Doctor Euthanizes Patient With Dementia, Secretly Put Lethal Drugs in Her Coffee

http://www.lifenews.com/2017/01/30/doctor-euthanizes-patient-with-dementia-secretly-put-lethal-drugs-in-her-coffee/ By  INTERNATIONAL ALEX SCHADENBERG JAN 30, 2017

A Netherlands Regional euthanasia Review Committee has decided that a forced euthanasia done on a woman with dementia, where the doctor sedated the woman by secretly putting the drugs in her coffee, was done in “good faith.” The committee chair is also urging that the case be reviewed by the court, not to punish the doctor, but to set a precedent concerning these acts

Guilia Crouch stated in her report for the Mail online that:

The doctor secretly placed a soporific in her coffee to calm her, and then had started to give her a lethal injection.

Yet while injecting the woman she woke up, and fought the doctor. The paperwork showed that the only way the doctor could complete the injection was by getting family members to help restrain her.

It (the paperwork) also revealed that the patient said several times ‘I don’t want to die’ in the days before she was put to death, and that the doctor had not spoken to her about what was planned because she did not want to cause unnecessary extra distress. She also did not tell her about what was in her coffee as it was also likely to cause further disruptions to the planned euthanasia process.

The Review Committee concluded that the doctor ‘has crossed the line’ by giving her the first sleeping medicine, and also should have stopped when the woman resisted.

Janene Pieters reporting for The Netherlands Times stated:

The review committee determined that the woman’s declaration in her will did not clearly state that she wanted to be euthanized after being admitted to a nursing home. The words “when I myself find it the right time” does not take into account a situation in which the woman was no longer mentally competent. The committee can understand how the doctor read it as a well-considered wish, but still feels that it was too broad an interpretation.

The committee also concluded that the doctor “crossed a line” by giving the woman the first dose of sedative secretly – hidden in a cup of coffee. And that the doctor should have stopped at the woman’s movements at the end. Even though it is possible that the movements were purely physical reactions, it can not be certain.

Keep up with the latest pro-life news and information on Twitter.

Jacob Kohnstamm, who is the chair of the Regional euthanasia Review Committee, wants the case brought to court to create a precedent to enable other doctors to lethally inject people with dementia, without consent, and without fear of legal repercussions. According to the article in the Mail online:

Kohnstamm said he was in favour of a trial: ‘Not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia.’

Purchase the Euthanasia Deception documentary.

So lets, examine the facts surrounding this death by lethal injection:
The woman had dementia and was incapable of asking for euthanasia,
The declaration in her will was not clear,
She stated several times that she did not want to die,
She was not informed that a sedative was put in her coffee,
Her family was required to hold her down so the doctor could lethally inject her.
The Regional Review Committee found that it was done in “good faith.”
The Regional Review Committee wants the court hear the case an to set a precedent approving the lethal injection of people with dementia, who cannot consent.

As I have said in the past, euthanasia is out-of-control in the Netherlands.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here. Image is a file photo.

Read More

Me Before You: People with Disabilities Aren’t Better Off Dead

By John Stonestreet, BreakPoint.org, June 10, 2016

The culture of death is making major inroads. With a California physician-assisted suicide law going into effect, the efforts of so-called “right to die” advocates like the late Brittany Maynard seem to have paid off. And now a new film targets our imagination by portraying suicide as merciful, dignified, even romantic.

“Me Before You,” adapted from the novel by Jojo Moyes, is about a rich young playboy who’s paralyzed from the neck down due to a motorcycle accident. While the film starts out on an encouraging note, its conclusion has left many disabled reviewers upset. And for good reason.

After his accident, businessman and heir Will Traynor (played by Sam Claflin), wants to end his life rather than face a lifetime paralyzed and stuck in a wheelchair. But Louisa Clark (played by Emilia Clarke), has other plans and attempts to change his mind. She spends six months taking him to concerts, horse races, and tropical getaways, hoping to show him that life as a quadriplegic is still worth living. Of course in the process, they fall in love–a fact that makes it especially hard when Will decides to go through with his plan to die.

This ham-fisted ending has the disabled community asking Hollywood: Why do you want us dead?

The marketing for “Me Before You” featured the hashtag #LiveBoldly. One Twitter user with disability retorted, “Do you really want us to #LiveBoldly, or…just…#DieQuickly?”

Wheelchair-bound actress and comedienne Liz Carr complained that Hollywood seems to have only one solution for people like her: “death.” “When non-disabled people talk of suicide,” she told The Guardian, “they’re discouraged and offered prevention…When a disabled person talks of it, though, suddenly the conversation is overtaken with words like ‘choice’ and ‘autonomy.’”

Writing at Life Site News, Alex Schadenberg with the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition calls the movie “insidious.” The main character’s death, he explains, is depicted as noble and life-affirming. “Not only is death portrayed as better than living with a disability,” he writes, “but the ultimate act of love, for a person who lives with a disability, is death.”

Some try to defend the movie and physician-assisted suicide by insisting that so-called “death with dignity” is a private, individual decision. But as our friend Joni Eareckson Tada pointed out in a 2014 open letter to Brittany Maynard, it’s not just private. An individual’s decision to commit suicide in the midst of an illness or disability–whether that individual is real or on the silver screen–shapes how our culture treats others in the same situation.

And Joni, for anyone who doesn’t know, is in the same situation as the film’s main character. Paralyzed at age 17, she’s spent decades advocating on behalf of the dignity of those with disability, and proclaiming the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings. In her statement about the film, she asks why it conveys the impression that “marriage to someone with quadriplegia is too hard, too demanding,” and just not possible. “As a quadriplegic who’s been married for nearly 34 years,” she writes, “I can say for certain that my husband and I have a deep and satisfying relationship, mostly because–not in spite of–my severe disability.”

But my favorite response to “Me Before You” comes from eleven-year-old Ella Frech. Writing at Aleteia, this young girl asks the folks behind this movie, “Did you even do any research…? Did you ask people in chairs if they’d rather be a corpse than a cripple?”

Ella, a world wheelchair-skating champion, doesn’t let her disability slow her down. And she understands why suicide is no less tragic for the disabled than it is for the able-bodied:

“I believe we are all made in [God’s] image and likeness,” she writes. “…if our value comes from God, then nobody has the right to say someone who walks is worth more than someone who doesn’t.”

Or, I would add, to say that lives with disabilities aren’t worth living.

Read More

Europe’s morality crisis: Euthanizing the mentally ill

By Charles Lane, Washington Post, October 19, 2016

Once prohibited–indeed, unthinkable–the euthanasia of people with mental illnesses or cognitive disorders, including dementia, is now a common occurrence in Belgium and the Netherlands.

This profoundly troubling fact of modern European life is confirmed by the latest biennial report from Belgium’s Federal Commission on the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia, presented to Parliament on Oct. 7.

Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002 for patients suffering “unbearably” from any “untreatable” medical condition, terminal or non-terminal, including psychiatric ones.

In the 2014-2015 period, the report says, 124 of the 3,950 euthanasia cases in Belgium involved persons diagnosed with a “mental and behavioral disorder,” four more than in the previous two years. Tiny Belgium’s population is 11.4 million; 124 euthanasias over two years there is the equivalent of about 3,500 in the United States.

The figure represents 3.1 percent of all 2014-2015 euthanasia cases–and a remarkable 20.8 percent of the (also remarkable) 594 non-terminal patients to whom Belgian doctors administered lethal injections in that period.

What’s a bit different about this Belgian report, however, is that it’s the first to appear since journalists and psychiatric professionals, inside Belgium and outside, began to take notice of what’s going on–and to raise questions about it.

Recent newspaper articles and documentaries focused on cases in which psychiatrists euthanized or offered to euthanize people with mental illnesses, some still in their 20s or 30s, under dubious circumstances.

In December, 65 Belgian mental-health professionals, ethicists and physicians published a call to ban euthanasia of the mentally ill.

Seemingly stung by these criticisms, the commission spends two of its report’s pages defending the system, explaining that all is well and that no one is being euthanized except in strict accordance with the law.

In particular, the regulatory panel–chaired by Wim Distelmans, a leading proponent of euthanasia who conducts the procedure himself–defends the one-month waiting period required between the time a mentally ill or otherwise cognitively impaired person puts his or her signature on a written request for death, and the time it may be carried out.

Objections that this is too little time are “unfounded,” the report asserts, because “the formation of the true will of the patient is a long process that takes several months, sometimes years,” then culminates in the written request. In any case, the waiting time is often longer in practice.

Of course, this ignores the essential objection, which is that, by definition, the mentally ill may be less capable of forming a “true will,” or, at least, that their intentions are intrinsically more difficult for a doctor–or anyone–to establish with the necessary certainty upon which to base a life-or-death decision.

As the Belgian opponents of the practice put it in their open letter: “We see that some who were first declared incurable, eventually abandon euthanasia because new prospects showed up. In a paradoxical way, this proves that the disease can not be called incurable.”

