Euthanasia and Human Organ Harvesting - Counterpoint II

The above discussion (see part 1) needs to happen first so that we can begin to remove some of the peripheral issues that cloud the subject of euthanasia.  We can now begin to look at the subject of Euthanasia as its’ own subject.  One first needs to define what Euthanasia is before we can even begin to argue one way or the other.  The medical definition of Euthanasia is:

1. an easy or painless death. 

2. mercy killing; the deliberate ending of life of a person suffering from an incurable disease.  

The legal definition is; ‘The putting to death, by painless method, of a terminally-ill or severely debilitated person.’  Colloquially, Euthanasia has come to be simply understood as ‘the ending of a persons’ life on compassionate grounds to alleviate suffering, where there is no possibility of cure or of returning the individual to an acceptable level of functioning.’  Yet this is by no means a simple statement.  There are at least four concepts in that one statement that are highly subjective, and grounded in cultural and religions relativity.

Note that in both the medical and legal definitions, there is no mention or allusion to the concept of suicide in any form.  A form of manslaughter may be implied – however, this is very difficult to prove.  It is only in the moral and religious debate that euthanasia is interchangeably used with assisted suicide, suicide, and murder.  These are very different concepts and cannot be argued in the same debate or with the same logic or arguments.  In other words, when one is talking about ‘Euthanizing an individual in order to make use of their organs’, they are talking about manslaughter or murder of some sort – not euthanasia.  Remember – in any medically related debate (which includes Euthanasia), the mantra of the Hippocratic Oath ‘first, do no harm’ must be pre-eminent.

Since the conception of medicine in ancient times, the ability to extend peoples’ lives has complicated the very concept of when life ends – or when it is supposed to end.  By extending life, are we usurping the divine authority of God to take life?  Are we setting ourselves above God by intervening in the natural order of things?  Does prolonging life inflict unnecessary harm to an individual, thereby violating the sanctity of life?  I cannot and won’t answer these questions for the general population or for the church – they must be individually wrestled with.

One of the arguments presented by those who oppose euthanasia is that there is always the option of palliative care for the final days of the dying.  However, palliative care cannot adequately relieve the pain of those suffering towards the end of a terminal illness or the end of their life in general.  It can take the edge off the pain, make the patient as comfortable as they can be, but it cannot relieve their pain without causing their death.

Psychological interventions have proved useful in being able to significantly improve the subjective quality of life for women with metastatic breast cancer (final stage) for a period.  However, at some point, all women, regardless of the intervention received, find themselves in the same place as those with no intervention (see Barbara L. Andersen ‘Psychological Interventions for Cancer Patients to Enhance the Quality of Life’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1992. Vol. 60 – Other references can be supplied).

Even still, medical science has created a situation where many people can live longer, productive, symptom free lives, where previously they would likely have died years ago.  In the 1800’s you could die from a broken bone.  Today, diseases such as Diabetes, heart disease, HIV, Hep. C, etc. can all be treated extremely effectively with medication, resulting in individuals living symptom free lives until they die of old age. There are many body parts that can be replaced with either biological or mechanical parts.  People have steel hips, artificial hearts, mechanical ears.  The first generation of mechanical implants to restore sight are being tested in human subjects.  Surgeons can transplant hands, and even a face.  One can envisage that in the not too distant future, the question will become ‘when do we stop replacing broken and non-functioning body parts and allow the individual to die?’  In other words, euthanasia is only an issue because of the culture we live in – with all its’ medical and scientific breakthroughs.

We cannot discuss the morality of euthanasia without discussing the morality of extending physical life.  

If God has given humans the ability and responsibility to be able to extend life, treat, and cure all manner of ills, then surely we have also been divinely given the responsibility to know when not to extend life, or when to end it.  This even extends to people who are suffering degenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s and other dementia related conditions.  Such conditions can be argued as simply being a consequence of modern life.  We have created a situation where such conditions exist.  Surely then, people have the divine right to decide when enough is enough.

Another argument that is raised against euthanasia is that it undermines the morals and values of society.  The argument is one of moral relativism.  It is argued that for Christians to accept any form of euthanasia is to submit to the moral relativism of secular society.  However, when we look at Christianity closely, we realise that the argument against moral relativism does not have a place in this or any Christian debate as Christianity has always been, since its’ inception, a religion of moral relativism.  Let me explain.

In the book of Acts – at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19), we find the apostles instructing the new converts – in particular the Gentiles – to abstain from food offered to Idols.  However, in the later part of Pauls’ ministry, we find the Apostle Paul having no trouble eating food offered to Idols.  ‘I am all things to all people’ (1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 9:22).

Throughout the history of the church, moral teaching has altered to fall in line with society.  At the beginning, the early church accepted the Jewish tradition regarding marriage – where girls as young as 12 were offered as wives to men 3 and 4 times their age.  Even in William Booths day, the church supported keeping the age of consent at 14.  It was only the campaigning of William Booth and the early day Salvationists, along with moral reformers at the time, that raised it to 16.  The church originally supported slavery, and the holocaust by the Nazis.  It was secular movements which largely brought about social and moral change.  Church teaching was altered to lend weight to, and come into line with, the emerging secular morality.  Yet even that was often seen as a form of fringe theology at the time.  Today we could not conceive of a Christian theological moral teaching that does not condemn slavery or the actions of the Holocaust, or underage sex.  The list goes on and on and on.  There has never been a uniquely Christian morality (with the exception of a morality of love – whatever that may mean).  So, one cannot argue against euthanasia on the grounds of Christian morality.

What perhaps is most disturbing in this debate amongst Christians is the assumption that we are talking about ending life.  Yes, all life is sacred.  To end life is sacrilegious.  But to a people who believe in the immortality of the soul, how can we end life?  Surely, from a Christian theological perspective, to end life is to eternally remove oneself from the love of God.  Ending someone’s suffering will not have that effect.  The deeper question to ask is ‘what is life?’  Is human life the same as animal life?  If it is, then how do we justify our treatment to animals?  If it isn’t, then why do we assume that ending physical life is the same as ending life?  When we say that man is made in the image of God, we cannot mean mans’ physical image or life as we are so imperfect.  If physical life is the image of God, and that is why euthanasia is wrong etc (as is the traditional argument), then we are in effect saying that God is imperfect.  By argument then, we have proven that God doesn’t exist.

The issue perhaps is not about the ending of a persons’ physical life, but about our own understanding and acceptance of death.  A very good study for someone to undertake might be to compare peoples’ views on euthanasia with their concept of death and the afterlife.  And then compare those results with their willingness to accept the loss of a loved one.

The debate around Euthanasia is not about whether it is right or wrong to end a persons’ physical life, but about our own inability to accept death, and the loss of those we love.  And if we must couch the debate in terms of the sufferer, then let us make a distinction between ending suffering and any form of suicide and/or murder.

Euthanasia is a complicated enough debate as it is.  It does not need to be complicated further by confusing it with some form of suicide or manslaughter or murder.  Neither does it need to be further complicated by bringing into it the discussion of human organ harvesting.  These are all separate debates.  When we examine the legal, medical, and ethical issues surrounding human organ harvesting, we realise that the debate cannot be linked to euthanasia without repealing laws around human rights which are a corner-stone of the western world.  The debate around euthanasia needs to be carefully defined – and anything falling outside of that needs to be considered either a form of suicide or manslaughter or murder.  Carefully defined, there is nothing in the concept or practice of euthanasia which is contrary either to the dignity of life or biblical teaching.  However, as mentioned in the introduction to this article back in part 1, these concepts must be wrestled with by the individual.

Graeme Randall

Former

Australia