to see you all. I'm familiar, I think, with most of your faces, some new faces for me, and
thanks for coming out on a Sunday evening, and I hope you'll feel it was worthwhile.
A Christian perspective on euthanasia and assisted suicide. It's not a light topic,
and I don't have any jokes. Maybe that was a little joke, I don't know, but
it's one of these topics that I don't like to be in, and when I was researching this book,
it troubled me deeply. And even preparing for this talk, I found the whole thing quite upsetting.
And so it comes with a little bit of a warning. Maybe you're very familiar with what's going on
in the Netherlands and in other countries. But if you're not, it could be quite shocking for you
to hear some of the details. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal in Ireland,
but providing information on how to commit suicide is not illegal in many countries,
including Ireland. And hence you have organizations like Exit International, hosting seminars and
workshops on how to commit suicide throughout the world and in Ireland. And there have been workshops
held in Dublin and attended by a lot of people in their 60s and in their 70s. Grandmothers that you
might expect to be at home knitting booties for their grandchildren are at Exit International
workshops. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legally permissible, of course, in some countries
in Europe. I'm sure you're aware it's permissible in the Netherlands, in Belgium, in Luxembourg,
and in Switzerland. And euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. But assisted suicide
is legal in Washington, in Montana, in Oregon, California, Vermont. Did I say Montana? Let me say
Montana again if I didn't. And Bernalillo County in New Mexico. It's been resisted in many of the
states of the United States. The key difference between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
is who administers the lethal dose of medication. Euthanasia entails the physician or another third
party administering medication, whereas physician-assisted suicide requires the patient to self-administer
the medication and to determine whether and when to do this. Because it's lawful, many people think
it's a legitimate entitlement. But there's a difference, as we know, between law and morality.
Currently, there is widespread opposition to both euthanasia and assisted suicide from professional
medical associations in many countries. And many of these bodies have made public statements
asserting that opposition. It's a fundamental principle of medicine that a doctor should not
kill or offer to assist in killing. Euthanasia and assisted suicide must be distinguished from
two other things. One, the withholding or withdrawal of inappropriate or unwanted or futile medical
treatment. That's the first thing. Secondly, the provision of compassionate palliative care,
even when these practices shorten life. Not all available treatments are beneficial in the course of a
particular patient's care. After obtaining informed consent, doctors can withhold or withdraw any medical
intervention that the physician and patient think imposes a greater burden than a benefit.
There's a difference, of course, between non-intervention and direct intervention to kill.
And, you know, the decision not to intervene can be done even if the unintentional result of such
non-intervention or withdrawal might hasten the patient's death. The dilemma about assisted suicide
emerges partly from the medical ability to sustain life beyond the point where, in the past,
patients would have been allowed to die. People are becoming increasingly adamant about personal autonomy
and other values are being forgotten, like solidarity and community. Assisted suicide,
though presented as an act of compassion, is actually a violation of the sanctity of human life.
We all want our loved ones to die with dignity, and we all hope for a good death ourselves.
Maybe not tonight, but when the time comes.
And there are times when a patient's life should not be prolonged by unnatural interventions.
If a person is diagnosed with terminal cancer, they have the right to refuse treatments
which prolong the duration of life, but at the same time adversely affect the quality of that life.
It's not wrong to want to avoid spending your last few months of life in a hospital bed on chemo or radiation therapy.
But that's not the same thing as asking somebody to assist in taking your life.
Some people argue that laws should accommodate what they call mercy killing.
They say that bringing about a gentle death in the case of incurable and painful disease
is a humane and appropriate response.
When a person has a terminal illness and there's loss of mobility and dignity and consciousness,
some people think an injection, a simple injection which brings an end to their life is the solution.
But this is very dangerous thinking, and it raises many ethical and legal issues,
including the consent of the patient and the role of the doctor.
End-of-life concerns must be addressed in a way that represents the sanctity of human life.
Care at the end of life is an important issue,
and primary care physicians help patients and their families cope with the decisions and emotions
surrounding the dying process.
The practice of medicine involves meeting patients at their most vulnerable times.
Doctors must recognize their fear, embarrassment, and sadness,
but acknowledge their humanity and value.
Doctors who advocate euthanasia are a minority,
and they are actually assisting in the suicide of their own venerable profession.