Obviously. But the commission report breezily responds, “illness, especially if it is psychic, should not be an obstacle to making a decision on the basis of rational reasoning,” subject to a careful physician’s approval.

This, regarding a Belgian medical system that over the past two years administered lethal injections upon the request of five non-terminally ill people with schizophrenia, five with autism, eight with bipolar disorder and 29 with dementia–an increasingly common condition in the aging Western world–as well as 39 with depression, according to the report.

Increasingly questioned at home, Belgian psychiatrists’ participation in the euthanasia of the mentally ill has also caught the attention of their international colleagues, many of whom remain committed to the physician’s primary role as a healer–and fear the corrupting potential of any deviation from that, even in the name of “patient autonomy.”

The large and influential American Psychiatric Association is preparing a policy which may include a declaration that it is unethical for any psychiatrist to participate in the euthanasia of a non-terminal patient, according to officials of that organization.

The World Psychiatric Association, which has heretofore discouraged but not specifically banned psychiatric participation in euthanasia, is planning to revisit that position at its 2017 meeting in Berlin, with a view toward toughening it in light of recent events in Belgium and the Netherlands, according to sources familiar with that body’s deliberations.

Such external scrutiny is long overdue; the relevant professional bodies are uniquely well positioned, indeed ethically required, to provide it.

Euthanasia of people with autism, depression, schizophrenia and dementia in the Low Countries represents a global moral crisis for psychiatry, and all of medicine, that can no longer be ignored.

Read More

Utah Bill to Legalize Assisted Suicide Would Encourage the Perfect Crime!

Attorney Margaret Dore, president of Choice is an Illusion, which has fought assisted suicide legalization efforts in many states, and now Utah, made the following statement in connection with a bill pending before the Utah Legislature. (HB 264).

“The bill has an application process to obtain the lethal dose,” said Dore. “The process includes a written lethal dose request form with two required witnesses. One of the witnesses is allowed to be the patient’s heir who will financially benefit from the patient’s death.”

“A central problem with the bill is that a person assisting a suicide can have his or her own agenda,” Dore said. “For example, if the person will financially benefit from the patient’s death due to an inheritance, he or she will have a potential motivation to be sure that the death goes through. This may or may not be consistent with the patient’s choice.”

“This central problem is exacerbated by bill provisions that strip away existing patient rights. Dore explained, “Under current Utah law, patients have a right to informed consent regarding treatment alternatives. Under the proposed bill, patients instead have the right to an ‘informed decision,’ which limits their right to information. More to the point, they have no right to be told about alternatives for cure or to extend life.”

Dore said, “Another problem is that the bills allow someone else to speak for the patient during the lethal dose request process.” Dore elaborated, “There is no requirement that speaking person be the patient’s designated agent, for example, through a power of attorney. The person is merely required to be ‘familiar with the patient’s manner of communicating,’ for example, that the patient communicates with a stutter. This is obviously not a sufficient standard for a life and death decision.”

“After the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no oversight,” Dore said. “No doctor, not even a witness, is required to be present at the death. This creates the opportunity for someone else to administer the lethal dose to the patient without his or her consent. If the patient objected or even struggled, who would know? The bill allows the perfect crime.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“The bill seeks to legalize assisted suicide for people who are ‘terminal,’ which is defined as a doctor’s prediction of less than six months to live,” Dore said. “In real life, such persons can have years, even decades, to live. This is due to actual mistakes: The doctor evaluated another patient’s test results. More typically, doctors are wrong because predicting life expectancy is not an exact science.”

Dore concluded, “Utah’s assisted suicide bill, if enacted, will allow the perfect crime. The law will encourage people with years to live to throw away their lives.”

For more information:

1. Legal/policy analysis of HB 264, which can be viewed at these links:
https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/utah-memo-only-hb-264-07-12-16.pdf https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/utah-attachments-only.pdf
2. Margaret K. Dore, “‘Death with Dignity’: What Do We Advise Our Clients?,” King County Bar Association, Bar Bulletin, May 2009,https://www.kcba.org/newsevents/barbulletin/BView.aspx?Month=05&Year=2009&AID=article5.htm
3. Nina Shapiro, “Terminal Uncertainty: Washington’s new “Death With Dignity” law allows doctors to help people commit suicide-once they’ve determined that the patient has only six months to live. But what if they’re wrong?” Seattle Weekly, 01/14/09, available at:https://choiceisanillusion.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/terminal-uncertainty-w-o-ad.pdf

LifeNews Note: Choice Is An Illusion is a human rights organization, working to keep assisted suicide and euthanasia out of your state, and out of your life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/07/19/utah-bill-to-legalize-assisted-suicide-would-encourage-seniors-to-throw-away-their-lives/

Read More

Malta Government Rejects Legalizing Euthanasia Targeting Elderly and Disabled

Alternattiva Demokratika believes the debate on euthanasia to be ‘premature,’ calls for introduction of ‘biological will’
Last week, the Maltese government rejected euthanasia and decided to codify “living wills.” The Malta Independent news published a statement from government Chairperson, Professor Arnold Cassola.

Alternattiva Demokratika (AD) has called for a “real discussion” on the possibility of being able to draw up a “biological will” – a form drawn up while a person is mentally healthy to outline the medical intervention the person in question deems acceptable should there condition worsen.

AD believes that the current debate on euthanasia to be “premature,” echoing the same sentiment as ALS sufferer Bjorn Formosa, as reported on The Malta Independent on Sunday.

The statement in full:

“Alternattiva Demokratika considers that the current discussion on euthanasia is a very premature one and that instead the real discussion should be about the possibility for Maltese citizens to be able to draw up a 'biological will'.

“The two issues are totally separate. The euthanasia is basically a debate on assisted suicide. On the other hand, the possibility of drawing up a 'biological will' means that a person will have the possibility to, while still healthy or in full possession of one's mental health, to draw up one's will regarding the therapeutic interventions which the person deems acceptable in the eventuality of being unable to express one's opinion because of the seriousness of one's condition.

“It is pertinent to point out that patients already can demand withdrawal of treatment. The issue understandably arises if patients are not in a condition to make their own decisions.

“AD Chairperson, Prof. Arnold Cassola said:"A 'biological will' would allow a person, when still in full possession of one's intellectual faculties, to declare what kind of treatment to accept and whether to
prolong or not in an artificial way - through the use of machines or other artificial systems - a life that would otherwise have naturally come to an end. The standards of palliative care should also be looked into to guarantee dignified end-of-life care for everyone."

“Whilst AD does not agree with the termination of life through euthanasia, it is in favour of the drawing up of 'living wills' or 'biological wills.’”

Read More

A Christian Response to Euthanasia

by Dr. H. Robert C. Pankratz and Dr. Richard M. Welsh.
Both are Family Physicians currently practising in Abbotsford, British Columbia.
Dr. Pankratz is the President of Canadian Physicians for Life and the
Vice President of Compassionate Healthcare Network.

Original article can be found here.

Part 1

The current "debate" on the legitimacy of euthanasia is a good indicator of the overall moral state of Canadian society. This debate also illustrates how secularized some Christians have become, blindly adopting anti-Biblical concepts such as the "quality of life" or even the "right to die." It may be that many Christians have difficulty understanding the complexities of this issue - after all, doctors already hasten death by stopping life support or using high doses of morphine in cancer patients, don't they? And, isn't it cruel to deny a suffering person an easy death when they are dying anyway?

This two-part series addresses the issue of euthanasia from a Christian perspective. In part one, we will discuss definitions and contrast the Christian world view with the prevailing ideologies in our society that have engendered the push for euthanasia. In the next issue, we will discuss the ramifications of these disparate perspectives, examine the related issues of quality of life and autonomy, and conclude with thoughts about what each of us can do.

What Euthanasia is and is not

In a war of ideologies, the first casualties are the definitions of the terms used. Euphemisms abound when people resort to deceit in attempting to convince others. For example, in the language of the day, administering a lethal injection becomes "aid in dying." (And how can you be against giving "aid" to someone who is terminally ill?) What is generally meant by the term euthanasia is mercy killing - the deliberate ending of a person's life to reduce their suffering. More commonly used today, however, is the phrase the "right to die." These are noble sounding words that literally mean that someone can request that a doctor kill him. In the terminology battle, the proponents of euthanasia are seeking to redefine what is now known as a form of homicide and call it acceptable medical practice.

The debate is very much an ethical one. Natural death, which results from illness or degenerative processes, is the antithesis of mercy killing. Even when life could be prolonged by medical treatment and is not, the death that may ensue is a death from the underlying illness, not a result of the withdrawal of care. The withholding of medical therapy is reasonable when the treatment is disproportionately burdensome (that is, the therapy - not the disease - is hard on the person) and relatively ineffective ("futile"). In other words, we are not ethically bound to use unwanted, non- beneficial therapies that serve to only prolong a person's dying. In fact, not doing so shows profound respect for the boundaries of natural life.

