h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's time for Christianity to grapple with the ethical issues that face us at the end of life. This is an excerpt from Beliefnet by Bishop S. Spong. It is a website for all religions and all other belief sysytems. They have great articles.

I have found no better explanation of dying and the times we live in.

A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong :
A century ago it was not an option. The final moments of life came with no heart pump or ventilators, no shrinking of tumors with radiation, no ability to cleanse a person's blood supply. Death was normally quick, since medical science had little help to offer. Then came the quantum leap in medical knowledge that expanded longevity beyond anyone's fondest dreams.

I rejoice in these incredible human accomplishments, grieving only at their limited availability across the world.
If death is not as inescapable as it once was, a whole new level of decision making must be engaged. We now share in the life and death decisions that once were thought to lie solely in the domain of God.

Assisted suicide--under certain conditions--emerges as a new alternative for Christian people; the values marking the Christian faith and those motivating the 'Death with Dignity' movement begin to merge. The key is to defend the dignity and sacredness of human life.


For ancient people death was a lurking presence ready to pounce upon its victims at every stage of life. Death is a natural part of life's cycle, not an enemy. Can any of us really imagine life without death being a part of it? Far from being evil, death is simply that shadow which gives life its passion, its depth, its sense of urgency. Death walks with us from the moment we are born. It pressures life. It is that reality which makes life's experiences unrepeatable. Childhood lasts but a limited time. It should be neither rushed nor restrained. The same is true for our adolescence, adulthood, and every other identifiable stage of our lives. There is only one journey through the middle years, the aging process, and into old age itself. Each stage must be grasped with vigor.

Life is meant to be lived. We are to scale its heights, plumb its depths, and taste its sweetness. Death rings the bell on all procrastination. It cannot, therefore, be our enemy, something we strive to defeat. It is our friend, something we must learn to accept as an ultimate source of life's meaning. When modern medicine pushes death back in order to expand the length and quality of our existence.

But a perilous boundary becomes visible in this new consciousness when the efforts of medical science cease expanding the length and quality of life, and begin postponing death's inevitability. With that subtle and poorly defined moment comes, a new arena is entered where both a new Christian belief system and a new ethic about final things needs to be born.

Do we honor the God of life by extending the length of our days when the quality of our life has dissipated? Is a breathing cadaver a witness to the God of life? Should powerful narcotics be used to lessen our pain and thus to extend our days even if they rob us of the relationships which give life its meaning?

If I have a medically-confirmed incurable disease, and can bear the pain of that sickness only by being placed into a kind of twilight zone, where I neither recognize the sweet smile of my wife nor respond to the touch of her hand, do I not have the ethical right to end my life with medical assistance? Do we not serve our deepest convictions if we decide to end our life at the moment in which its sacredness becomes compromised?


I am not put off by the slippery slope arguments that are so often used by religious forces and that resort to fearmongering when they cannot embrace the new realities. I do not believe that this stance will lead to state-ordered executions of the elderly, or to health maintenance organizations curtailing medical payments until a quick death is achieved. I do not believe that greedy potential heirs will use this power to hasten the receipt of their inheritances. These are, in my mind, nothing but the smokescreens of negativity, designed to play on the fear present when childlike dependency is threatened and when mature human decisions are mandated.


A world that is bright enough to create these opportunities is surely bright enough to control those who might misuse them. All of these abuses could be eliminated by investing this life-and-death decision solely with the affected individual. Advance directives, signed when that person is in good health, should be honored. The decision-making power should reside with the individual, who alone is to be granted the legal right to determine how and when his or her life is to come to an end. I regard this choice as a right to be enshrined alongside "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" at the center of our value system, a basic human freedom that we must claim.

Above all, I affirm that the choice of death with dignity, whether by my own hand or with the assistance of my physician, is a moral and a more godly choice than passively enduring a life pointlessly devoid of hope or meaning. I believe this option is rooted in the Christian conviction that life is sacred. It is thus not life denying, but life affirming. It is because we honor life that we want to end it with our faculties still intact, our minds still competent, and our dignity still respected. Assisted suicide, as a conscious choice made amid the extremity of sickness, is the way that I, as a Christian, can pay homage to the Christ who stands at the center of that faith, whose purpose, says the Fourth Gospel, was to bring life and to bring it abundantly.

