, and we are never free, to hasten the dying across the threshold into eternity.

________

David P. Gushee is the Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee.

Sermon in Current Controversies series. Job 3:11-26

CHOOSING DEATH

==============

I. A week of significant deaths.

II. Our society's evolving standards.

A. A series of tragic cases.

B. Dr. Kevorkian and physician assisted suicide.

III. The key issues.

A. Personal autonomy is increasingly valued.

B. Medical treatments have advanced.

C. Moral standards have shifted.

IV. What the Bible says.

A. Preference is to choose life over death. Deuteronomy 30:19

B. In the extremes of life, we can learn great lessons. Job 3

V. Christians accept the reality of death.

A. Are we favoring life only because we fear death?

B. Miracles are always possible, but always rare.

C. Be honest about your motives.

VI. Choosing the best life.

WEBSITES ON THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE ON EUTHANASIA:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/012/27.62.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/newsletter/2003/oct31.html

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/

ADVANCE DIRECTIVES (Living Will, for New Jersey)

https://www.legaldocs.com/docs/living_will.d/nj-livw3.mv

*

Robert Destro works for the Catholic League for Religious Civil Rights. His job now focuses almost full-time on cases involving treatment given to the disabled.

One in particular jolted his conscience. A young California boy with Down syndrome needed a heart operation. But the boy's father wanted to withhold treatment. Why fix the heart value? the father asked. The boy was retarded.

Destro was outraged. “Are we going to stand by and watch this child die of medical neglect simply because he's retarded?” he asked.

Unbelievably, the state of California sided with the boy's father.

Working with the dying is a regular part of Dr. Edmund Pellegrino's medical practice. He has, at times, been asked to “assist” a patient in dying. Pellegrino's response to one such request is typical: After the patient expressed his wish, Ed sought to meet the real needs behind the request.

First, he gave the patient control over their pain relief. This patient was also feeling guilty, clinically depressed, and concerned about being a burden to others. Pellegrino treated the depression and brought in a pastoral counselor to address the guilt. He then gathered the patient's family to help them see how their response to this man's illness was aggravating his sense of unworthiness.

Once those needs were met, the patient thanked Pellegrino for not responding to his earlier request to die. “The most valuable days of my life have been the last days I have spent,” he said.

Advocates for euthanasia routinely chide opponents that “slippery slope” arguments are fallacious and irrelevant. A decision to allow euthanasia in some cases, they say, does not in fact open the door for the killing of yet others.

Tragically, however, the “slippery slope” argument is neither fallacious nor irrelevant, as recent developments in the Netherlands have made graphically clear. Once doctors are allowed to choose death over life, the resulting Culture of Death will inevitably discount human life in other contexts as well.

The latest proof of this comes in a March 10 article published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In “The Groningen Protocol -- Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns,” Dutch doctors Eduard Verhagen and Pieter J. J. Sauer defend the policy they established for euthanizing newborns in the Netherlands.

The infamous “Groningen Protocol” was released last year, leading to a wave of moral outrage and revulsion. Doctors Verhagen and Sauer, affiliated with the University Medical Center in Groningen, developed guidelines for euthanizing newborns. In the face of international outrage, the doctors decided to defend their policy in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. That journal's publication of this article marks a critical milestone in America's medical debate, and sets a chilling precedent for even more ominous developments in the future.

“Of the 200,000 children born in the Netherlands every year, about 1,000 die during the first year of life,” the doctors report. “For approximately 600 of these infants, death is preceded by a medical decision regarding the end of life. Discussions about the initiation and continuation of treatment in newborns with serious medical conditions are one of the most difficult aspects of pediatric practice.”

Thus, the authors argue that when “a medical decision regarding the end of life” is necessary with respect to newborns, policies should be in place that would allow doctors to choose euthanasia -- the willful killing of a newborn baby -- as a medically accepted practice, at least under certain circumstances.

“Suffering is a subjective feeling that cannot be measured objectively, whether in adults or in infants,” the doctors admit. “But we accept that adults can indicate when their suffering is unbearable. Infants cannot express their feelings through speech, but they do so through different types of crying, movements, and reactions to feeding.”