It is important to understand that euthanasia cannot be equated with the current understanding of palliative care. Palliative care is the active relief of suffering in a terminally-ill individual, and although there are occasions when treatment may shorten life, this is not the intended or anticipated result. It is simply a side effect or complication of therapy and is therefore ethically permissible. Generally, adequate doses of narcotics to relieve pain do not shorten life.

The Christian World View

The underlying principles of our society were once based on the Biblical world view; indeed, western culture and our legal system were founded on it. An overview of selected Scriptures will reveal what this view of man is and how it is derived.

Genesis 9:6 was instructive for our forbears and should be for us as well:

"Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God has He made man." This scripture is more than a prohibition on the taking of innocent life. Being created by God, we are stewards of our lives rather than owners. Created to be like God, our lives have an eternal purpose; set apart for, and owned by God. Since we are created in the image of God, our lives have intrinsic and immeasurable value. This is the source of the "sanctity of life" concept. Because we are created in God's image, people have an inherent and God-given dignity. This is a far cry from the fluctuating self-esteem (based on wealth, abilities, etc.) that is mistaken for dignity by non-Christians.

A critical issue arises at this point. Secular humanism claims that every life has a "quality" attached to it. This means that circumstances, abilities (or disabilities), suffering, or other factors render a life better or worse, because the person has a greater or lesser degree of contentment or happiness. With contentment or happiness as the standard, some lives are deemed to have such low quality that it is reasonable to prefer death. This is the antithesis of the "sanctity of life" ethic, which maintains that every life, created in the image of God, has intrinsic, God-given value that is not reduced by circumstances. Paul teaches us: "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation" (Phil.4:12). In a world that confuses the right to pursue happiness with a non-existent right to attain happiness, the Christian perspective stands out in stark contrast.

As a related aside, it is the very people who are vigorously pursuing legalized death who should be the most afraid of it. The person assured of eternity with Christ knows that it is truly "better to be with Christ." For the believer, the issue is not what they themselves wish (life here or in heaven), for as Paul so aptly puts it, "I am torn between the two" (Phil. 1:23). The issue is, rather, what God wills. For the Christian, life is God's gift and its end is to be determined by Him. "There is no God besides me, I put to death and I bring to life" (Deuteronomy 32:39). God is sovereign over life and death: we have no jurisdiction in this area; therefore, we have no mandate to end lives.

God's dominion includes all of life, which means that suffering is a part of God's providence. Therefore, suffering that cannot be relieved by modern medical means is to be accepted as from the hand of a loving God who knows what He is doing, even when we do not understand. "Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons" (Hebrews 12:7). The purpose of suffering for the Christian is sanctification or "to be conformed to the likeness of His Son" (Romans 8:29) and "it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace" for those trained by it (Hebrews 12:10). "For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all" (2 Corinthians 4:17). In other words, although we are all made in God's image, we are each to a greater or lesser degree like Him, and God is carrying to completion this great work that He has begun in all believers (Phil. 1:6).

Death is part of life. As Ecclesiastes 3:2 tells us, there is a time to be born and a time to die. The wise among us should number their days (Psalm 90:10). According to Scripture, life in the body is not always the highest value (to live is Christ but to die is gain - Philippians 1:21). In fact, the measure of love is that a man lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). The Christian can even welcome natural death knowing that "death has been swallowed up in victory" (1 Corinthians 15:54). Who doesn't look forward to that day when we will see Him "face to face"?

Therefore, in looking at suffering and impending death, the Christian should see God's sovereign hand and purpose, as well as the opportunity for ministering to the weak and vulnerable, with whom Christ Himself is identified. Feeding, clothing, or housing the needy is viewed by Christ as "whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine you do for Me" (Matthew 25:40). We can certainly look forward to a deepened relationship with God and strengthening from Him in our time of need for "those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles" (Isaiah 40:31). For those who wish a richer knowledge of God and closer walk of obedience, "opting out" prematurely runs counter to the deepest desires of their heart.

In contrast, the atheistic or humanistic world view sees people as autonomous (self-ruling) biological entities whose life's purpose is pleasure, and whose end is complete extinction. This view logically results in a self-centred hedonism that sees life as utilitarian, (i.e., valuable only for what it offers), and sees little value in suffering. The logical conclusion of this perspective, generally denied by most people who hold this view, is nihilism - "is that all there is?" According to this perspective, life should not be continued unless it is a wanted life. Suffering is an unmitigated negative; thus there are some lives not worth living.

In conclusion, the Christian perspective of human life puts God in control of the issue. We trust the Author of life to allow only what ultimately benefits us to befall us. But this does not give us a passive role - we are called to be salt and light. In this issue, we believe this means to stand for compassionate care of the dying while standing against any form of killing. Yes, we are to debate intelligently, but, more importantly, we must seize opportunities to minister God's love to those who are needy and suffering. As we counter the deceit of the protagonists of euthanasia, revealing the truth behind the lies, if we don't also show how love can overcome the pain and fears of dying, we will not win over the hearts and minds of the very people Christ wishes to save. It is our vision to have an ambassador of Christ at every deathbed (the greatest opportunity here is as a hospice volunteer). Thus you and I can provide the most eloquent answer of all to the question of euthanasia - a reason to live, through companionship and meaning in suffering.

Part 2

Now we'll look at some rational arguments useful in opposing euthanasia and its underlying secular ideologies, and we'll discuss practical ways in which Christians can have influence for Christ in this important area of life.

In our society, the prevailing ideologies used to support euthanasia are based on two sets of criterion: 'quality of life' and personal autonomy. There has been much misinformation, intense emotion, and muddled thinking surrounding these terms. It is helpful to look at the assumptions underlying the 'quality of life' and autonomy premises. As we saw in part one, God claims sovereignty over life and death, and we have no mandate to end lives by euthanasia. However, even according to humanistic premises, the criterion of 'quality of life' and autonomy cannot validate euthanasia.

Quality of Life

The term 'quality of life' (QOL) was first introduced in the 1960s to refer to the overall welfare of a population. In the 1970s it evolved to refer to the welfare of the individual, where it was used to refer to such things as level of satisfaction, contentment, happiness, social harmony, and fulfilment. Since then, the popular term has been adopted by the pro-death movement, and its meaning has changed from 'quality of life' to 'quality of living' to the 'quality of a life' to the 'value of a life.' These changes in meaning have promoted the belief that a life with low quality is not worth living. The result has been the inevitable conclusion that some people are less valuable than others. Such people are said to be 'better off dead' or to have a 'right to die'.

In other words, the term L is now being used to morally justify killing humans, either voluntarily or involuntarily. For example, for over a decade the L term has been used to justify and promote the killing of unborn babies with Down Syndrome and other genetic defects, as well as the intentional starving to death of severely handicapped infants and brain damaged adults.

To the Christian, quality of life judgements are irrelevant. Because we are each created in the image of God, each human life is sacred and has intrinsic value. There is no such thing as a life not worth living - all life has meaning and purpose.

The Christian sees contentment, happiness, and fulfilment as resulting from one's attitude and response to situations. Secular humanists, however, equate QOL directly with a level of functioning and a degree of suffering. Furthermore, the humanists see suffering (be it physical, mental, emotional, or social) as generally having little purpose, and so they sometimes decide that the negative effect of suffering outweighs the value of continued life.

One of the problems with the use of the QOL concept is that we have no objective criterion for measuring it. Quality of life judgements are subjective, biased, and relative to unfixed factors such as emotional state, past experiences, family wishes and financial concerns. These judgements are often made by a third party on behalf of an incompetent person and amount to an outside observer's judgement of the value or quality of another's life. Therefore, those who possess a 'high' QOL end up deciding that someone is better off dead, often simply because that person can no longer decide for themselves (since a high QOL value is placed on rational thought). Some proponents of the QOL criterion even believe that an individual's QOL is reduced if he or she is a burden to society and caregivers.

Another danger in using QOL as a basis for euthanasia is that it leads from voluntary to involuntary euthanasia. This is what is known as the slippery slope.' It can be viewed from two perspectives. The logical perspective recognizes that if you grant that there are competent people who are better off dead, it logically follows that there are incompetent people who are better off dead. And if you grant further that competent people in such a state have a right to die, it follows that you should not deny incompetent people in a similar state that same right. This provides a logical basis for moving from euthanasia for the competent terminally ill or chronically suffering to involuntary euthanasia for the demented, severely handicapped, or comatose.

The psychological version of the 'slippery slope' states that 'once certain practices are accepted, people shall in fact go on to accept other practices as well.' This is supported by the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands where the courts are now permitting euthanasia, not only for the competent terminally ill, but also for infants with serious handicaps, comatose patients, and even people suffering from severe depression.

There is a deliberate lack of clarity regarding the term QOL, and despite this confusion, the term is being used to influence life-and-death decisions affecting societally-devalued people. The term QOL should be abandoned entirely. Instead we should work to focus the public debate on some of the specific elements included under the term QOL, such as 'verbalised life satisfaction,' 'physical environmental quality, and 'social harmony. This will take the QOL talk away from the proponents of euthanasia, and it will help bring clarity to the debate by revealing the total subjectivity of the QOL idea.