Once euthanasia and assisted suicide become legal,
conscientious objection for doctors becomes increasingly difficult to defend.
A doctor cannot be both a healer and a killer without losing the trust of society.
Assisting patients to die prematurely is not part of the moral ethos or the primary goal of medicine.
Having a dual role in taking life while at the same time protecting life
would undermine the credibility and the trust that exists between patient and doctor.
Doctors shouldn't become executioners.
Now Holland, I'll refer to Holland sometimes as the Netherlands.
They're not exactly the same thing, but let's not get bogged down in it.
You know what I'm talking about.
Holland has shown that once the doctor has accepted the fact that she or he can end life,
no amount of rules or regulations will protect the public.
The notion that a life is meaningless is a moral judgment,
outside the scope of a physician's remit.
Doctors should respect the right of a competent patient to accept
or reject any medical care recommended,
recommended.
And this will mean recognizing the patient's wishes about the initiation,
the continuation, or the cessation of life-sustaining treatment.
Doctors must recognize the person, not just the condition.
The doctor must try to offer treatment or care that re-establishes their dignity.
Palliative or comfort care is a holistic approach to the whole person
and seeks to treat the whole person with dignity.
I believe that society is on the threshold of ushering in a new and corrupt culture of medicine,
and I believe that this could very quickly be foisted on us without consultation.
Medical professionals in Ireland exercise their judgment about whether or not a person in certain circumstances
should be resuscitated.
It was revealed by Kate Holmquist in the Irish Times on the 19th of September 2009
that 46% of elderly patients who had the words,
do not resuscitate, on their charts were not consulted,
and in most cases these fateful words were written by relatively inexperienced junior doctors.
Something to be concerned about.
It is acceptable, of course, in certain circumstances not to attempt resuscitation,
and legitimate in certain circumstances to allow somebody to die.
I want us to get this clear in our heads first,
but there is a difference between that and killing people.
There are many pragmatic arguments against euthanasia,
such as the fact that pain can now be effectively managed,
so that physical suffering is virtually eliminated,
and improvements in this regard are being made all the time.
But it is the principled argument against it that is the most compelling.
The sanctity of life must be protected,
and the code of ethics based on the sanctity of human life
is needed in a culture of moral relativism.
We do not just have a vacuum, an absence of morality.
What we have is a vortex,
where people are being sucked down into ever-lowering morality.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are opposed by most national medical associations
and prohibited by the law codes of most countries,
but this is under threat.
It is under threat from lobbyists for change,
and high-profile people and worst-case scenarios
are presented in the media to argue for this.
Requests for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide
are being made in the UK.
Some doctors are facilitating these requests in other jurisdictions.
The balance between personal autonomy and responsibility to society is important,
and what we have now is unbridled personal autonomy
driving this agenda.
There is an important absolute principle at the core of this issue,
and it is not a good moral argument to say
that because something is desired and widely practiced
that it should be legalized in order to monitor and control and regulate it.
And this argument has prevailed in Holland
with regard to the use of cannabis, prostitution,
as well as euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
But where does such a pragmatic and unprincipled approach ultimately lead,
and who is to say where the boundaries are to be drawn?
If euthanasia is legalized,
there will be undesirable outcomes.
Some patients will feel pressurized
to relieve their families of the burden,
emotional and financial,
of keeping them alive.
Now, I've been asked by Johnny to say something about the Irish context,
and I'm sure you're all quite familiar with some of the things I'm going to say,
but let me just refresh your memories.
In Ireland, it's illegal for a doctor, as I've said,
or anyone else to actively contribute to someone's death.
The law on these issues could be changed
either by court decisions, parliament or plebiscite.
It's not, however, illegal to remove life support and other treatment
should a person or their next of kin request it under certain conditions.
A September the 17th, 2010 Irish Times poll
showed that a majority, 57% of adults,
believed that doctor-assisted suicide
should be legal for terminally ill patients who request it.
If palliative care was properly understood,
I believe the poll results could be different.
I believe that fear and ignorance is driving this agenda.
You might have heard of the case of Marie Fleming v. Ireland.
She was a university lecturer who suffered from multiple sclerosis,
and she lost a landmark Supreme Court challenge
for the right to an assisted suicide in 2013.
