Analysis: In Life and Death We Belong to God By Leonard Caccamo, M.D. Layman Correspondent Monday, September 14, 1998
A denominational study document on euthanasia and assisted suicide, titled In Life and Death We Belong to God, gives too little attention to the hope that we have in Christ Jesus in this world and the next. The Office of Theology and Worship prepared In Life and Death We Belong to God in response to a request from the 202nd General Assembly. The document was presented to the 210th General Assembly as a study guide to develop a policy on death issues. Concerns about study guide Commissioners voted, however, to refer the policy decision to the 213th General Assembly (year 2001). Some commissioners also raised concerns about the content of the study guide. It includes, for instance, a sermon suggesting that suicide, in the face of terminal illness, honorably exercises a God-given right to dominion over one’s life. Another section of the report asks whether euthanasia were the equivalent of “putting down a pet.” To be fair, In Life and Death We Belong to God presents a balance between secular views on the appropriateness of self-assisted death and biblical understanding of the sanctity of life. But therein lies one of the document’s flaws: By failing to draw a distinction between the secular and Reformed world views, it seems to suggest that they are of equal merit. The authors of the study emphasized that it was not their duty to take a position on euthanasia or self-assisted death. But it is unquestionably the duty of the church to seek the mind of Christ as it applies to life and death. Difference in world views Therefore, a Presbyterian study should confront the fundamental problem of the significant difference between Christian and secular world views. World views identify the main source of power. As Christians we identify such power in a personal sovereign God while the secular world view invests theological power in medicine as the only means of salvation for the suffering terminal patient who lives only for this world. Beginning from a Christian perspective, we accept the power of God in the world as we look with anticipation to an afterlife. As Presbyterians, we come face to face with one of our most important Reformed beliefs, the sovereignty of God. If God is at best only transcendent and powerless to act in this world, or more likely nonexistent, then mankind is autonomous and self-determinism rules, not God. In the name of compassion anchored in secular humanism and a loss of a serious belief in an afterlife, the secular world seems to be seeking euthanasia (literally the word means “good death”) instead of the abundant life promised by Christ (John 10:10). Also, the Reformed world view is anchored in the authority of Scripture and the belief that there is objective truth, even when it collides with our desires for comfort and ease – including a “gentle” self-engineered escape from life. As C.S. Lewis said, “In religion as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth – only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair.” The Christian world view, therefore, supports medicine as it attempts to cure and relieve physical pain. Hospice as well as effective physical pain control seem to be appropriate components of our ministry to people who are suffering. But current and future anticipation of physical pain is no longer a good reason or option for ending life. Sweet and bitter providence When someone suffers, we have the power of prayer and the hopeful message of the Gospel as we seek to live each day in God’s Presence, while accepting God’s sweet and bitter providence in preparation for his plans for our eternal salvation. As now written, In Life and Death We Belong to God, a paraphrase of the first question in the Heidelberg Catechism, fails to provide a distinct contrast of the secular and biblical views about death. It does not equip congregations and concerned lay people to use a biblical plumb line by which to measure the secular affirmation of euthanasia. It does not address the growing practice of using euthanasia as a means of cost containment in the vulnerable population most at risk, our aged. The study has other shortcomings. Prayerful study, discernment and honest input by additional authorities are needed. The “brief references” included should be significantly increased in number and quality assessed. Annotations should indicate clearly the author’s professional background, i.e. physician, minister, ethicist, etc., in order that we may be assured of the best thinking of learned members of our Reformed faith. The glossary contains only nine terms, which is insufficient to address the complexity of the issue. Loose terminology and definitions abound in the current media. We live in serious danger that verbal engineering will change viewpoints for the purposes of a particular agenda. Words do mean something! Knowledge without compassion leads to arrogance while compassion without knowledge is dangerous. We must also diligently seek to understand how we can respond biblically to the current cultural infatuation with self-determinism and patient autonomy in the face of a sovereign God. Since mankind’s view is clouded by sin it is difficult for me to accept euthanasia and assisted suicide decisions that impinge upon the sanctity of a life for those created by God in His image and likeness. Dr. Leonard Caccamo of Port Clinton, Ohio, a fellow of the American College of Physicians, is retired after a 50-year career in medicine and medical education. He is a Presbyterian elder and a member of Firelands Presbyterian Church. |
|||
| The Presbyterian Layman, current issue | |||
|
Home,
· Archives,
·News
Updates |
|||