Autonomy

In our egocentric society, autonomy (independence and self-government) receives great emphasis. However, autonomy can never be without restrictions. Obviously, any society - even one which does not embrace God's moral laws - must place some limits on personal freedom simply in order to function. Biblically, our individual autonomy must be limited by God's moral law.

Secular humanists deny this truth. They assert that the rights of the individual are paramount and that a person has a right to choose the time and nature of their own death. This amounts to death on demand. But even if we agreed with the autonomy argument, accepting that an individual should be permitted to choose death on demand, surely such a choice requires competence, informed consent, and voluntariness. To be truly autonomous, choice must be rational, fully-informed, and freely made. Are terminally-ill people really in a position to make such a choice? Likely not, considering that their mental competence is affected by underlying illnesses in 85% of cases, and that emotional competence is often affected by an initial, but reversible, phase of suicidal depression. In addition, fully-informed consent is often complicated by uncertainties of diagnosis and prognosis. Physicians are simply unable to accurately predict the timing of death or the quality of remaining life and may significantly misinform terminally-ill patients. A further complication is that the voluntariness of a person's choice may easily be compromised by pressures from doctors, nurses, family and society - all of whom have vested interests which may conflict with the patient's survival.

A counter-argument made by euthanasia proponents is that a system of intensive counselling and extensive assessment could safeguard the process - such as the guidelines for euthanasia in the Netherlands. However, a government commissioned study into the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands shows that the guidelines are not always followed: A third of lethal injections are given without the patient's consent, and despite the requirement for persistent request, 59% of cases occur on the same day they are asked for, and 10% within the same hour! The study showed that physicians also frequently falsify death certificates and disregard the requirements for consulting a second physician.

Despite these objections, let us accept that there will be a very small number of rational, fully-informed, and freely made requests for euthanasia. The autonomy argument still fails to justify euthanasia because of the negative consequences euthanasia has on other people's autonomy. For example, the vast majority of terminally-ill people do not want euthanasia and yet are particularly vulnerable to feeling that they are a burden on society. If euthanasia is an option, they may now feel forced to justify their decision to remain alive, and this at a time when they may be least able to do so. Additionally, euthanasia may also result in a loss of individual autonomy because the final choice and power rests not with the patient, but with the physician who is the final authorizer of the lethal injection.

Death by choice advocates also talk about restricting euthanasia to the hard cases, such as the terminally ill with 'unbearable' suffering. They know that if the prohibition against killing is removed for one group of people, it will send us down the slope towards allowing it for others. What is a right for some becomes a right for all. In reality, safeguards are simply a smokescreen for death on demand, much like abortion for the sake of the mother's health proved to be a smokescreen for abortion on demand.

Autonomy - the right to choose - must be restricted; some choices are biblically wrong and/or undesirable, and we must proclaim God's truth in this area. In debate and discussion, we should also point out that even if autonomy were an acceptable criterion, when scrutinized, it cannot validate euthanasia.

What Then Should We Do?

Practically speaking:

We must oppose euthanasia:

1. Learn what the Bible says about the issue.

2. Prepare to educate others on this important issue.

3. Become actively involved in supporting the debate at professional and political levels.

4. Pray with an awareness that our battle is not ultimately with individuals but rather with deceptive ideologies and spiritual forces.

We must promote life:

1. Support and encourage pro-life doctors, politicians, and activists.

2. Support your local pro-life and hospice Societies through donations and volunteering. (Proper care of the terminally ill makes euthanasia irrelevant.)

3. Reach out and help the unwanted and despairing with care and compassion.

In doing so, we help supply people with the desire to live.

4. Recognize that withdrawal or refusal of treatment in the appropriate setting is not euthanasia. There is a time to let go. Such decisions require accurate information, personal humility, and God's wisdom.

Conclusion

As Christians, we are called to be salt and light within our spheres of influence. The Bible is clear on this. Interestingly, Albert Camus, a non-Christian Nobel Prize winner, concurs: 'The world expects for Christians that they will raise their voices so loudly and clearly and so formulate their protest that not even the simplest man can have the slightest doubt about what they are saying. Further, the world expects of Christians that they themselves will eschew all fuzzy abstractions and plant themselves firmly in front of the bloody face of history. We stand in need of folk who have determined to speak directly and unmistakably and come what may, to stand by what they have said.' Christians must, on the one hand, oppose euthanasia by boldly proclaiming God's truth, and on the other hand, promote life through a practical demonstration of His love and compassion.

This article was originally published in U-TURN. 

email: church@tkc.com

© 1994-2001 THE KING'S Community Church

Read More

Euthanasia and Assisted Dying

Link to Source 

Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God.

General Christian view
The Roman Catholic view
Find out more

General Christian view

Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the beliefs that life is given by God, and that human beings are made in God's image. Some churches also emphasise the importance of not interfering with the natural process of death.

Life is a gift from God

all life is God-given

birth and death are part of the life processes which God has created, so we should respect them

tbherefore no human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person, even if that person wants to die

Human beings are valuable because they are made in God's image

human life possesses an intrinsic dignity and value because it is created by God in his own image for the distinctive destiny of sharing in God's own life

saying that God created humankind in his own image doesn't mean that people actually look like God, but that people have a unique capacity for rational existence that enables them to see what is good and to want what is good

as people develop these abilities they live a life that is as close as possible to God's life of love

this is a good thing, and life should be preserved so that people can go on doing this

to propose euthanasia for an individual is to judge that the current life of that individual is not worthwhile

such a judgement is incompatible with recognising the worth and dignity of the person to be killed

therefore arguements based on the quality of life are completely irrelevant

nor should anyone ask for euthanasia for themselves because no-one has the right to value anyone, even themselves, as worthless

The process of dying is spiritually important, and should not be disrupted

Many churches believe that the period just before death is a profoundly spiritual time

They think it is wrong to interfere with the process of dying, as this would interrupt the process of the spirit moving towards God

All human lives are equally valuable

Christians believe that the intrinsic dignity and value of human lives means that the value of each human life is identical. They don't think that human dignity and value are measured by mobility, intelligence, or any achievements in life.

Valuing human beings as equal just because they are human beings has clear implications for thinking about euthanasia:

patients in a persistent vegetative state, although seriously damaged, remain living human beings, and so their intrinsic value remains the same as anyone else's

so it would be wrong to treat their lives as worthless and to conclude that they 'would be better off dead'

patients who are old or sick, and who are near the end of earthly life have the same value as any other human being

people who have mental or physical handicaps have the same value as any other human being

Exceptions and omissions

Some features of Christianity suggest that there are some obligations that go against the general view that euthanasia is a bad thing:

Christianity requires us to respect every human being

If we respect a person we should respect their decisions about the end of their life

We should accept their rational decisions to refuse burdensome and futile treatment

Perhaps we should accept their rational decision to refuse excessively burdensome treatment even if it may provide several weeks more of life

End of life care

The Christian faith leads those who follow it to some clear-cut views about the way terminally ill patients should be treated:

the community should care for people who are dying, and for those who are close to them

the community should provide the best possible palliative care

the community should face death and dying with honesty and support

the community should recognise that when people suffer death on earth they entrust their future to the risen Christ

religious people, both lay and professional, should help the terminally ill to prepare for death

they should be open to their hopes and fears

they should be open to discussion

The Roman Catholic view

Euthanasia is a grave violation of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.

Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995

The Roman Catholic church regards euthanasia as morally wrong. It has always taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment "You shall not kill".

The church has said that:

nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a foetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying.

Pope John Paul II has spoken out against what he calls a 'culture of death' in modern society, and said that human beings should always prefer the way of life to the way of death.

The church regards any law permitting euthanasia as an intrinsically unjust law.
The value of life

Life is a thing of value in itself; it's value doesn't depend on the extent that it brings pleasure and well-being.

This means that suffering and pain do not stop life being valuable, and are not a reason for ending life.

The church believes that each person should enter the dying process with all its mysteries with trust in God and in solidarity with their fellow human beings; they should die with the dignity of letting themselves be loved unconditionally.

As Catholic leaders and moral teachers, we believe that life is the most basic gift of a loving God--a gift over which we have stewardship but not absolute dominion.

National Conference of Catholic Bishops (USA), 1991

The right to die

The Roman Catholic church does not accept that human beings have a right to die.

Human beings are free agents, but their freedom does not extend to the ending of their own lives. Euthanasia and suicide are both a rejection of God's absolute sovereignty over life and death.

The church believes that each human life is a manifestation of God in the world, a sign of his presence, a trace of his glory. "The life which God offers to man is a gift by which God shares something of himself with his creature."

A human being who insists that they have the 'right to die' is denying the truth of their fundamental relationship with God.
Refusing aggressive medical treatment

The church regards it as morally acceptable to refuse extraordinary and aggressive medical means to preserve life. Refusing such treatment is not euthanasia but a proper acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.
Assisting suicide

Since it is morally wrong to commit suicide it is morally wrong to help someone commit suicide.

