Opinion piece written for our local paper, The Border Watch. It’s not particularly original, but a brief summation of the case for affirming life.
Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, continues to return as a subject of public debate. Christians generally oppose its legalisation and do so because they understand the Bible teaches that human life should be valued and preserved.
In a secular society Christians appreciate that not everyone will be convinced by that point of view. For that reason we are also willing to articulate opposition to assisted suicide in secular terms.
Legalising assisted suicide represents a profound alteration in society’s attitude toward life. It embraces a perspective that a life worth living, a dignified life, is one without pain or sickness. It also suggests that the experience of caring for a loved one with a terminal illness has limited constructive or positive value.
While much is made of wide-spread support for euthanasia, less is made of the fact that what is being promoted is not the turning off of a machine or the delivery of pain relieving drugs at elevated levels; what is being promoted is someone being given the right to end the life of another person well before that person would otherwise die. It should also be recognised that the arbitrary limitation of this ‘right’ to those who fulfil certain criteria is an interim step that can be expanded by either legislative or judicial intervention. Such a right, once granted, will be expanded.
Legalisation will mean that what begins as a freedom for some, will become a point of coercion for others and eventually become the general expectation placed upon the many.
Over time such a point of view will cultivate an expectation that those who are enduring chronic illness or suffering will make a responsible choice to end their lives. They will do so because they don’t want to be a burden to their families or the health care system, taking precious resources from an overburdened health care system or their own life’s savings.
Family and friends who would gladly care for the terminally ill and who wish to cherish every moment they can have their loved one before their death will be made to feel selfish if they express a lack of willing support for the decision to die.
All of the assertions about legal safeguards cannot evade the issue that when a culture embraces this philosophy of death over time the balance will tip and instead of justifying their choice to die people will soon feel a burden to justify their choice to live.
This burden will fall most heavily on the aged, the ill, those who are poor and those who are lonely.
Individuals will want to argue about their personal rights in this matter. It can be appreciated that many are enduring extraordinary difficulties. But individual rights do no outweigh our collective responsibility to the weak and marginalised in the wider society in which we live. This is a case where individuals are contending for a right, that, if granted, will see other lives ended, not because those people really want to end their lives, but simply because they will come to feel it is the only choice they can make.
Ask couples who are expecting a baby that has been diagnosed as deformed in some way about the subtle and not so subtle pressure they encounter to abort their baby for ‘quality of life’ reasons how a ‘freedom of choice’ for some is now presented as a responsible choice for all.
Continuing advances in palliative care will provide more and more comfort to those in pain, allowing them the relief and support that a life affirming society will afford to all its members. This is an advance that all society can affirm together without reservation.
mgpcpastor's blog 