And she died, sadly, peacefully at home on the 20th of December 2013,
aged 59.
She challenged the absolute ban on assisted suicide
in the Criminal Law Suicide Act of 1993.
She argued that as a severely disabled person,
unable to take her own life, unaided,
the law disproportionately infringed her personal autonomy rights,
I'm quoting now,
under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
She claimed that the ban was discriminatory
in that an able-bodied person may take their own life lawfully,
but she could not be lawfully helped to do the same.
Ms. Fleming had perfect cognitive function,
but had lost all motor function.
Marie Fleming was not the first person
to raise the issue of assisted suicide,
but her case has embedded the matter in the public consciousness.
The debate is well underway in Ireland,
and I wonder if you know how far advanced it is now.
In the Fleming v. Ireland case,
the seven-judge Supreme Court held
that although suicide is no longer a crime in Ireland,
this does not mean that there is a constitutional right
to take one's own life
or to determine the time of one's death.
It also found that the principle of equal treatment
did not confer on Ms. Fleming,
as a disabled person,
the right to be helped in taking her own life.
The judges stressed
that they were conscious of Ms. Fleming's suffering.
Nevertheless, they said, and I quote,
it is impossible to craft a solution
specific to the needs of a plaintiff such as Ms. Fleming
without jeopardizing an essential fabric of the legal system,
namely respect for human life
and compromising these protections for others.
Wise men, indeed.
This echoed the earlier ruling of the High Court,
which found that it could not rule in Ms. Fleming's favor
because, quote,
it could open a Pandora's box
leading to the involuntary deaths of vulnerable others.
End quote.
Ms. Fleming could have taken an appeal
to the European Court of Human Rights,
but other decisions of the Strasbourg Court
are not supportive
because they tend to leave decisions of this nature
to the national supreme courts.
In November 2013,
the then-tawnished Eamon Gilmore in the Dáil
praised Ms. Fleming's, quote,
brave and courageous campaign.
End quote.
He went on to acknowledge
that there's a range of ethical, legal,
and other issues associated with this topic.
However, he added,
this issue requires to be dealt with legislatively.
And this campaign, of course,
it didn't end with Ms. Fleming's death,
the matter is now in the hands of politicians,
very firmly.
A bill has been introduced to the Dáil last June 2015,
passed, uncontested,
and will go to the next stages.
In fact, it's meant to be debated this year,
but when will that happen?
One wonders.
Anyway, as I say,
the matter is now firmly in the hands of politicians,
and some of these legislators have indicated
that change is needed
in order to accommodate assisted suicide.
When Eamon Gilmore says
this issue requires to be dealt with legislatively,
we have legislation.
What he means is
this needs to be changed
to accommodate assisted suicide.
Right.
Tom Curran,
that's Marie Fleming's partner,
he has worked with TD John Halligan,
Waterford Independent TD,
and a team of four barristers
to draft legislation
to allow for assisted suicide.
And they completed
a right to die bill
based on the Oregon
Death with Dignity Act.
And Curran has got support
from several other TDs
and some senators.
Halligan introduced
the Dying with Dignity bill
to the Dáil
June 2015.
He said,
and I'm quoting in the Dáil,
he said,
Dáil Éireann needs to enter this debate,
and when we do so,
we need to leave
any religious dogma
at the door.
It reminds me of a sign
that I saw once
in a Paris hotel.
Please leave your values
at the front desk.
The Humanist Association of Ireland
has an interest in this bill,
and in March 2013,
they invited Tom Curran
to speak about his experience
of trying to help his partner
succeed in fulfilling her wish
to have an assisted suicide.
Halligan's bill would allow
for a person to end their own life,
subject to being examined
by two separate medical practitioners
who then sign a valid declaration
that the person in question's decision
is voluntary.
Halligan said the doctors
would have to certify
that the person has an incurable
and progressive illness
which cannot be reversed
by treatment
and which is likely to lead
to their death.
It all sounds very good.
All sounds very reasonable.
He said that a third independent witness
who is not a beneficiary
of that person's estate
must also testify
that the person seeking assisted suicide
has a clear and settled intention
to end their own life
when their illness becomes
too much to bear.