True compassion leads to sharing another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.

Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995

Read More

Why is Euthanasia Wrong?

By the American Life League

Christians have no authority to commit suicide in any circumstance. It is significant that in the sacred canonical books there can nowhere be found any injunction or permission to commit suicide either to ensure immortality or to avoid or escape any evil. In fact, we must understand it to be forbidden by the law "You shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13), particularly as there is no addition of "your neighbor" as in the prohibition of false witness, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16).

St. Augustine, The City of God.[1]

The Ultimate Questions.

If a man loses his reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all life.

Albert Schweitzer.[2]

Euthanasia: The so-called 'last right.' The inevitable and natural followup to abortion.

Euthanasia follows abortion as certainly as night follows day.

When people speak of the philosophical aspects of euthanasia, they will inevitably return again and again to the central focus of the issue. They will invariably be forced to consider the two ultimate questions regarding euthanasia.

These are;

(1) Why is euthanasia right (or wrong)?, and

(2) Should we not be able to determine the ultimate disposition of our own 

bodies?

These very logical questions may be answered on several very different levels, as described in the following paragraphs.

Direct vs. Passive Euthanasia.

Before any intelligent discussion on euthanasia may proceed, the critical differences between direct euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and natural death must be precisely defined.

Note that the pro-euthanasia lobby has made much of its gains by deliberately confusing lawmakers and the public by blurring the lines between direct and passive euthanasia and a natural death. It is essential for anti-euthanasia activists to know these terms intimately, or they will be confused and ineffective in their efforts.

• Direct euthanasia is action taken for the purpose of hastening death. These measures may include lethal injection by a physician, or any one of a number of more clumsy methods undertaken by amateurs such as poisoning and suffocation.

• Passive euthanasia is action withheld for the purpose of hastening death. These measures would include the withholding or withdrawal of non-heroic measures, to include food, hydration, and oxygenation. One exception is noted below.

• Natural death means to allow a person to die in comfort and peace by withholding aggressive treatment that would only cause pain and lengthen the person's lifespan by a very modest or insignificant amount. Note that, if the same treatment were withheld from a person whose lifespan would be greatly lengthened by it, such action would instead be passive euthanasia. Examples of this type of euthanasia would be the thousands of infanticides committed each year in this country by withholding food and water from handicapped newborns who would otherwise have lived long lives.

Why Euthanasia is Wrong, Dead Wrong.

The remainder of this chapter discusses the reasons that the act of euthanasia is fundamentally wrong, as listed below, and concludes by listing a number of anti-euthanasia groups that concerned activists may wish to join.

WHY CHRISTIANS MUST OPPOSE EUTHANASIA

(1) Euthanasia is irreversible;

(2) Euthanasia sets a bad example;

(3) Euthanasia is entropic;

(4) Euthanasia is myopic and lazy;

(5) Euthanasia is despair personified; and

(6) Euthanasia is not of God.

REASON #1: EUTHANASIA IS FOREVER.

When I visited the starving people in Ethiopia, I could hardly have imagined that providing them with food and water, even though artificially brought in from the Western world at tremendous expense, would be considered 'medical treatment.'

Cardinal John J. O'Connor.[3]

Introduction.

It is a curious fact that most pro-euthanasia activists are opposed to capital punishment, primarily because mistakes can be made when administering the death penalty. In other words, once a person has been executed, not even the most conclusive proof of his innocence can bring him back to life.

Precisely the same reasoning may be used to oppose euthanasia. There are literally scores of medical cases on record where people have been judged to be "irreversibly comatose," and then have awakened to lead perfectly normal lives. In fact, it is safe to say that there are many more people who have awakened from 'irreversible' comas than there are innocent people who have been executed in this country.

The "Right to Die" is not a right it is the taking away of all possible rights.

Dead men don't choose.

A few cases where euthanasia was considered but rendered moot when the patient in question recovered are outlined below.

Teisa Franklin.

This little 21-month old girl ingested a huge quantity of anti-depressant drugs on February 4, 1988, and lapsed into a deep coma. After a rather cursory examination, doctors at Mercy Hospital pronounced her clinically brain dead and stated that she would be a good candidate for organ donation. However, only 18 hours after slipping into the coma, she began to recover, and, on February 11, only one week after the near-fatal incident, she was released from the hospital.[4]

Erin Shanahan, Mercy Hospital's perplexed head pediatric nurse, said that "We never would have guessed it would turn out like this."[4]

This is precisely why the euthanasia of comatose persons is such a dangerous practice.

Scott and Jeff Mueller.

These twin boys were born in 1981 sharing a leg and large intestine. They were fully developed from the waist up. The attending 'physician,' Petra Warren, decided that they were not worthy of life and attached a "DO NOT FEED" sign to their bassinet. Several nurses disobeyed this order and fed the babies sugar water, which saved their lives.[5]

They were successfully separated at Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital the following year. Scott died of heart problems in 1984, but Jeff is thriving and lives a normal lifestyle.

Predictably, the 'parents' and the 'doctor' were let off scott-free.

Jacqueline Cole.

Mrs. Cole awoke on May 15, 1986, 47 days after lapsing into a deep coma induced by a stroke. Her husband, a Presbyterian 'minister,' had gone to court on May 9 just six days before to have her disconnected from her life support systems. Fortunately for her, Baltimore Circuit Judge John Brynes refused his request.

This 'minister' said that he had "no regrets" at trying to allow his wife to die.[6]

Michelle Odette.

Marie Odette Henderson was 26 weeks pregnant when she was declared brain-dead on June 7, 1986, after suffering a stroke three days earlier. Despite the fact that she was carrying a viable baby, Miss Henderson's parents decided to allow her and her baby to die by disconnecting her from her life support systems.

Henderson's fiance, Derrick Poole, decided to fight for his baby's life and obtained a court order barring Marie's disconnection until after the baby was delivered.

Dr. Donald Dyson delivered a healthy baby girl at 33 weeks gestation. Michelle Odette's weight was 4 pounds, 5 ounces. Marie Henderson was then disconnected from her life support systems and died three hours later.

However, she lives on in her child.

Carrie Coons.

Carrie A. Coons, 86, of Rensselear, New York, was declared to be in an "absolutely irreversible vegetative state" by her doctors after she suffered a stroke and cerebral hemorrhage in November of 1988. For nearly five months, she neither spoke nor showed any signs of alertness. Her 88-year old sister and various doctors and lawyers petitioned the state Supreme Court to allow the removal of her feeding tube. Her doctor, Michael Wolff, a nationally recognized expert in geriatric medicine, declared that she was in a "hopeless" state with "absolutely no chance of recovery."[7]

Coons was the first New York citizen whose petition to die was granted by the State Supreme Court. However, just two days after the Court granted the petition, she woke up and began to eat and speak. Judge Joseph Harris wadded up the right-to-die writ when he heard that she had recovered.

Neurologist Ronald Cranford of Minneapolis, a White House commission adviser on right-to-die issues, stated that "It's a dramatic case. It shows you that you're basically never dealing with certainties here."[7]

Once again, this is why both direct and passive euthanasia should be banned.

Harold Cybulski.

The doctors were all ready. 79-year old grandfather Harold Cybulski of Barry's Bay, Ontario, had been pronounced "brain dead and comatose," and the experts who pronounced him so stood by to disconnect his life support systems just as soon as his family said their last goodbyes.

When his two-year old grandson ran into the room and yelled "Grandpa!," Cybulski woke up, sat up, and picked up the little boy!

Six months later, he was leading a completely normal life, to include driving the new car he had been looking forward to buying before he became comatose.

Cybulski's doctors could find "no explanation" for his instant recovery.[8]

Barbie Blodgett and Her Baby.

On June 30, 1988, near Yakima, Washington, the car that 24-year old Barbie Blodgett was riding in was struck by a drunk driver. Three months pregnant at the time, she slipped into a persistent coma, and experts believed that she would never regain consciousness, because her cerebrum, the large part of the brain which controls consciousness and voluntary functions, was simply not working at all. She was unable to speak or eat and was fed through a stomach tube.[9]

Other experts predicted grimly that the baby she was carrying would die and/or would worsen her condition to the point of death.

However, her pro-life family maintained hope and continued to pray. And on December 9, 1988, 8-pound Simon Alan Blodgett was born perfectly healthy. Dr. Thomas Benedetti, director of perinatal medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, stated that this was the fourth instance known of a comatose woman giving birth.[9]

The day after the baby was born, Barbara Blodgett recognized her son, Simon, and began to regain consciousness. A month later, she could communicate and feed her newborn. A year later, she was still partially paralyzed and had to communicate via a computer keyboard. But she said that she "hoped to walk and talk before Simon does," and seemed ready to achieve the goals she had set for herself.[9]

Conclusions.

