I think the crux of the problem you are having with the idea is that you are probably just a materialist and your worldview is unable to deal with motives and intentions and can only cope with brute acts, hence you confuse suicide, the self destructive act of ending your own life for purely selfish reasons, with martyrdom (from the greek word witness BTW), where the life is given voluntarily but for non-selfish motives.

In both cases the person is giving up their life in a deliberate act and with your blunt materialist worldview I can see why you would think they are equivalent.

Perhaps the problem is not that the acts are equivalent but that your worldview is missing an essential component of reality.

Jason Rennie

But one wonders why you offer this comment. If it was to show how clever and witty atheists are, or to offer some knockout blow for Christianity, it fails miserably on both counts.

There is of course a huge difference between martyrdom and suicide. And you are clearly out of your theological depth, so let me offer some background information:

The triune God (Father, Son and Spirit) has always enjoyed an eternal love relationship. But it is the nature of love to want to give. So humans were created, so that we might share in this amazing love. Of course in creating us with free will so that this love can be enjoyed, a risk was taken. That love could be rejected. It was, and we have all gone our own selfish way, with all the ugly results we see around us.

But God’s love was not frustrated here, and it was agreed that the Son would take our place, bringing upon himself the penalty we all so justly deserve for our sin. It was the ultimate act of selfless love and sacrifice. Those who humble themselves, admit they are not the centre of the universe, and receive this amazing gift of love and forgiveness can enjoy that love relationship with God that we were originally created for.

Those who don’t will have no one but themselves to blame. Atheists can scoff all they like, but that will not diminish one iota God’s never-ending love for every one of us, even those who choose to spit in his face.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

And let’s not forget that only an omnipotent god can slay an omnipotent god.

Winston Jen

The only things we are commanded to put to death are whatever belongs to our earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Colossians 3:5.

David Skinner, UK

The Supreme Court (BRIGHTWATER CARE GROUP (INC) -v- ROSSITER [2009] WASC 229 – http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2009WASC0229/ found that if Rossiter, after being fully informed of the consequences, instructed those caring for him to cease feeding him through the PEG tube then his carers (i) had to comply with this request and (ii) would not be legally liable for his death.

It seems that, despite having sought this ruling, Rossiter never decided to instruct his carers to cease feeding him. He did, however, refuse to be given antibiotics for a chest infection. As a consequence of this infection he died. He was unable to be fed for the last two or three days of his life as his body would not process the food.

In asking for the Supreme Court ruling Rossiter clearly expressed the intention of ending his life.

However, the Court ruling focussed entirely on the common law right to refuse medical treatment and was careful to state this was not a case about the “right to die”.

The judgement does give rise to some difficult questions about, say, the duty of a Christian health care facility to a suicidal patient in their care who makes a clearly suicidal decision to refuse feeding. In Victoria, and some other States, the Criminal Code excuses the use of reasonable force to prevent suicide – but would it be reasonable to force feed a suicidal patient who repeatedly asks you to stop feeding him?

The euthanasia lobby have attempted to use Rossiter as a poster boy. Essentially they are arguing that it was cruel that Rossiter could only end his life by refusing feeding rather than being able to request lethal medication.

Interestingly Rossiter probably would not qualify under the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill that Greens MLC Robin Chapple is introducing next month into the WA Legislative Council. To be eligible under Chapple’s bill two doctors must agree that in the normal course of an illness or condition death is likely within 5 years. So those using Rossiter’s tragic circumstances to argue their case are demanding more widespread access to euthanasia than the Greens are prepared to back at this point.

Richard Egan, WA

Let me say seven things:

One. I have allowed your far-too lengthy comment on (contrary to my rules!) because it is a very good comment which raises many important points (this being of course a very important issue).

Two. Perhaps most of your concerns I address elsewhere, especially in this article and my comments after it: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/09/14/suicide-a-biblical-assessment/

Three. This debate often is contentious and divisive because of a lack of clarity as to just what euthanasia in fact is, and what it is that the pro-lifer in fact is opposing. If you look at some of my other articles on this issue for example, you will find that the pro-life cause is not about keeping someone alive at all costs, against their wishes, and using extraordinary means. Patients have the right to refuse medical treatment, and the Christian does not see this life as the only thing there is. Let me repeat a few things here which I have written elsewhere:

“Euthanasia is not about halting futile treatment. Nor is it about the alleviation of suffering (this is known as palliative care). Euthanasia is an act that directly and intentionally causes a person’s death. Thus there is a “crucial difference between taking a life intentionally and allowing a death naturally. The first is homicide, and the second is a natural death”.