Halligan told the Dáil,
At all times,
safeguards must be met
to show the terminally ill person
has reached their decision
on an informed basis
and without coercion or duress.
Well, all of this was said
in the Netherlands.
Ten years, you know,
like, it's legal in the Netherlands
since the 1st of April 2002.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide
are both legal since that time.
But a decade before that
it was widely practiced.
And all of these safeguards
were put in place
and all of them now
no longer exist.
None of them at all.
And if you're tired of life
and you're 16 years old
you can have your life terminated.
I work in the Netherlands.
I've also suffered from depression
in the past.
Should I be overwhelmed by depression
on a two-week visit
to the Netherlands
I could be dispatched
by visiting a doctor
who doesn't have to refer me
for any psychiatric counseling
who doesn't have to consult
any relative.
I don't have to have
a terminal illness.
I don't even have to be ill.
Technically that's illegal
in the Netherlands
but that's widely practiced
because those criteria
are still in place
but they're totally ignored.
The first bear would hear of it
could be, possibly,
imagine this scenario
my ashes arriving at the door.
That's the kind of scenario
that we have
a nightmarish scenario now.
Anyway, Halligan's bill
would allow for
all of this
and these are the safeguards
that are talked about
at this stage
but once legislation is introduced
all of these things
are diluted
and expanded
and ignored.
And that's the evidence
that we have
from places
where it does exist
like the Netherlands.
And all we can go on
is that evidence.
And in April 2015
you might be familiar
with this.
Gail O'Rourke
I'll come back to that
and what has happened
in the Netherlands
in a few minutes
but let me just finish off
on the Irish context.
In April 2015
Gail O'Rourke
was found not guilty
of attempting
to assist her friend
and MS sufferer
Bernadette Ford
to travel to a euthanasia clinic
Dignitas
in Zurich
in Switzerland.
The trial lasted
eight days
and the jury
deliberated for seven hours
and it was the first
prosecution
under the Criminal Law
Suicide Act 1993
which decriminalized
suicide
but made it an offence
to assist another
to end their life.
The O'Rourke Ford
plan was thwarted
when a travel agent
alerted the Gardee.
Judge McCartan
ordered the jury
to acquit
Miss O'Rourke
of ordering
a lethal dose
of barbiturates
from Mexico
which were later
taken by Miss Ford
to end her life
on June 5th 2011.
The judge
also told the jury
to find O'Rourke
not guilty
of procuring
the suicide
of her friend
by helping
to organize
her funeral
before her death.
A Gardee
investigation began
after Miss Ford's
body was found
in her apartment
with the drug
pentobarbital
nearby.
Pentobarbital
is used
in euthanasia
and in capital punishment
in the U.S.
curare
is the drug
they use
in the Netherlands
and curare
is a drug
I don't know
if you ever remember
the films
with the pigamies
in Africa
the tribe
of very
low sized people
and they shoot
poison darts
that's curare
there are
it's a paralytic
drug
and there are
of course
synthetic versions
of that now
but anyway
Gardee
first became
aware of the matter
when they were
alerted by the
manager of
Rathgar Travel
that a group
of people
were traveling
to Dignitas
in Zurich
and O'Rourke
told the travel agent
the purpose
of the trip
and this information
was passed
on to Gardee
who were waiting
for her
when she came
to collect
the tickets
now Gardee
didn't make
an arrest
but they told
O'Rourke
it was an offense
to assist
in a suicide
now let me
just say
that voter
referendums
and legislative
bills on
assisted suicide
have failed
in many places
so we shouldn't
despair
why have they
failed though
that's the question
partly because
of the concerns
of a broad
coalition of
healthcare
professionals
hospice workers
disability rights
advocates
pro-life advocates
and various
moral leaders
who have
vigorously opposed
the legalization
of euthanasia
and assisted
suicide
in these
political
jurisdictions
what are their
concerns
they've been
concerned about
the inability
to contain