In every one of the cases described above and in dozens of others that go unreported every year people were condemned to death by health professionals who were all "absolutely certain" that they would never recover.

And, in a large percentage of these cases, the patient did recover, either partially or completely.

In light of this dismal prediction record, it is perfectly obvious that, when dealing with PVS patients, there is no such thing as a "sure thing." It is also quite obvious that the primary motivations of the so-called 'health' professionals are the conservation of medical resources and cost containment, not the conservation or betterment of human life.

It is truly the height of irony that our society will spend literally millions of dollars on multiple appeals to make absolutely certain that every person executed by the State is guilty of some heinous crime but is so reluctant to take the same kind of care with those whose only crime is being deemed 'life not worthy of life' by the medical profession.

REASON #2: EUTHANASIA SETS A BAD EXAMPLE.

Evil committed for a good cause remains evil.

Even when it succeeds?

Above all when it succeeds.

Victor Hugo, History of a Crime (1877).[10]

The Payback Is Coming.

Regardless of whether or not we like it, our primary function as adults in this society is to set the example for younger and less experienced persons even if we have no children ourselves. After all, what we teach the young will largely determine how they run the world after they inherit it and this, in turn, will determine what kind of world our grandchildren will inherit.

What we teach the young will also determine how they treat us when we are elderly and infirm.

Impacts On Teen Suicide.

The teen suicide rate in this country has tripled in the last fifteen years to more than 2,500 deaths per year, as discussed in Chapter 88 of Volume II, "Suicide by Teenagers." We read about suicide pacts and teen murder/suicides on a weekly basis. Experts in the demographics of suicide (suicidologists) already call this situation 'epidemic.'

What kind of an example does Janet Adkins give to teenagers when she kills herself just because her piano playing is beginning to deteriorate? Or because she may experience some unknown degree of pain eight to ten years down the road pain that could easily be alleviated?

How will we tell a despondent teenager that he has no right to kill himself if the cheerleader he adores spurns him? How about the young girl whose pet cat dies? Or who becomes pregnant too soon? Or the boy who doesn't make the baseball team? Or who gets a failing grade on his report card?

Teenagers don't respond to a double standard. They don't accept the adage "Do as I say, not as I do." If euthanasia becomes legal and accepted by society, we must expect our 'epidemic' of teen suicide to become a 'pandemic,' with 10,000 to 20,000 additional cases per year. How will we react to a pandemic of teen suicide without appearing (and being) grossly hypocritical?

REASON #3: EUTHANASIA IS ENTROPIC.

Disorder = Death.

Entropy is the measure of the degree of disorder of systems. And all systems from the smallest to the largest, and from the simplest to the most complex tend to accumulate entropy, unless positive steps are taken to prevent this process. This immutable principle applies equally to living and nonliving systems.

Changing States.

Every type of system requires effort in order to maintain it in an ordered state. Every type of system, if it is neglected, will begin to decay and disintegrate.

• A lawn will sprout weeds unless the gardener remains vigilant. Eventually, if it is not cared for, the lawn will return to its original riotous, biologically diverse, and disordered state.

• A pickup truck will rust, detune, and accumulate beer cans unless the driver has pride of ownership. Eventually, if it is not maintained, it will fall apart and will be hauled to a junkyard.

• We read lately about our country's deteriorating infrastructure. Our roads, bridges, and water and sewer systems are falling apart because not enough maintenance money is allocated to them. The fight against disorder is being lost.

• Our bodies, as they age, accumulate aches and pains as organs wear out and begin to malfunction. We must feed our bodies the proper foods, exercise, and refrain from destructive activities like the use of tobacco products, illegal drugs, and excessive alcohol. Eventually, if our bodies are not maintained, they will sicken and die far too soon.

• Our consciences require constant exercise and discipline. If we do not maintain constant vigilance over our attitudes and beliefs, we will become self-centered. We will live only for self-gratification. Eventually, our consciences will sicken and die.

• A society requires unselfish, hard-working, imaginative and patriotic individuals for its survival. When its individual members become obsessed with themselves and their own selfish pleasures, a society will sicken and eventually be absorbed by other cultures. This principle holds true even for animal-based clans and troops.

• The principle of increasing entropy applies even to the largest system of all the universe. As long as prodigious quantities of energy in all its forms is being exchanged, the universe will live on. However, tens of billions of years from now, the universe will 'wind down' and will experience its 'heat death,' when everything is the same temperature and entropy (disorder) is at a maximum.

Anti-Life Entropy.

Entropy, while a fact of life everywhere, is considered 'bad' in virtually all cases. When highly organized systems (i.e., cars, computers, bodies, minds and societies) increase their degree of entropy drastically, they will rust, break down, or die.

The anti-life mentality is essentially entropic. It favors contraception, sterilization, abortion, and euthanasia. This strange mindset strives to destroy the natural and efficient function of the human reproductive system, and ultimately, considers man to be just another animal.

Curiously, while it considers humanity just another species of animal, it fails to recognize that non-instinct driven euthanasia is unknown in the animal world.

If It Grows Alone Watch It!

It is a universal axiom that anything manmade that is 'good' is difficult to initiate, maintain, or expand, while it is difficult to prevent what is 'bad' from spontaneously initiating, continuing, or expanding.

In other words, 'bad' man-made or man-influenced things grow by themselves; 'good' things must be continuously nurtured.

As stated above, a 'good' lawn requires continuous maintenance or it will sprout 'bad' weeds all over the place; a 'good' truck requires constant attention or it will become rusted and detuned; a 'good' teenager must be nurtured or he will acquire 'bad' habits like drug or alcohol use. Lawns do not police themselves, and trucks do not tune and maintain themselves.

By commutative reasoning, we may infer that whatever is man-influenced and grows by itself is 'bad.' This is particularly true of social issues.

Abortion is a good example of this reasoning. In a period of just five years, it expanded relentlessly, almost effortlessly, from a few exceptions in a few states to a universal 'right' available through all nine months of pregnancy all over the country. By contrast, a 'good' social expansion is the civil rights movement, which required decades of struggle on many fronts, the martyrdom of dozens, and is still not complete.

Another 'good' example of civil rights activism is our own pro-life (anti-abortion) movement, which must struggle relentlessly against the full weight of the media and the state and Federal governments. Every small advance must be vigilantly guarded, or it will be reabsorbed quickly and effortlessly.

We can see that euthanasia is expanding relentlessly and effortlessly, just as abortion did twenty years ago. We began our euthanasia 'program' with a few extreme cases allowing those in extreme agony, days from dying, to pass away peacefully and passively and now, we annually have thousands of handicapped newborns dying of neglect and many more thousands of elderly secretly 'put away' by our doctors and nursing homes.

Making Our Bed ...

One good way of telling whether something is "good" or "bad" is by measuring the amount of confusion it causes (confusion being defined in this case as hindrance(s) to communication and/or understanding). If something is incomprehensible to the common man, it is usually something that is not in his best interests. If a social proposal is confusing and undecipherable, it is usually something that Neo-liberals are trying to "slip by" us.

As always, anyone who sees the euthanasia issue in "black and white" terms is condemned as "simplistic" by the Hemlock Society and other Neo-liberal organizations. It is in the best interests of these groups to make the issue appear to be as complicated and as vague as possible, because then the vast majority of the public will feel timid and unqualified to comment or even hold an opinion on it.

This is the mighty weapon of "mystagoguery" that worked so well for the pro-abortionists, particularly regarding the issue of "when life begins." Now the Neo-liberals are trying to confuse us as to when human life ends.

REASON #4: THE EUTHANASIA MENTALITY IS MYOPIC AND LAZY.

Pro-euthanasia lobbyists are notoriously shortsighted and unimaginative. They believe that everyone should be able to do away with themselves, and they also believe that society has no interest in such self-destructive acts.

This is unmitigated rubbish. Every person who enters our society develops, throughout his life, a web of relationships so complex that it can never be completely summarized or traced. Every person significantly affects hundreds of other members of this society every year, often without realizing it.

A society-system is roughly analogous to a human body. Its major cities represent organs; the capital is the brain (in the United States, this 'brain' appears to be mentally handicapped); the interstate highways are the arteries, and local roads are the capillaries, carrying nutrients to every cell. We, as individuals, might represent blood cells conveying nutrients to every other cell and organ in the body.

In this setting, euthanasia could be considered a type of leukemia, where individual blood cells start destroying themselves randomly and at an ever-increasing rate.

No human body can live with an acute case of leukemia, and no society can endure if its people destroy themselves at a high enough rate.

All of a healthy body's cells work together to promote the common good of the body. Similarly, individual persons work together to advance the common good of society. Each of us plays a vital part in this many-faceted corpus. Just as our bodies could not survive if individual cells took it upon themselves to randomly 'self-destruct,' our society cannot tolerate the accelerated destruction of individuals without serious damage.

REASON #5: EUTHANASIA IS DESPAIR PERSONIFIED.

What deeper expression of despair is there than to kill oneself?