“As Andrew Lansdown explains, ‘euthanasia has little to do with refusing futile or extreme treatment. The man who rejects a heart transplant or declines a third bout of chemotherapy is not committing suicide, but rather is accepting the inevitability of his own death. The doctor who withholds or withdraws undue treatment at the request of a terminally ill patient is not killing his patient but rather is refusing to prolong his patient’s life at any cost. Properly understood, euthanasia involves an intentional act to end a person’s life. Opponents of euthanasia do not advocate the unnecessary and unwelcome prolonging of human life by artificial means. Rather, they oppose active measures to bring human life to a premature end.’

“And as ethicist Leon Kass reminds us, the ambiguity of the term ‘right to die’ blurs the ‘difference in content and intention between the already well-established common-law right to refuse surgery or other unwanted medical treatments and hospitalization, and the newly alleged ‘right to die.’ The former permits the refusal of therapy, even a respirator, even if it means accepting an increased risk of death. The latter permits the refusal of therapy, such as renal dialysis or the feeding tube, so that death will occur. The former would seem to be more about choosing how to live while dying, the latter mainly about a choice for death.’

“Euthanasia, then, is about one thing only: the killing of another person. It does not matter whether this is done with a gun or a lethal injection – the effect is the same. With this definitional framework in place, here are our objections to legalised euthanasia.”

Four. As to the biblical data, a careful assessment of it will show that the Bible itself is a bit ambivalent about the subject of death. On the one hand it is an intruder, an enemy, a curse, something to be resisted, and so on. On the other hand, NT Christians are told to welcome it and not shy away from it. That is, for the believer, death is simply the next step into our eternal existence. Thus as I said, mere life on this earth alone is not the highest good. In that sense I of course would completely agree with you when you say that you “challenge the assumption that this earthly life has an unassailable supremacy or sanctity that always and everywhere overrides all other considerations”.

Five. I would challenge one thing you say: the two paragraphs beginning with these words: “Now at the risk of becoming controversial…” You imply an either/or here when I see a both/and. You seem to suggest that one either remains bogged down in abstract theology and doctrine, or one deals with real life situations. I don’t buy into that false dilemma. Yes life is full of complex and nuanced cases, and each case is different, and needs to be treated on its own merits. But I would treat all cases in light of, and on the foundation of, what the Bible in fact teaches on such issues, even if we only have more or less general principles to guide us with, and not exact specifics.

The wisdom of Christians who have gone before I would also include in this. But it seems silly to suggest that we must somehow choose either Scripture and biblical/theological principles, or the individual, existential case before us. I would try to bring the two together, as difficult as that may be.

Six. As to your difficult, personal cases and hypotheticals: Can I suggest that this is always dangerous ground to be on. Certainly when the debate tends to be one of public policy concerns (e.g., should we legalise euthanasia?), this rule of thumb always is worth keeping in mind: hard cases make for bad law. We should never decide difficult and momentous public policy debates on the basis of a hard case or some hypotheticals.

For example, that was the rational for legalising abortion as you would know: the “hard cases” of rape and incest, etc. Of course that just became a pretext for open slather. So the slippery slope argument does come into play here, and legalising something as dangerous as euthanasia, simply to help in some particular hard cases is not the way to go.

Seven. Lest you or others think I am just being cold, theoretical and unhelpful here, let me say this issue is very personal for me as well. My mother died a slow, long, painful death of cancer some years ago. She was not thrilled with it, and did want to go to heaven as soon a possible. But she never once asked to be put down like an animal, and never sought euthanasia in any form. She had a marvellous Christian testimony through all this, and touched many people’s hearts along the way.

But as I say, if you have a read of what I said in the recommended link including the commentary that follows, I hope that at least some of your questions will be answered more fully and properly.

If not, you will just have to send in another comment! (But hopefully a bit shorter!)

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

May I preface my remarks by expressing my great admiration for both the volume of your output and the equally formidable courage of your commitment as a valiant culture warrior in the service of God’s Kingdom.

I am only dimly aware that the nature of your role in the public arena must at times be very costly, and that you have inevitably made enemies who by definition bear you ill will and display strong antagonism. Your willingness to pay this price for a high and holy cause is greatly to be admired.

I am going to inflict upon you some random observations in response to the above article.

Before I do, it has just returned to my memory that I had the lead letter to the editor in The Age some years ago on the subject of euthanasia. I don’t have total recall, but I was replying to an opinion piece by two young people who had basically said, in effect, “Why should we have to bear the onerous burden of looking after our ageing parents when they reach a stage of high level dependency?” I can’t remember why they appeared to overlook the obvious option of placing them in palliative care, but I think they were suggesting that euthanasia would be their preferred option.

