In the past I have written about the immorality of
euthanasia, (Suicide
By Any Other Name ), so I won’t belabor the point. However, I must comment on the story about a
17 year old Belgian teen who was recently euthanized.
The details are limited, but the young man apparently had a
fatal diagnosis and determined, with parental consent, to have a physician kill
him.
Folks, we have to get a grip here. This is emphatically not a good idea. The baby step from “allowing” people to kill
themselves to “deciding for them” will be on a ballot near you in the very near
future.
Again and again I have warned in this blog about the danger
of secular dogmatism, which has no rational limits. My fear is that as people acclimate to
“assisted suicide,” especially for someone who the law deems “incompetent”
(which legally typically means those of limited mental capacity, convicts, and
children under 18 years old), the step of deciding that as a society we can no
longer afford to keep certain people around will become ordinary. We are already willing to wipe out anyone who
is within their mother’s womb with impunity.
Why is it not logical, by secular thinking, to conclude that the old,
infirm, mentally and physically disabled serve no valid function and should be
eliminated?
Yes, some will laugh off such suggestions as absurd. The
same way friends of mine in 2011 laughed off the idea that it might soon become
illegal for me to preach the gospel freely because of the LGBT agenda. Yet in 2016 we find agencies and laws in Iowa
and Massachusetts overriding First Amendment free exercise rights in the name
of tolerance and diversity for sexual liberties and demanding churches get with
the program or suffer the consequences.
Where will it start?
It will start with people like my dad, who has severe dementia. He cannot function without significant care
from my sister, mother, and other care givers.
He receives an Air Force pension for his almost 30 years of
service. I’ll bet the government would
love to end that payment right now. What
better way than to say, well, he’s really just taking up space and he’s not
“productive” so we’re going to determine that he doesn’t get to live any
longer. Secular “reasoning” says that
such a determination is perfectly acceptable.
My guess is a large percentage of Americans would likely find this
reasonable.
The problem, of course, is no matter how you try to make
this work, the line between who should go and who should stay will never make
any true sense. What kind of health or
other problems would result in “mandatory” assisted suicide? What about people on dialysis who need kidney
transplants? Do they get five years (or
whatever time frame is deemed acceptable) then out go the lights? What kinds of cancer patients will be
terminated? Do we only terminate adults,
or do we get rid of children as well?
Who gets to make such decisions (some government board, no doubt)? What about children with Down’s Syndrome or
other such genetic mutations? What if a
parent says they’ll take responsibility?
Do we take that right away from the parent in the name of some other,
allegedly greater, good? What is that “greater
good?”
While it is, of course, true that just because decisions are
hard to make, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be made, it’s also true some
decisions shouldn’t be made.
We are wandering into dangerous territory here. This notion we are in control and can
actually “weed out” undesirables puts into the hands of mere humans the kind of
power few of us believe is sensible, reasonable, or rationale. Yet, we’ll embrace it as “humane” and “kind”
and “the loving thing to do.” Those,
like me, who will fight against it, will be labeled as dogmatic, insensitive,
______ist, _________ist, ___________ist, and _____________ist (fill in your own
words – I’ve grown awfully tired of the trite way in which such words get
thrown around these days).
How far is it from one teenager in Belgium to thousands or
even millions? One opinion from the
United States Supreme Court - Roe v. Wade
anyone?[1]
In a world where we are merely by products of the random
waves of universal physics, chemistry and biology, then one can argue either
way on this issue. But that’s just the
point – it makes no more sense to claim killing people off is better than
saving them, since none of it matters anyway.
Yes, there is always the economic argument that we’re using scarce
resources to help maintain these “undesirables” but who says those scarce
resources will necessarily be put to better use elsewhere? Moreover, don’t we all eventually fall into
the undesirable category as we age? Yet
how many of us will simply go willingly?
As a Christian, I see the world from a different vantage
point. People are not mere byproducts of
universal activity but are creations of the very God of the universe. Thus, all people, even those with whom I have
the most bitter disagreements, matter.
Some people will tell you that Jeffery Dahmer (a villainous serial
killer known for saving parts of people to eat later) converted to Christianity
before he was killed in jail. If he
could be converted, then can’t anyone?
Romans Chapter 11:33 – 36 says in part that God is inscrutable and we
are in no position to judge his motives.
God operates on a wholly different level, yet he has provided us
sufficient insight from his word, the Bible, to let us know that we are insufficient
to make these kinds of decisions about who should live and who should die.
We wring our hands about Hitler, yet here we are on Hitler’s
doorstep, ringing the doorbell asking if Dr. Mengele can come out and play. We do not want to go there – we will regret
it . . . . . . if we live long enough to regret it.
No comments:
Post a Comment