Everyone has, at one time or another, experienced despair so deep that they may have even thought of how easy it would be to just 'let go' and die. This kind of depression is no joke, and it does no good to simply tell the person to just "Snap out of it!"

This kind of despair can easily lead to one of the more than 25,000 suicides this country suffers annually.

Perhaps the greatest sorrow of all is to see a person totally without hope. This is because, as long as there is a means to thwart one's troubles, hope remains. When a person has lost all hope, he has lost all faith that he has any control over his situation.

Our society's emphasis on "choice" and "control" has aggravated this problem terribly. We are told that we cannot have control if we cannot have an infinite universe of choices or avenues of action. Therefore, we have become conditioned to think that, if we lose options, we have lost control of our lives. And, if we lose control of our lives, those lives are not worth living. We come to think of ourselves as less than human if we cannot have total control all of the time.

This is nonsense. As long as we are living, we can seek to improve our situation. We can actually generate choices ourselves if we have been trained to possess initiative and imagination. To kill oneself, of course, is to really lose control of the situation.

Once again, dead people don't make choices.

REASON #6: EUTHANASIA IS NOT OF GOD.

Intentionally causing one's own death, or suicide, is therefore equally as wrong as murder; such an action on the part of a person is to be considered as a rejection of God's sovereignty and loving plan.

The Vatican's "Declaration on Euthanasia."[11]

Just as God created us for missions that only He knows, He reserves for Himself the right to call us home. We are His finest creations, the only creations made in His image, and we have no right to destroy ourselves. The Fifth Commandment does not refer only to acts committed against others it prohibits the abuse and destruction of our own bodies and souls.

The idea of voluntarily undergoing suffering is entirely alien to the Modernist/Neo-liberal mind. Once God has been eliminated from the equation of life, we feel no obligation to Him and have no patience for the burdens He may lay on us from time to time.

There are times in our lives when we must suffer, and times when we must surrender control to others. Christians realize that their sufferings are only a pale shadow of what Christ Himself endured for our redemption.

To reject the life that God gave us is also, in a larger sense, to reject Christ Himself.

Anti-Euthanasia Groups.

No matter how talented and experienced a person is, he will almost always accomplish more if he joins an organization with other people who share his goals.

The following pro-life organizations oppose euthanasia in the United States and possess resources and experience that any anti-euthanasia activist will find useful. Those parents whose children are afflicted with handicaps may also want to consult the extensive list of organizations that support children with birth defects that is contained in Chapter 39 of Volume II, "Birth Defect Support Groups."

American Life League (ALL)

Post Office Box 1350

Stafford, Virginia 22555

Telephone: (703) 659-4171

FAX: (703) 658-2586

ALL produces, gathers and disseminates pro-life activist and legislative information on a national scale with an excellent monthly magazine entitled ALL About Issues, and a biweekly legislative/activist newsletter entitled Communique. ALL lobbies vigorously for pro-life groups, and supports various methods of direct action for saving the preborn and the born who are threatened with death.

Americans United for Life (AUL)

343 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1804

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Telephone: (312) 786-9494

AUL is a public interest law firm defending anti-abortion, anti-infanticide, and anti-euthanasia activists. It also publishes AUL Studies in Law and Medicine, dealing with the legal and historical aspects of specific topics.

Center for the Rights of the Disabled

2319 18th Avenue South

Fargo, North Dakota 58103

Center for the Rights of the Terminally Ill

Post Office Box 54246

Hurst, Texas 76054

Telephone: (817) 656-5143.

Defends patient's rights to competent, compassionate and ethical medical care.

Christian Action Council (CAC)

101 West Broad Street, Suite 500

Falls Church, Virginia 22046

The primary goal of the CAC is to get people of all faiths involved in the struggle against abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Its national headquarters has an excellent reading list of material on abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and the Christian response.

Christian Institute on Disability

Post Office Box 3333

Agoura, California 91301

Telephone: (818) 707-5664

The Christian Institute on Disability is an anti-euthanasia group offering Christian help to people who are disabled.

Citizens United Resisting Euthanasia (CURE)

812 Stephen Street

Berkeley Springs, West Virginia 2541

Telephone: (304) 258-LIFE

CURE educates on the threat of euthanasia and provides assistance to families of the severely disabled.

Human Life Center (HLC)

University of Steubenville

Steubenville, Ohio 43952

Telephone: (614) 282-9953

The HLC is an educational resource center with an extensive and up-to-date library of research materials and "Life Issue Files" drawn from various publications all over the world. The HLC is considered to be the national center of pro-life material on euthanasia, and offers a "Euthanasia Packet," which includes copies of materials that groups like the Hemlock Society and Americans Against Human Suffering use in their relentless drive to secure the 'right' to kill born human beings. The HLC also publishes Human Life Issues and the International Review(formerly the International Review of Natural Family Planning).

Human Life International (HLI)

7845-E Airpark Road

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879

Telephone: (301) 670-7884

HLI fights abortion, the "right to die," and International Planned Parenthood on a global level. HLI has an expert staff of consultants, researchers, and advisors, including Mother Teresa of Calcutta. HLI publishes HLI Reports and HLI Special Reports on the status of the pro- and anti-life movements all over the world.

International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force (IAETF)

Post Office Box 760

Steubenville, Ohio 43952

Telephone: (614) 282-3810

Also: Post Office Box 224

Concord, California 94522

Telephone: (510) 689-0170

National Council of Catholic Women

1275 K Street, NW, Suite 975

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 682-0334

Among its many other activities, the National Council of Catholic Women runs a respite program for the elderly, among many other activities.

National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled

Post Office Box 441069

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Telephone: (317) 632-6245

This group provides support and training for lawyers who defend critically ill and disabled people against discrimination and publishes the quarterly Issues in Law and Medicine.

National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)

The primary purpose of NRLC is to sponsor community, legislative, and political action to oppose or change current and proposed liberal abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia laws. Local RTL chapters usually maintain excellent video and book libraries.

A list of the fifty state Right to Life affiliates and their addresses and phone numbers is shown in Chapter 20 of Volume I, "Pro-Life Organizations."

References: Introduction to Euthanasia.

[1] St. Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. Penguin Books, Book I, Chapter 20, page 31. Also quoted in ALL About Issues, June-July 1986, page 42.

[2] Albert Schweitzer, quoted in National Right to Life News, September 14, 1987, page 14.

[3] Cardinal John J. O'Connor. Quoted in the 1989 Oregon Right to Life convention program entitled "Euthanasia: Is Killing Compassionate?"

[4] Leslie Bond. "Girl Eyed as Potential Organ Donor Now Doing Fine." National Right to Life News, March 24, 1988, page 11.

[5] Front Line Updates. "Siamese Twin Scott Mueller Dies." National Right to Life News, May 2, 1985, page 4.

[6] Leslie Bond. "Woman Awakens From Coma After Court Reject's Husband's Request to Withdraw Treatment." National Right to Life News, October 9, 1986, pages 1 and 10.

[7] Leslie Bond. "Starvation Order Hastily Rescinded As Carrie Coons Awakens From So-Called "Irreversible" PVS." National Right to Life News, April 27, 1989, pages 5 and 7. Also see Nat Hentoff. "Not 'Hopeless Case' After All." National Right to Life News, May 11, 1989, page 4.

[8] Cybulski's case is described in "A Little Child Shall Lead Us." Presbyterians Pro-Life NEWS, Summer 1990, page 4.

[9] John Wolcott. "The Barbie Blodgett Story." Living World (publication of International Life Services, Inc.). Vol. 5, No. 2, pages 8 to 10. Also see David H. Andrusko. "Comatose Pregnant Woman Gives Birth, Then Comes Out of Coma."National Right to Life News, February 16, 1989, pages 1 and 10.

[10] Victor Hugo, History of a Crime (1877). Quoted in ALL About Issues, June-July 1990, page 38.

[11] The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "Declaration on Euthanasia." Paragraph I3. May 5, 1980. 14 pages. Order for 20 cents from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul's Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130.

Further Reading: Euthanasia (Introduction).

Joseph Cardinal Bernardin. Consistent Ethic of Life. 

Sheed & Ward, 115 East Armour Boulevard, Post Office Box 419492, Kansas City, Missouri 64141, telephone: 1-800-333-7373 FREE. 1988, 287 pages. This book consists of three parts: (1) The texts of 10 addresses by Cardinal Bernardin, the originator of the "seamless garment" theory. This series of addresses considers the topics of genetic engineering, abortion, modern welfare, the terminally ill, and capital punishment; (2) symposium papers by several authors on the "seamless garment," including renegade Jesuit Richard A. McCormick and Sidney Callahan; and (3) and the Cardinal's response to the symposium.

Biblical Reflections on Modern Medicine. 

This 12-page monthly magazine consists of detailed comments and essays on recent developments in the field of medicine from a Scriptural standpoint, with an emphasis on those procedures that threaten human life: Infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia. Write to Covenant Distributors, Box 4009, Martinez, Georgia 30917-4009.

