The Path of Truth Forum

The Supreme Court of Canada has unanimously decided to strike down a ban on providing a doctor-assisted death to mentally competent but suffering and "irremediable" patients.

I'm with them on this. That may sound "un-Christian," but hear me out.

No doubt any law or privilege can be and inevitably will be abused when opportunity arises for men to do gain personal advantage. That is the reality.

Where should we draw the line for society to intervene in someone's personal life and death choices? Will ministers of government, social service workers and religious leaders take the place of those they force to prolong their suffering? Are those imposing laws and values willing to watch their own family members experiencing the reality of a slow and painful death?

Are they willing to suffer such death themselves? Many times have I heard people say, “If something like that ever happens to me, don't prolong my life. Let me go. I don't want to die that way or let my loved ones suffer it.”

Will the government foot the bill and provide 24-hour care-giving to relieve a family of the horrific nightmare of slow death, as with ALS victims? Can they honestly relate to and truly empathize with the terrible physical, mental and spiritual agony suffered by such victims and their loved ones?

When it comes to determining life and death choices, it should be left to those suffering to decide for themselves. People who have no personal or direct stake in the matter have no right whatsoever to impose their convictions and laws upon others in these kinds of situations.

It's one thing to disallow a criminal the freedom to harm society; it's quite another to deny an individual the right to exit hopeless situations that burden themselves, their families and society in general.

There's a great deal of difference between one committing murder against the will of another and choosing to relieve oneself and loved ones of an unbearable and unnecessary suffering. Huge difference.

I agree with you, Victor. So, if God gives to one the specific suffering then he can decide when to die? Isn't it still suicide?

Good question and point, Marina.

I don't believe God would subject His children to such death, but if He does so with those in the world, is there any point in their prolonging the suffering if they can avoid it? I know I would prefer to put down an animal that is suffering with no hope of living. I think we could do the same for humans, though only if they choose to go that way. And if they don't have the mental capacity to make that choice, someone most affected, capable and who cares for them could make it for them, as I would for a beast.

That said, the Lord ultimately decides who lives and dies, or how, given that to Him alone belongs the verdict in the final analysis. I say it's a matter of misericordia, which is the very opposite of murder because murder signifies hatred or unjust killing.

As to its being suicide, yes, it is tragic, no doubt, but so is all the killing God appointed from time to time in the Old Testament and throughout all of history. So what's the difference if we try to relieve people of suffering, even if we judge them to be wicked? Are we not to love our enemies, as well?

"Therefore all things, whatever you desire that men should do to you, do even so to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Mathew 7:12 MKJV)

Perhaps "assissted suicide" is not the best case to apply this Scripture, but these questions by Victor make so much sense:

"Will the government foot the bill and provide 24-hour care-giving to relieve a family of the horrific nightmare of slow death, as with ALS victims? Can they honestly relate to and truly empathize with the terrible physical, mental and spiritual agony suffered by such victims and their loved ones?"

I don't know of one person who in their right mind would prefer to prolong their agony if they had the choice to shorten it here. Of course, we're not saying the person would be saved, or his misery would be totally over, by physical death, but it would be better for that person to go on to the next step in correction.

Also, Victor makes an important qualification. We're talking about people of this world, who are already burning in Hell. Then the question, "Why doesn't God just take that person's life Himself?" Could it be for men to exercise some kind of mercy and justice as well, to the best of their understanding? Not sure.

I think of some kings, like Saul, who preferred to be killed by one of his men rather than suffer in hands of the enemy. It might have been mere pride, but it still happened that way; his petition was granted, and that was not his main sin.

Yes, Victor, the right word is misericordia. I understand! Especially, that euthanasia is not a recent method...I think it was used since the very beginning when it was needed. Now I have a clear understanding and a position vis-a-vis this matter.

I cannot imagine the sufferings and pain the men feel in specific illnesses or situations. There is another situation: when one is faced to decide whose life to save: his life or his loved one... if he chooses to die, is it a sin? (critic situations: as giving their organs or when they are in a situation where just one can survive...)

Edwin, I think it is not euthanasia when talking about Saul preference, isn't it?

Right, Marina, it's not the same thing. I just saw a situation of like nature, where Saul preferred to be killed by one of his men rather than suffer greater pain and shame in his enemies' hands. This is the account:

1 Samuel 31:3-5 (NRSV)
(3) The battle pressed hard upon Saul; the archers found him, and he was badly wounded by them.
(4) Then Saul said to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, so that these uncircumcised may not come and thrust me through, and make sport of me.” But his armor-bearer was unwilling; for he was terrified. So Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.
(5) When his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him.

And in the next chapter, we find a different point of view, which is surely unaccurate. The man speaking, an Amlekite, seems to be trying to gain favor with David, but he receives the opposite:

2 Samuel 1:5-10
(5) Then David asked the young man who was reporting to him, “How do you know that Saul and his son Jonathan died?”
(6) The young man reporting to him said, “I happened to be on Mount Gilboa; and there was Saul leaning on his spear, while the chariots and the horsemen drew close to him.
(7) When he looked behind him, he saw me, and called to me. I answered, ‘Here sir.’
(8) And he said to me, ‘Who are you?’ I answered him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’
(9) He said to me, ‘Come, stand over me and kill me; for convulsions have seized me, and yet my life still lingers.’
(10) So I stood over him, and killed him, for I knew that he could not live after he had fallen. I took the crown that was on his head and the armlet that was on his arm, and I have brought them here to my lord.”

So we don't see precisely a case of euthanasia here, but we see a man asking to be killed, knowing his life was over anyway. It doesn't appear, though, that his request was granted by his armor bearer. And in the Amalekite's account, it seems Saul was in great pain and asked to be finished, but it's very likely that this man was lying. Prehaps somebody else can see something different.

Anyhow, motivation is always the key, as we have learned. Exercising mercy on a dying person is not the same as trying to take God's place and decide over a person's life, especially if the one suffering is who makes the decision.

Oh, I see the point, Edwin. You are right, the motive that counts!