This debatable clinical observation sets the stage for Verhagen and Sauer to argue that infants should have a “right” to euthanasia if they are likely to experience extreme pain and discomfort, and if they face a poor prognosis and “a poor quality of life.”

The doctors advise that, in the Netherlands, “euthanasia for competent persons older than 16 years of age has been legally accepted since 1985.” That observation is true, though the Dutch began experiments with illegal euthanasia long before 1985. The so-called “Dutch Cure” has become a standard feature of medical practice in the Netherlands. “Voluntary” euthanasia is now considered a legal “right” for all those 16 years of age and older. Recently, Dutch physicians have been arguing for the age of consent to be reduced to age 12. Beyond this, what has been described as “voluntary” euthanasia has, by some reports, led to involuntary forms of euthanasia as well. The legal notion of “consent” is a thin legal principle, easily manipulated in actual practice.

Verhagen and Sauer pose the central question of their policy with clarity: “The question under consideration now is whether deliberate life-ending procedures are also acceptable for newborns and infants, despite the fact that these patients cannot express their own will. Or must infants with disorders associated with severe and sustained suffering be kept alive when their suffering cannot be adequately reduced?”

Of course, the way a question is posed largely determines the shape of the answer. The Dutch doctors frame their question with the assumption that infant suffering can, in some cases, be beyond medical alleviation or treatment.

“In the Netherlands, as in all other countries, ending someone's life, except in extreme conditions, is considered murder.” They go on to argue, “A life of suffering that cannot be alleviated by any means might be considered one of those extreme conditions.” The “might” in that sentence is critical, for this is not a universally held belief.

The “Groningen Protocol” was developed in order to protect physicians who induce the death of infants from interrogation, investigation and possible prosecution by police. Admitting that infants and newborns are being euthanized in the Netherlands, Verhagen and Sauer developed their policy to “provide all the information needed for assessment and to prevent interrogations by police officers.”

The revulsion and reaction to the release of the “Groningen Protocol” apparently surprised the Dutch physicians, who described media reports of their policy as “blood-chilling accounts and misunderstandings concerning this protocol.” But, if these doctors hoped that publishing their argument in the New England Journal of Medicine would help, they are likely to be severely disappointed.

The doctors divide seriously ill newborns and infants into three different categories. The first are almost certain to die, given unquestionably terminal diseases or conditions. Infants in the second category “have a very poor prognosis and are dependent on intensive care.” Verhagen and Sauer argue that these babies “may survive after a period of intensive treatment, but expectations regarding their future condition are very grim.” They describe these infants as characterized by “an extremely poor prognosis and a poor quality of life.”

The third category of infants are those “who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering.” The doctors admit that this group of infants “is difficult to define in the abstract,” but would include “patients who are not dependent on intensive medical treatment but for whom a very poor quality of life, associated with sustained suffering, is predicted.” They offer as an example a child “with the most serious form of spina bifida.”

Note carefully that the doctors define infants in the second and third groups as those who face a poor “quality of life.” This concept is the fuse that detonates the movement for euthanasia. Doctors and other medical professionals presume to be able to determine and define an adequate quality of life for human existence. Once doctors become the quality control engineers for the human race, they can define whatever category they choose as constituting those with an inadequate quality of life, who can then be denied medical treatment or, in some cases, see their lives terminated.

“Neonatologists in the Netherlands and the majority of neonatologists in Europe are convinced that intensive care treatment is not a goal in itself,” the doctors claim. “Its aim is not only survival of the infant, but also an acceptable quality of life.” For the second category of infants, the doctors argue that forgoing or not initiating life-sustaining treatment is acceptable “if both the medical team and the parents are convinced that treatment is not in the best interest of the child because the outlook is extremely poor.”

The explicit shift to active euthanasia comes in the cases of infants in the doctors' third category. “All possible measures must be taken to alleviate severe pain and discomfort,” the doctors argue. “There are, however, circumstances in which, despite all measures taken, suffering cannot be relieved and no improvement can be expected. When both the parents and the physicians are convinced that there is an extremely poor prognosis, they may concur that death would be more humane than continued life.” That is a breathtaking assertion. These doctors argue that, if parents and physicians agree, they may choose death for an infant believed to be suffering “severe pain and discomfort.”