I shall live as deeply as I can while I have the opportunity. I hope to end my life as gracefully as circumstances will allow. But in both my living and my dying, even if that dying is by my own choice or hand in the face of the end of meaning and dignity, I want to assert that my decisions are within the framework of what I call Christian ethics.
A Bishop Speaks
John Shelby Spong

How beautifully put.

"I am not put off by the slippery slope arguments that are so often used by religious forces and that resort to fearmongering when they cannot embrace the new realities............ These are, in my mind, nothing but the smokescreens of negativity, designed to play on the fear present when childlike dependency is threatened and when mature human decisions are mandated.

Yes, yes and yes. I had intended to say much the same, but you have already said it more eloquently than I could have.

My only addendum might be that even if these are true fears, even if some minority abuse the rights of others, that does not mean we should not continue to "affirm the choice of death with dignity". There are always a minority seeking to do harm to others. Who knows if some of them are not, right now, prolonging the life of those who wish to die with dignity, out of mischief or wilful ignorance. We cannot such decisions based on what other people "might" do.

"All of these abuses could be eliminated by investing this life-and-death decision solely with the affected individual. Advance directives................ a basic human freedom that we must claim."

I cannot tell you how strongly I agree with this statement.

I am cheerfully agnostic, and I am often antagonistic towards certain religious types - mainly because they are often so rude towards anybody who does not share their view, and so ignorant in many ways. You, however, are a very good example of what religious people can be, and should be. It was a pleasure to read your post.

Regards

Thank you. It was the Bishops statement. I thought it was beautifully stated. I also thought it could be seen by agnostics as a solution. I think it is an (un)common humanity sort of sense he brings. I am gratified that you see the wisdom. That tells me it is well chosen and does span many gaps of belief.

I have a copy in my personal file.
I need to do my directives and wishes formally.
I am grateful for your comments.
They have been helpful!

Hello Abbi Normal, Yes of course on re-reading I see you quite clearly state that it is the Bishop's statement. I missed the line "This is an excerpt from Beliefnet by Bishop S. Spong" and just thought you were quoting yourself.....In my defence I had been up half the night with my youngest and was a wee bit tired

Regardless, thanks for the post. I guess you won't get many replies because it was educated, thoughtful and humanitarian, not trying to rouse anybody to anger and not trying to paint things as black and white. People don't usually want to be confronted with the less obvious options - or maybe I am just being cynical.

Regards

This is a brilliant and simple piece of reasoning and reasonableness from the bishop. It has said, more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could, exactly what I would have liked to say, and more.

Thank you for sharing it, Abbi.

"The key is to defend the dignity and sacredness of human life. "

Alas, no.

The key is to defend human life.

I respectfully disagree.
I do not defend senseless suffering while spending senseless amounts of money to prolong it. There by taking from the future capabilities to relieve human suffering overall.

The living need to let go sometimes. It is selfish to ask someone to stay for you,or your science, or some misplaced or personal value, when they are ready to go.

Science keeps some alive unaturally long.

That argument rests on economy, not reason. If money is an issue, then make the saving of lives a higher priority and increase the budget available for healthcare. If suffering is an issue then use or develop drugs which alleviate the suffering while maintaining cognition.

There are always alternatives to having someone die at your convenience.

And there is nothing unnatural about living as long as possible. Life is good. It is all we have, for now.

Jaez, that is a naive and simplistic argument based, for the most part, on an assumption and a wish/hope for the future.

"If suffering is an issue then use or develop drugs which alleviate the suffering while maintaining cognition."

Let's try and stay in the here and now, shall we? Currently, there are cases where no such drug is available and I don't know when, or even if, they will, or can, be developed.

This is not about having someone "die at your convenience", but about giving them the option of dying at the moment of their own choosing, when they can no longer abide the suffering.

You are right when you say that "there is nothing unnatural about living as long as possible", but there is also nothing unnatural about dying. It is a fact of life that everyone of us will die at some point.

"Life is good. It is all we have, for now."

Agreed, life is good, so I live it as best I can. But your final statement assumes there is something more, for which there is no irrefutable evidence. If you want to be seen as arguing on the side of reason, then don't bring a personal belief system into it.