I responded in no uncertain terms that they were giving their generation a bad name by confirming the stereotype that they were self-serving and uncaring, with little or no respect for an older generation, and with no inclination to be inconvenienced in any way by caring for their ageing parents. If I can find that letter I’ll forward it to you.

I mention this by way of background to what follows.

My first observation in response to your article is that I was a little surprised that you made no mention of the case that has recently reignited the euthanasia debate, namely the case of 49-year-old Perth quadraplegic Christian Rossiter, who died on Monday after the W.A. Supreme Court, some weeks earlier, had granted him the right to refuse food and water.

In the event, it wasn’t starvation that caused his death, but a chest infection.

It was a complex case, as such cases always are, but the thing that stands out in my mind is what Christian told the court during the hearing:-

“I’m Christian Rossiter, and I’d like to die. I am a prisoner in my own body. I can’t move. I can’t even wipe the tears from my eyes”. He also couldn’t eat, drink, go to the toilet, or do anything else. He described his life as “a living hell”.

Now at the risk of becoming controversial, it is my respectful submission that the relevant question to ask in such as case is not: “What is the correct philosophical, ideological, doctrinal (or doctrinaire?) or even theological response?” I dare to include theological because theological responses will differ across the spectrum, as they do with other contentious issues.

Rather, the relevant question is: “What is the most compassionate response in this particular, unique, individual situation?” And I use these words because this is a complex issue upon which a blanket “one-size-fits-all” approach simply cannot be simply imposed.

I don’t believe it’s particularly helpful to label, even to stigmatise, everyone with an alternative viewpoint to one’s own as “Pro-Death”. “Pro-Death” is a very derogatory and provocative label which can serve only to arouse hostility and antagonism. This is an issue that requires us to deal with a complex range of variable specifics, rather than to resort to simplistic generalisations and (potentially) offensive labels.

For instance, allow me to offer the following example. If you (God forbid) were ever to find yourself in the same position as Christian Rossiter (or even worse), and if you — unlike him — expressed a desire to prolong your existence for as long as was medically possible, even if you lapsed into a long-term coma and/or irreversible vegetative state, then if I were in a position to do so, I would do everything in my power to respect your wishes (and those of your family), and/or to ensure that your wishes were followed and adhered to.

So let me ask you this: If I (God forbid) were ever in such a position, and if I had only one friend left in the world (as was Christian’s situation — Sunday Age, 20/09, page 8), and if I could no longer endure the agony of my totally and humiliatingly incapacitated condition, and if I were more than ready to graduate to my earnestly longed-for heavenly home, would you similarly respect my wishes?

The mention of my heavenly home brings me to the question of the Biblical perspective on this issue, and in this context I fully agree with your statement that “Scripture of course does not directly speak to many modern controversies, including that of assisted suicide and the like”.

Having acknowledged this, I would dare to proceed to suggest that nowhere in Scripture can I find a teaching or a doctrine that says physical life is an end in itself that must be prolonged by any and every possible means; or that physical death is the ultimate evil that must be indefinitely postponed, or if possible completely avoided, by any means and at any cost.

On the contrary, the New Testament in particular seems to lean in quite the opposite direction. For instance, Paul says in Philippians 1:21, “For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” The Amplified version adds: “– the gain of the glory of eternity”.

Two verses later (23), he says: “I am torn between the two (i.e. living and dying). My personal preference, my yearning desire, is to depart — to be free of this world and to be with Christ — for that is far, far better.”

Paul then adds (24): “But to remain in my body is more needful for your sake, so for that reason I will remain.” This is scarcely surprising, given that Paul had not yet completed his dual tasks of spreading Christianity throughout the known world, and writing three-quarters of what became the New Testament, which doesn’t apply to many (or indeed any) terminally ill patients.

In all four Gospels (Matt.16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24 and 17:33, and John 12:25), Jesus doesn’t appear to place a very high value on preserving, or “saving”, this earthly life at all costs, or indeed at all. On the contrary, He says that whoever seeks to save or preserve — or in John’s Gospel, “love” — his earthly life, will ultimately lose it.

In John 12:25, Jesus goes as far as saying “whoever hates his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal”.

Now I’m not (quite) silly enough to argue that these references directly support voluntary euthanasia. That would be absurd. I cite them merely to make the point that neither Jesus nor Paul regarded this earthly life as having some sort of ultimate intrinsic value, ultimate intrinsic good, or ultimate intrinsic sanctity, such that it must be preserved in every case (or indeed any case), and at all costs.