assisted suicide
once it
starts
and evidence
shows that
once you
open the door
to legalize
euthanasia
and assisted
suicide
things change
dramatically
and that's
what
Hope Ireland
wants to
prevent
hope
Ireland
is a
new
organization
opposed
to
legalizing
euthanasia
and assisted
suicide
and it
is warned
that the
consequences
of doing
so in
Ireland
would be
catastrophic
now
they're an
independent
organization
I might say
a little bit
more about
them in a few
minutes but
in countries
where assisted
suicide was
legalized
more often
it wasn't
used by
older people
but by
middle-aged
people who
feared
disability
or age
related
disease
and the
answer to
that fear
is more
support
more education
more compassion
right to die
advocates point
to Holland
as the
model for
how well
physician
assisted
suicide
and voluntary
euthanasia
for terminally
ill
competent
patients
can work
without abuse
but the
facts indicate
otherwise
the Rotterdam
court
established
the following
guidelines
I list
eight
the patient
must be
experiencing
unbearable
pain
that's number
one
number two
the patient
must be
conscious
number three
the death
request
must be
voluntary
number four
the patient
must have
been given
alternatives
to euthanasia
and time
to consider
these
number five
there must
no longer
there must be
no other
reasonable solution
to the problem
number six
the patient's
death
cannot inflict
unnecessary
suffering
on others
number seven
there must be
more than one
person involved
in the
euthanasia
decision
number eight
only a doctor
can euthanize
the patient
and there is
a ninth
great care
must be
taken in
actually making
the death
decision
all of those
strict you
would say
criteria
were established
by the
Rotterdam
court and
these guidelines
they've been
interpreted
by the
Dutch
courts and
the Royal
Dutch
Medical
Association
in ever
broadening
terms
one example
is for
example
the very
first one
the interpretation
of the
unbearable
pain
requirement
reflected in
the Hague
court of
appeal
decision
the court
ruled that
the pain
guideline
was not
limited to
physical pain
this is where
it starts
and that
psychic
suffering
it said
or the
potential
disfigurement
of personality
could also
be grounds
for
euthanasia
and the
main argument
in favour
of euthanasia
in Holland
has always
been the
need for
more patient
autonomy
that patients
have the
right to
make their
own end
of life
decisions
yet over
the past
20 years
Dutch
euthanasia
practice has
ultimately
given doctors
not patients
more and
more power
the question
of whether
a patient
should live
or die
is often
decided
exclusively
by a
doctor
or a
team
of
physicians
now
in spite
of the
fact
that
medical
care
is
provided
everywhere
in
Holland
free
or
well
not
free
but
it's
you know
it's
a
developed
country
and
it has
good
medical
care
but in
spite
of that
palliative
care
programs
with
adequate
pain
control
techniques
and
knowledge
are
very
poorly
developed
and
where
euthanasia
is an
accepted
medical
solution
to
patients
pain
and
suffering
there's
little
incentive
to
develop
programs
which
provide
modern
available
and
effective
pain
control
for
patients
that
is
one
of
the
outcomes
of
introducing
something
like
that
there
are
very
few
hospice
programs
in
Holland
and
the
services
they
provide
are
very
limited
in
the
mid
90s
1990s
for
example
there
were
only
two
hospices
in
Ireland
in
the
Netherlands
two
for
a
country
that
has
a
population
four
times
the
size
of
Ireland
in
Ireland
there
are
nine
hospices
three
in
Dublin
and
one
each
in
Cork
Limerick
Galway
Sligo
Donegal
and
Kildare
there's
none
for
example
in
Waterford
to my
knowledge
but
you see
most
palliative
care
is
delivered
in
homes
that
service
is
offered
in
Waterford
and
in
South
Kilkenny
by
a
palliative
care
team
and
hospice
specialists
but they
don't have
a hospice
building
with beds
if you
know
what I
mean
but
there's
a
big
difference
there
why
you
know
active
medical
intervention
to cut
short
a life
without
an
express
request
is a
common
practice
in the
Netherlands
they've
officially
sanctioned
euthanasia
for those
who cannot
ask for
it
particularly
handicapped
newborn
children
the
court
found
that
psychiatrist
Dr.