All this would be sufficiently frightening, but reports out of the Netherlands indicate that some doctors are killing newborns without the knowledge or consent of parents.

Even in the Netherlands, parents are not allowed to request euthanasia for their newborns, acting as representatives of their child. This poses a problem for doctors who would wish to euthanize infants. Since newborns “cannot ask for euthanasia,” and since their parents are unable to act as legal representatives to indicate consent, this poses a legal challenge. “Does this mean that euthanasia in a newborn is always prohibited?” The Dutch doctors think not.

“We are convinced that life-ending measures can be acceptable in these cases under very strict conditions; the parents must agree fully, on the basis of a thorough explanation of the condition and prognosis; a team of physicians, including at least one who is not directly involved in the care of the patient, must agree; and the condition and prognosis must be very well defined. After the decision has been made and the child has died, an outside legal body should determine whether the decision was justified and all necessary procedures have been followed.”

All this amounts to a bureaucratic rationalization for killing newborn babies. There can be no doubt that the practice of killing newborns is already a reality of Dutch medical culture. Verhagen and Sauer report that “there are 15 to 20 cases of euthanasia in newborn infants” each year in the Netherlands. Two Dutch court cases, both decided in the 1990s, ruled that physicians had met “the requirements for good medical practice” in ending the lives of infants, even though the practice is apparently illegal. Here again, the “slippery slope” is aided and abetted by courts that will not prosecute doctors who are violating the very laws intended to protect individuals from euthanasia -- much less involuntary euthanasia. In the aftermath of the two court cases, physicians requested additional guidance and guidelines. Verhagen and Sauer report that the Dutch government has failed to provide these guidelines, “despite having promised repeatedly, since 1997, to do so.”

Over the last several years, 22 cases of euthanasia in newborns were reported to Dutch district attorneys' offices. Verhagen and Sauer reviewed the cases, reporting that all of them “involved infants with very severe forms of spina bifida.”

The reluctance of Dutch courts to evaluate doctors -- even in matters of life and death -- is made apparent when Verhagen and Sauer report on these cases.

“The decisions were always made in collaboration with, and were fully approved by, both parents. The prosecutor used four criteria to assess each case: the presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering and a very poor quality of life, parental consent, consultation with an independent physician and his or her agreement with the treating physicians, and the carrying out of the procedures in accordance with the accepted medical standard. The conclusion in all 22 cases was that the requirements of careful practice were fulfilled. None of the physicians were prosecuted.”

Finally, the doctors argue that “all cases must be reported if the country is to prevent uncontrolled and unjustified euthanasia and if we are to discuss the issue publicly and thus further develop norms regarding euthanasia in newborns.” This is a clear assertion that the euthanizing of newborns should be standard medical procedure, so long as such physician-directed deaths are neither “uncontrolled” nor “unjustified.” Of course, these doctors presume that euthanasia itself is justifiable and that they possess the moral wisdom to decide when euthanasia would be “unjustified.”

Verhagen and Sauer provide two tables of data that accompany their article. In the first table, the doctors indicate that all 22 cases of newborn euthanasia considered in their study involved an “extremely poor quality of life.” Stunningly, their report also indicates that, in the case of at least 18 of these infants, a “predicted inability to communicate” was a factor in making the decision for death.

Their article also raises another frightening question. If Dutch citizens age 16 and older can request euthanasia, and if doctors and parents can agree that newborns and infants can be euthanized under certain circumstances, what about children beyond infancy but under age 16? This is not a hypothetical question, for children are also being euthanized in Dutch clinics and hospitals. Should we expect yet another “Groningen Protocol” for older children?

Verhagen and Sauer recognize that the “Dutch Cure” is considered murder by many outside the Netherlands. “This approach suits our legal and social culture,” the doctors allow, “but it is unclear to what extent it would be transferable to other countries.”

Verhagen and Sauer may be unclear about the transferability of their protocol to other cultures, but the Culture of Death is not found only in the Netherlands. Here in the United States, the logic behind the “Groningen Protocol” is gaining traction. The “Dutch Cure” now seems to be a contagious Dutch disease.

________

This column was adapted from Mohler's Crosswalk.com weblog.

*