ER

"that is a naive and simplistic argument based, for the most part, on an assumption and a wish/hope for the future"

May I respectfully submit that if there is no future beyond this life, if all that becomes of us is oblivion at death, where not so much as a memory of our own existence remains, then why do we strive with such fervor to live?  If that is the case, then the entire sum of our existence will have been ultimately lived in vain, washed away by the vastness of time, and we live for this present moment -- nothing more.  We will not so much as have the benefit of our own memories.  These too will disappear, swallowed in emptiness.  We may remain alive in the memories of those who love us for a short while, but they too shall follow us in death ... and all is for nothing.  I do not see this as logical.  If we do indeed live merely for this brief moment, then should that moment, this tiny window of life that we are apportioned, be thrown away without irrefutable evidence that it is not of exceptional value?

However, I agree that a person should be permitted to do as they wish. The decision ultimately rests upon an individual's own will.  But, I encourage you to choose life ... for this life will never come again.

"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." ~ C.S. Lewis

... And yes, it is my personal belief system that Jesus Christ gives us all our only hope of survival beyond this present moment, and that his promise is irrefutable. The gift of life that he offers is free to anyone upon request. We've been pardoned from a certain fate. Even if I'm wrong, you have *nothingness* to lose. But if I'm right, you have everything to gain.

It is okay at this point if you wish to become angry. I would never forgive myself if I hadn't said it.

Jaez says to me: "That argument rests on economy, not reason"

You could not be further from the truth, money has nothing to do with my "decision making". It has nothing to do with the life or death decisions oand the right to make them for yourself.

Money wasted is an uneccessary consequence when you want to be left alone and die!
1000's a day for someone to be prolonged against their will in intensive care vs many having diseases prevented and their young lives improved. The young and the poor DO suffer the consequences of this senseless spending on umwanted care.

Of course your own personal belief system has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights of those whose time has come to die and who wish to do so at their own time and in their own way.

The only relevant part of your post seems to be: "However, I agree that a person should be permitted to do as they wish. The decision ultimately rests upon an individual's own will."

Which I agree with wholeheartedly.

What worries me most about this discussion is that it doesn't seem to be elevating above issues of personal philosophy, or individual choice.

The issue of whether a person can choose if their life is no longer worth living and end it, isn't really the central one. The real issue is whether we as a society give our blessing to this act by altering civil and criminal codes to allow it.

It's not how it's going to affect the individual that matters, because, frankly, their life will be over.

When our son was dying, it reached the point where he could no longer be given painkillers, and we had a choice between taking him off oxygen, thus killing him, or allowing him to live in increasing pain until his heart failed possibly several days.

We had no hesitation in making the unbelievably hard decision to let him go while he still had morphine in his bloodstream, and do not think we made an unethical choice. Neither do I think that the doctors in recommending that course of action were motivated by the thought of saving money in any way - they simply wanted to save Alexander the agony that would have otherwise killed him.

I don't believe that hastening someone's end by stopping treatment is always a bad thing. I also believe that when death is inevitable saving someone a few hours of terminal pain cannot be anything but humane, even if it means giving someone a lethal dose of anaesthetic.

absolutely

Yours was a special case: there was *no* hope, and it was simply a matter of hours, or at best days. Nevertheless, while I admire your humane, and compassionate intent to reduce the pain endured by your son, I still cannot bring myself to agree with your action.

You denied him those few hours of life that were rightly his, and I have to be honest and say that I don't know if you did the right, or the wrong thing. My personal instincts, all of them, tell me that if I were in your position I would have let those last few days play out.

Pain is part of life, and what happens afterwards is in the hands of God, in whom I trust completely. However, I am keenly aware that your religious beliefs maybe very different from mine, and that will play a huge role in this choice.

I can only say here that I am very sorry for your loss, and I hope that neither you nor anyone else in your family ever have to suffer through anything like that again.

absolutely.

not.

we shouldn't let emotions rule logic. although they are perfectly acceptable as partners, they are only that.

Jaez;Just curious if you have ever experienced long term suffering yourself or watched it up close in someone you love?

Not arguing your religion.
*Instincts* are nothing compared to the actual experience. Each experience, life and patient is different.
I would want my relatives to honor my wishes,as the patient, NOT theirs.

Every sort of situation happens in families.
It is often a group decision.
Family members have been banned from visiting and disowned by their sick relatives, for going against their long known wishes.

Jaez, I too would like to know if you have ever had the experience of watching someone you love suffering.