Shabbat
was
medically
justified
and
followed
established
euthanasia
guidelines
in helping
his
physically
healthy
but
depressed
patient
commit
suicide
why
was
this
person
depressed
well
the
patient
50
year
old
Hilly
Bosher
said
she
wanted
to
die
after
the
death
of
her
two
children
and
the
subsequent
breakup
of
her
marriage
it's
not
surprising
that
this
woman
wanted
to
die
it
seems
like
a
natural
reaction
to
such
tragedy
in
her
life
but
such
a
distressed
woman
should
have
been
helped
to
live
you
know
that
some
doctors
run
self-help
programs
for
adolescents
to
end
their
lives
in
the
Netherlands
general
practitioners
wishing
to
admit
elderly
patients
to
hospitals
have
sometimes
been
advised
to
give
the
patients
lethal
injections
instead
cost
containment
is one
of the
main
aims
of
Dutch
health
care
policy
and
euthanasia
training
has been
part of
both
medical
and
nursing
school
curricula
for
many
years
now
euthanasia
has been
administered
to
people
with
diabetes
rheumatism
multiple
sclerosis
AIDS
bronchitis
and
accident
victims
what you
have is
suicide
on
prescription
and you
do
have
you know
we have
meals on
wheels
in
Ireland
well you
have
death
on
wheels
in the
Netherlands
because
the
right to
die
people
in the
Netherlands
found that
there were
some
conscientious
objectors
doctors
who didn't
want to
participate
in these
programs
and so
they
introduced
a mobile
service
whereas if
your doctor
refused to
give you
this service
you could
ring them
up
they'd call
around to
your house
and you
could be
dispatched
in that
way
in 1990
the Dutch
Patients
Association
a disability
rights
organization
developed
wallet
sized cards
which state
that if
the signer
is admitted
to a
hospital
no
treatment
be
administered
with the
intention
to
terminate
life
many
in
Holland
see
the
card
as a
necessity
to help
prevent
involuntary
euthanasia
being performed
on those
who do not
want their
lives
ended
especially
those
whose
lives
are
considered
low
in
quality
in
1993
the
Dutch
senior
citizens
group
the
Protestant
Christian
Elderly
Society
surveyed
2066
seniors
on general
health care
issues
the
survey
didn't
address
the
issue
of
euthanasia
at all
yet
10%
of the
elderly
respondents
clearly
indicated
that
because
of the
Dutch
euthanasia
policy
they were
afraid
that their
lives
could be
terminated
without
their
request
right to
die
advocates
often argue
that assisted
suicide
is a
choice
issue
the
Dutch
experience
clearly
indicates
that
where
euthanasia
and
assisted
suicide
are
accepted
practice
a
significant
number
of
patients
end up
having
no
choice
at
all
it's
inevitably
applied
to those
who are
chronically
ill
disabled
elderly
mentally
ill
mentally
retarded
and
depressed
the
rationale
being
that
such
individuals
should
have
the
same
rights
to
end
their
suffering
as
anyone
else
even
if
they
do
not
or
cannot
voluntarily
request
death
unlike
Holland
where
medical
care
is
automatically
provided
for
anyone
for
everyone
in the
USA
millions
of
people
cannot
afford
medical
treatment
if
euthanasia
and
assisted
suicide
become
accepted
more
widespread
in the
USA
death
would be
the only
medical
option
many
people
could
afford
doctors
may
not
always
recognize
if
a
patient's
assisted
suicide
request
is the
result
of
depression
or
the
sometimes
subtle
pressure
placed
on
the
patient
to
get
out
of
the
way
also
given
the
current
push
for
health
care
cost
containment
medical
facilities
may be
tempted
to view
patients
in terms
of their
treatment
costs
instead
of their
innate
value
as
human
beings
patients
should
not
be
viewed
merely
as
customers
in a
health
care
business
what
is
needed
is
customized
care
not
customer
care
in a
society
of
economics
without
ethics
it's
often
the paramount
consideration
is the
bottom line
and
there's a
danger
that
ultimately
even
clinical
decisions
will be
determined
by
financial
management
policies
and
professionals
the
elderly
the
chronically
sick
the
intellectually
and
physically
disabled
would
become
vulnerable
termination
of life
on request
and assisted
suicide
act
it took
place
on the
1st of
April
2002
and it
legalized
euthanasia
and
physician
assisted
suicide
the
procedures
codified
in that
law
had been
widely
practiced
by the
Dutch
medical
community
for many
years
prior to
that
and
what
the
law
did
was
