Scriptures Weekly 69 - Brittany Maynard Has Ended Her Life

Click HERE for her Story - 11/02/14

Taking ones life via assisted suicide is a subject of spiritual debate within the body of Christ. The Brittany Maynard case who learned she had stage 4 glioblastoma cancer at age 29, full of life with a beautiful young family, ended her life this weekend by taking a fatal dose of barbiturates prescribed by her doctor. Her reasoning was she didn't want to have to suffer a terrible and terrifying death and wished to die with dignity. She also had an agenda to forward assisted suicide in the US as is regularly practiced in the Netherlands (which is now being abused after 10 years of history).

I have no indication that Ms. Maynard was a born again Christian having a love for God who gives life to all mankind. Based upon this premise, its understandable one may have no qualms with taking their life having in their mind no consequences with eternity, But what about the child of God, the Christian who loves and serves God with the goal of eternal life in front of them? Let us notice these thoughts from Mr. Wayne Jackson of the Christian Courier.

_________________________

Solomon once observed that there is “a time to be born, and a time to die” (Eccl. 3:2). Dying, which ultimately is the price tag attached to human rebellion (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12), is man’s final earthly experience. It shuts the door to this-world activity (Eccl. 9:6; Heb. 9:27) — the views of many fanciful speculators to the contrary notwithstanding — and opens vistas into eternity.

By virtue of humanity’s accelerated technological advances, the modern mind is challenged with numerous questions that pertain to the dying phenomenon. We have gathered several of these inquiries that have been posed to us in recent times, and, in this article, explore them for study and reflection.

Pain Relief:

“Is it ethical to provide morphine to a terminally ill patient, when it is a known fact that this drug can hasten death. Is not this a form of euthanasia?”

This is a most interesting question, and one that many of us have had to deal with on occasion as loved ones faced death. The morphine remedy is, in a manner of speaking, a “double-edged sword.”

The design of the medication is to provide the cancer victim, for instance, with some relief from pain in the agonizing final phases of terminal illness. In the cases with which I’ve been acquainted, there is no hope of recovery. While it is true that the morphine does tend to restrict certain bodily functions, as a by-product of the relief of suffering, it is not the intent of the administering physician, and the family, to terminate the life of the patient.

In the judgment of most morally sensitive people, it is much better to provide some easement from the torturous pain — even if life is abbreviated slightly — than it is to allow the victim to languish in agony as the inevitable approaches. This may not be the most ideal situation imaginable, but until something better is developed, most caring people see no ethical problem in the humane relief of suffering.

There are numerous medical techniques that are risky. Nonetheless, in many cases the physicians, in concert with the patient and his or her family, will opt for a procedure, knowing full well that such could result in death. At times, we struggle in knowing precisely what to do in attempting to save life or to provide comfort. We try to do the very best that we can for the patient.

There is a distinct difference, though, in attempting to save life, or to provide easement from pain, and in a deliberate intention to terminate a person’s life. The latter is not an ethical option.

Prolongation of Terminal Illness:

“Is the Christian morally obligated to prolong his life by the use of artificial techniques? May he refuse chemotherapy, knowing that such would only add a few months to his life (and that with considerable suffering)? Is it wrong to refuse permission to be connected to a machine that can sustain biological functions, when one knows that death will result otherwise?”

Life and death issues entail some of the most difficult decisions one will ever be called upon to make. The Bible does not provide us with explicit answers to the complex medical questions with which we are confronted in today’s technological world. The Scriptures, however, are perpetually relevant, and they do contain principles that will enable the devout person to make reasonably confident decisions in many of these areas of ethical concern. Let us consider the following.

The Christian must acknowledge that human life is a gift from God (Acts 17:25; 1 Tim. 6:13). No person, therefore, has the arbitrary right to destroy that life — either by homicide or suicide. And this includes what has come to be called “euthanasia” (a term meaning “good death”). Mercy-killing is morally wrong. It is an infringement into divine territory.

It is a grim reality, taught both by experience and the Bible, that death is the inevitable destiny of all human beings (with the exception of those who will be alive at the time of Christ’s return — 1 Cor.15:51; 1 Thes. 4:15). As a consequence of human rebellion, death has passed to all people (Rom. 5:12), and so it is “appointed” to man to die eventually (Heb.9:27). One may, with good health habits and sound medical procedure, delay the “grim reaper” for a brief while, but the fact is, all of us are terminal!

What, then, is one to do if he is informed that he has terminal cancer? Suppose your physician tells you: “With chemotherapy you may be able to live a year; without it, you will likely have only two to three months.” Is the Christian morally obligated to subject himself to additional months of inch-by-inch wasting away?

Some may decide to take the treatment (hope springs eternal), feeling that such will provide them with the opportunity to continue doing good works, even under dire circumstances. Perhaps, they envision, a dramatic cure will be discovered. One certainly could not argue against that choice, should a person elect to make it. On the other hand, it would be extremely presumptuous to contend that this prolonged agony was divinely required. Could one be morally faulted for not wanting to retard his journey to heaven?

Here is the Point:
There is a marked difference in deliberately terminating one’s life as Ms. Maynard chose, and letting natural processes take their providentially permitted course. Allowing death is not the equivalent of producing death.

And what about the accident victim who is “brain-dead,” but whose biological functions still are maintained by sophisticated machinery? Must a Christian family prolong the physiological processes of a loved one who is in a state of suspended animation — and that for years? There is nothing in the Scriptures that would mandate this.

Where is our hope ultimately focused? There is something to be said for “quality of life” (though this expression is abused frequently by modern advocates of euthanasia). Sometimes the very best thing that one can do for a Christian loved one is to let him go on home to be with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8).