On the contrary, they both espoused the view that this earthly life was not something to be grimly clung to, or to be loved, preserved or saved as a pre-eminent priority.

First Jesus, then Stephen, then most of the Apostles, and then countless tens of thousand of martyrs, were willing to sacrifice this earthly life for a higher good.

Once again, I’m not (quite) silly enough to equate voluntary euthanasia with martyrdom. That would be absurd. I seek merely to challenge the assumption that this earthly life has an unassailable supremacy or sanctity that always and everywhere overrides all other considerations.

The final portion of your article that I’d like to respond to, is your observation that “when Jesus found someone suffering, He usually healed the sufferer”. This is a perfectly valid and uncontestable observation.

The only small problem is that Jesus isn’t here on earth in Person today to heal sufferers as He did then. If He were, voluntary euthanasia possibly wouldn’t be an issue. Most people would presumably die of healthy and peaceful old age — presuming Jesus had timely access to all sufferers all over the world. But at the risk of stating the obvious, that’s not the case.

So….. should we then, as followers of Jesus, in His physical absence, be doing the healing ourselves? This is probably not the time to engage in a debate over whether the gift of healing is a Gift of the Spirit that is still applicable today, well past the so-called “Apostolic Age”, and whether any, some, or all Christians should be exercising, or seeking to exercise, this gift today. That’s another debate for another time.

In the meantime, the simple fact of the matter is that healing miracles today appear to be the exception rather than the rule — charlatans like Benny Hinn notwithstanding — and when they do occur, they appear (as far as we can tell) to be on a somewhat random basis.

Hence, the contrast between the situation when Jesus walked the earth, and the situation now, could hardly be greater.

So in the absence of a bodily present Jesus, what do we have today to offer sufferers with horrendous degenerative, debilitating and dehumanising conditions such as that suffered by the recently departed Christian Rossiter?

What we have is advanced medical technology that can mechanically or “artificially” prolong their lives in ways that may not have been possible 10, 20 or 30 years ago, as well as the ability to withdraw that technology should the patient (and/or his family) request it.

This gives rise to a key question: What is the perceived gain or benefit from prolonging a sufferer’s agony of body and/or torment of mind for no apparent reason other than to prolong it for the mere sake of prolonging it?

Or to put it another way, why do we treat pets more humanely than we treat humans?

As mentioned earlier, according to both Jesus and Paul, prolonging life for its own sake is not a supreme value or a supreme virtue. And in the case of Christians in particular, who are eagerly looking forward to being in God’s glorious presence for eternity (Phil.1:21 Amp.), why would we wish — either ourselves or any of our loved ones — to cling grimly to an arguably sub-human existence of perpetual suffering and humiliation?

Is there really any value in prolonging this earthly life merely for prolonging’s sake, when Christians in particular have a glorious eternal life awaiting us?

Please note, it would be a grave error of logic to misconstrue this as an argument in favour of across-the-board suicide. Nothing could be further from my thoughts. What we’re discussing here applies only to a narrow range of specific, individual cases, and I repeat that a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach is not applicable.

I’ve discussed Christians and our hope of eternal glory, so what about terminally ill non-Christians? Might there be a case for keeping them alive until they accept Christ? This is probably a discussion for another time. Suffice it for now to say that I would feel less than comfortable at the prospect of holding potential salvation as a “gun to the head” of an unregenerate sufferer, by saying, “You can be set free from your earthly torment as soon as you’ve recited the Four Spiritual Laws and memorized John 3:16.”

But that is perhaps a discussion for another time.

In closing, I return to the plaintive words of Christian Rossiter: “I am a prisoner in my own body. I can’t move. I can’t even wipe the tears from my eyes. I’d like to die.”

Would it have been compassionate to deny him his last wish? And what would give us the right to do so? Should our own predilections, predispositions and presuppositions — or even our philosophies, ideologies or theologies — take precedence over the wishes of the person concerned?

I respectfully submit that the only answer can be a resounding “no”.

Rowan Forster

Yes quite right, there have been a lot of such horror stories coming out of the Netherlands.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Before we were born again, many would have speculated that we would have gone on to be greater sinners. Thankfully Jesus DID something, for us and to us. He died for our sins (not suicide, but martyrdom), sent his Holy Spirit to indwell us, resulting in the ‘born again’ experience. We are called to follow Jesus, not Him to follow our (false) ideas of what we may think he ‘might’ do. This is either idolatry (creating a false image of God), or at least heretical for the false implied theology.
BTW, we have an assurance that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.
We don’t have to speculate about that.

Shalom,
Mike Evans, Alice Springs