it
transformed
the
crimes
of
euthanasia
and
assisted
suicide
into
medical
treatments
and
specifically
it
allows
euthanasia
for
incompetent
patients
16 year
olds
can request
termination
of life
requests
don't have
to be
made
for any
particular
medical
condition
children
12 to
15 years
of
old
can
also
request
and
receive
euthanasia
if
a
parent
or
guardian
agrees
one
parent
or
guardian
agrees
see
first
a person
might
qualify
for
assisted
suicide
if
the
doctor
certified
that
the
patient
was
suffering
from
a
terminal
illness
and
that
the
patient's
suffering
is
lasting
and
unbearable
then
that
was
changed
so
that
there
was
no
requirement
that
the
suffering
be
physical
or
that
the
patient
be
terminally
ill
now
you
just
have
to
be
tired
of
life
and
we
know
that
medical
tourism
is a
reality
in our
world
people
already
travel
to
foreign
countries
for
dental
medical
and
cosmetic
treatments
that
are
either
more
readily
available
or
of
higher
quality
or
just
simply
cheaper
and
assisted
suicide
tourism
exists
in the
Netherlands
and
there
have
been
kind
of
public
relations
statements
that
deny
that
but
actually
doctors
are not
legally
forbidden
to
administer
assisted
suicide
to
people
from
outside
the
Netherlands
let me
just
say
I'll just
continue
I want
to say
I want
to close
with something
about
the
biblical
perspective
or the
Christian
view
but let
me just
say that
making
assisted
suicide
widely
available
with
mobile
teams
to help
patients
die at
home
and
that
has already
happened
but now
there's a
proposal
that anybody
over 70
will automatically
have an
entitlement
to
assisted
suicide
so you
get it
with your
pension
in the
Netherlands
the criteria
for these
things are
being
continuously
expanded
the process
of
liberalization
has shifted
from
terminally
ill
adults
to
adults
who
have
lost
their
interest
in
living
to
suffering
children
to
children
whose
parents
are
suffering
the
Groningen
protocol
Groningen
is the
name of
a
hospital
a
research
hospital
in
Utrecht
in the
Netherlands
and
they
have
they
recommended
that
the
Groningen
protocol
recommended
that
newborns
can be
euthanized
and
you know
lots of
people in
the Netherlands
instead of
opting for
second trimester
termination
well a lot
of
children are
aborted
if there's
any kind
of physical
or
any kind
of abnormality
they're aborted
in the second
trimester
so there's
a lot less
say
handicapped
people
now
but
should
a child
be born
with some
kind of
deformity
the
parents
suffering
is
now
a legal
entitlement
under the
Groningen
protocol
to have
those
children
euthanized
so
babies
are being
euthanized
now
what
happens
if
adults
feel
distressed
you know
because
their
aging
parents
have
Alzheimer's
and
you know
the
Alzheimer's
patient
is fine
we all
know
that
up to
a
point
but
it's
distressing
for the
carers
so
will
that
be
sufficient
reason
to
take
them
in
and
get
them
the
jab
not
the
flu
jab
but
the
terminal
jab
you know
this
is
coming
down
the
tracks
and
this
is
what
happens
I'm
going to
have
to
finish
it
there
because
I
want
to
say
something
about
I
close
to
close
with
life
and
death
is
not
just
a
legal
and
medical
issue
and
so
the
debate
should
not
be
confined
solely
to
legal
and
medical
professionals
death
is
also
a
spiritual
matter
and
it
has
a
moral
dimension
and
according
to
the
bible
humanity
was
created
in
the
image
of
god
we
read
about
that
in
genesis
chapter
one
and
particularly
verses
twenty
six
to
twenty
eight
and
we
have
our
value
our
value
as
human
beings
is
inherent
it's
not
utilitarian
value
in
other
words
our
value
doesn't
disappear
when
we
no
longer
have
a
useful
purpose
we
have
by
very
virtue
of
the
fact
that
we
are
God's
precious
creation
inherent
value
as
human
beings
and
death
and
bereavement
are
common
to
everyone
and
people
of
all
faiths
and
those
of
none
have
a
legitimate
right
to
comment
but
the
historic
Christian
tradition
is
struggling
to
be
heard
in
the
clamor
for
personal
autonomy
and
civil
liberties
in
a
multicultural
society
that
is
becoming
increasingly
secular
believers
can
offer
an
ethical
framework
for
critiquing
these
issues
these
issues
are
on
the
radar
indicating
a
collision
course
with
Christian
values
it's
time
for
Christians
to be
alert
and
to
present
the
case
that
these
are
not
satisfactory
solutions
to
end
of
life
concerns
concerned
citizens
both
inside
and
outside
Christian
community
need
to be
informed
information
is
key
right
in
a
mission
letter
to
your
supporters
discouragement
depression
and
despair
are
feelings
to
which
no
human
being
is
immune
and
some
people
who
opt
for
assisted
suicide
are
simply
depressed
young
men
sports
or
whatever
and
they
become
paralyzed
paraplegics
or
quadriplegics
and
they want
to die
initially
they want
to die
so
in the
Netherlands
that's
okay
you want
to die
but
lots of
these
people
if they're
helped
to overcome
their depression
and you know
they don't have a whole lot of life
experience at that stage of their lives
but look at someone like
Joni Erickson-Teda
for example
and the dignity
and value
of her life
and all that she achieved
and the dignity
and value
that she gave
to many other people
in her
situation
and
and the gospel
as well
and the difference
it made
to the quality
of her life
so when people
get deeply depressed
they sometimes
want to die
and at such a time
what they want
and what they need
are two different things
and in a world
that values
personal autonomy
so highly
this sounds arrogant
doesn't it
whereas one understands
the value
of non-directive
counseling
there are situations
where people
need a nudge
in a particular direction
in the right direction
in fact
in some situations
non-directive
counseling
would be
negligent
and entirely
inappropriate
what is needed
is a proactive
intervention
based on the
sanctity of life
the depressed
person needs
support
not to terminate
their life
but to find
meaning
and value
people who are
stranded
on islands
of discouragement
need to be rescued
not abandoned
to despair
and when people
are facing
present difficulties
or future
uncertainty
they need
to be reassured
that they can
get through this
they need
to be told
of others
who have
done so
people who
become weary
with this world
need to be
helped
imagine if
somebody stood
on the ledge
of a sixth
floor window
and said
I'm going to
jump
and you
went and
said
go on
and they said
I'm afraid
let me give you
a hand
and you push
them off the
ledge
it sounds
ridiculous
doesn't it
and nevertheless
that's exactly
what's happening
with the medical
profession
in the Netherlands
people are coming
to them
in that condition
and they're being
assisted
to take
their own
lives
Paul was honest
in his correspondence
with the Corinthians
and he unashamedly
told them
that he was
discouraged
to the point
of despair
there's no need
to read between
the lines there
but he regained
perspective
and that's
reflected in
the verses
immediately following
where he says
in verses 9
and 10
indeed we felt
that we had
received the
sentence of death
but that was
to make us
rely not on
ourselves
but on God
who raises
the dead
he delivered us
from such a
deadly peril
and he will
deliver us
on him we have
set our hope
that he will
deliver us
again
the Christian
has an eternal
perspective
and this gives
hope
and hope
may burn
dimly
but that flame
should never
be allowed
to go out
God can surround
that flickering
flame with his
loving hands
and protect
the vulnerable
from the winds
that blow
in the dark
and bleak places
it's heartbreaking
to think that
many who present
themselves as
candidates for
assisted suicide
are having
their lives
terminated
and it's
tragic to
think that
people who
are physically
exhausted
emotionally
drained
fearful
isolated
stressed
and spiritually
depressed
might be
assisted in
their desire
for suicide
especially when
counseling
therapy
and or
medication
can help
them find
equilibrium
depression
produces
distorted
thinking
people become
confused
and in such
a state
of mind
their judgment
is impaired
the Christian
must bring
hope
and help
to a world
where so many
people are
overwhelmed
by problems
defeated
by fear
and feel
there is no
purpose
in life
we have
a divine
perspective
death
is a reality
that many
people
don't
like to
contemplate
it's
sobering
and serious
issue
euthanasia
and assisted
suicide
are now
on the
radar
indicating a
collision course
with Christian
values
and it's
time for
Christians
for us
to be alert
and to present
the case
that euthanasia
and assisted
suicide
are not
satisfactory
solutions
to the
serious
social issues
related to
death
and dying
thank you