James Bopp, Jr. Human Life and Health Care Ethics. 

National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund, 1985. 320 pages. Reviewed by Thomas Marzen on pages 6 and 11 of the October 24, 1985 National Right to Life News. A thorough review of the fundamental issues revolving about providing or withholding medical treatment.

Paul A. Bryne, M.D. Understanding Brain Death. 

Order from American Life League, Post Office Box 2250, Stafford, Virginia 22554. Is "brain death" really the death of the person? This booklet examines this critical question.

Daniel Callahan. Setting Limits: Medical Goals in an Aging Society. 

New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. 256 pages. Reviewed by David H. Andrusko on pages 8 to 10 of the April 21, 1988 National Right to Life News and by Gary Crum, Ph.D., on page 38 of the January 1989 issue of ALL About Issues. This book, disturbing because it is written by the Director of the Hastings Center, contains all of the standard pro-euthanasia slogans and logic, and is particularly frightening as it originates with the director of the nation's most prestigious bioethical "think-tank."

Catholic Health Association. A Time To Be Old, a Time to Flourish: The Special Needs of the Elderly At-Risk. 

Report of the Catholic Health Association's Task Force on Long-Term Health Care. 1988, 109 pages. Order from the Catholic Health Association, 4455 Woodson Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63134. Telephone: (314) 427-2500.

Robert P. Craig, Carl L. Middleton, and Laurence J. O'Connell. Ethics Committees: A Practical Approach. 

The Catholic Health Association of the United States, 4455 Woodson Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63134-0889. 1986, 95 pages. Topics covered include the functions of Catholic institutional (hospital) ethics committees, their structure, membership, formation, religious perspectives on them, their history and role, and the roles of the five key players: The administrator, the medical staff, nursing staff, theologian/ethicist, and the bishop.

Joni Earckeson. When is it Right to Die? 

Zondervan Press, 1992, 176 pages. Reviewed by William Griffin on page 8 of the November 8, 1992 issue of Catholic Twin Circle. The author, known to millions of Christians simply as "Joni," became quadriplegic 25 years ago as a result of a diving accident. Since then, she has made movies, painted hundreds of works of art by holding a brush in her mouth, and has become politically involved for the handicapped. In this book, she offers hope and practical advice for the seriously handicapped and addresses the moral, emotional, philosophical and spiritual aspects of the euthanasia issue. This book is written by one who knows and would be a good primer on the euthanasia issue.

Ethics & Medics. 

Subtitled A Catholic Perspective on Moral Issues in the Health and Life Sciences, this venerable monthly comments on all of the important developments in the life issues, to include animal rights and euthanasia. Subscribe by writing to The Pope John Center, 186 Forbes Road, Braintree, Massachusetts 02184, telephone: (617) 848-6965.

Greenhaven Press. Death and Dying: Opposing Viewpoints. 

Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1987, 215 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The questions asked are: "How Should One Cope With Death?;" "How Can Suicide Be Prevented?;" "Is Infant Euthanasia Ever Justified?;" "Should Euthanasia Be Allowed?;" and "Do the Dying Need Alternative Care?" Authors include Helga Kuhse, Melinda Delahoyde, Peter Singer, Charles Krauthammer, and David H. Andrusko. This topic is covered by a series of books, beginning with a basic set of essays entitled Sources and continuing with an additional and updated annual series of essays. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.

Greenhaven Press. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. 

Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 231 pages. Five sections featuring essays written by leading activists on both sides of the euthanasia debate: "Is Euthanasia Ethical?;" "What Policy Should Guide Euthanasia?;" "What Criteria Should Influence Euthanasia Decisions?;" "Who Should Make the Euthanasia Decision?;" and "Is Infant Euthanasia Ethical?" This book provides excellent debating and research background for the anti-euthanasia activist. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163 FREE.

Germain Grisez and Joseph Boyle. Life and Death and Liberty and Justice. 

Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979. Reviewed by Richard Stith on pages 185 to 189 of the Summer 1979 issue of the International Review of Natural Family Planning. An extraordinarily detailed and broad examination of all of the primary areas of contention in the euthanasia battle. Considered by most to be a 'must read' for serious anti-euthanasia activists.

Dennis J. Horan and David Mall (editors). Death, Dying, and Euthanasia. 

1980. 837 pages; Hardcover, softcover. Order from Kairos Books, Department 122, Post Office Box 708, Libertyville, Illinois 60048.

The Human Life Review. 

This is a superbly presented scholarly journal modeled after the most distinguished psychobiology periodicals, and is published by the Human Life Foundation. It is mailed quarterly, and contains about 150 pages of essays by the best-known pro-life authors in the world, primarily on the legal and sociological aspects of abortion and its loathsome offspring, infanticide and euthanasia. One of the favorite topics of the authors is the continued lack of decisive action by the Catholic Church and other institutions. This excellent chronicle of the American Holocaust and its many effects is must reading for the serious pro-life activist. The nation's top conservative writers examine the anti-life philosophy in clinical and brilliant detail with their scholarly and insightful articles. Most back issues are available. Back issues, both bound and unbound, are available from: Editorial Office, 150 East 35th Street, Room 840, New York, New York 10016. Telephone: (212) 685-5210, FAX: (212) 696-0309.

Jack Kevorkian. Prescription: Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death. 

Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228. 1991, 262 pages. Jack ("The Dripper") Kevorkian gives us some of his revolutionary ideas in the area of human beings putting other human beings to death. He primarily addresses the suitability of those condemned to death row as "organ farms," organ harvesting, and medical experimentation. Kevorkian refers to any limits on his activities as "stone-age," and rejects out of hand any kind of Christian morality whatever. This is a fascinating book for anyone who wants the goals of the euthanasia movement clearly outlined, because Kevorkian seems to be the only person on the pro-euthanasia side who is honest enough to speak of them truthfully.

Eike-Henner W. Kluge. The Practice of Death. 

London: Yale University Press. 1975, 250 pages. The author ties together in a general manner the philosophy and tactics of all of the pro-death movements: Abortion, infanticide, suicide, euthanasia, and 'senicide.' Although the book is nearly twenty years old, it is still relevant today.

C. Everett Koop, M.D., and Timothy Johnson, M.D. Let's Talk: An Honest Conversation on Critical Issues. 

Zondervan Press, 1992, 144 pages. Reviewed by William Griffin on page 8 of the November 8, 1992 issue of Catholic Twin Circle. A former Surgeon General of the United States and ABC-TV's medical editor discuss the critical issues of abortion, euthanasia, AIDS, and health care. Both writers are Christians who disagree on some of the issues, and this book, which is a published version of their informal debates, helps Christians examine some of the more arcane and complicated aspects of the above issues.

Gerald A. Larue. Euthanasia and Religion: A Survey of the Attitudes of World Religions and the Right-to-Die. 

Los Angeles: Hemlock Society, 160 pages, 1985. Using church and other documents, the author describes the positions on euthanasia held by 29 major religious denominations. There is special emphasis on the positions of the Jews, Roman Catholics, and Greek Orthodox on this subject.

Carol Levine (Editor). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bio-Ethical Issues. 

Dushkin Publishing Group, Inc., Guilford, Connecticut. 1984, 297 pages. Leading thinkers on both sides of bioethical issues express their opinions in scholarly essays on subjects including abortion, in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, involuntary sterilization of the retarded, informed consent, active euthanasia, withholding treatment from handicapped newborns, suicide, the insanity defense, animal experimentation, prisoners volunteering for research, justifiable deception in research, organ harvesting from the dead, and genetic engineering. A good primer on the bioethical issues.

Father Paul Marx, OSB. And Now ... Euthanasia (second revised edition). 

Human Life International, 7845-E Airpark Road, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879. Telephone: (301) 670-7884. 1985, 106 pages. This little book, directed at the general reader, offers an up-to-date assessment of the euthanasia situation in the United States and other countries. The basic history of euthanasia, the tactics of the pro-killing people, and the role of the courts are examined. Essential basic reading for the beginning anti-euthanasia activist.

James J. Mulligan. Choose Life. 

The Pope John XXIII Medical-Moral Research & Education Center, Braintree, Massachusetts 02184. 1991, 370 pages. This unusual book consists of a series of short stories that describe in layman's terms the philosophical debates surrounding bioethical issues of our time. The stories do not focus as much on specific issues as they do on the general concepts surrounding biomedical ethics. A good primer for those researching and pondering general concepts regarding abortion and euthanasia.

National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the United States Catholic Conference. Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops. 

Five volumes, 2,630 pages.

Volume I: 1792-1940. Publication Number 880, 480 pages. Covers the Age of John Carroll (1792-1828), the Provincial Councils (1829-1849), the Plenary Councils (1852-1884), and between the World Wars (1919-1940). Some of the pastoral letters include the 1932 Resolution on Indecent Literature and the 1939 Statement on Peace and War.

Volume II: 1941-1961. Publication Number 885, 270 pages. Includes statements on a good peace, war and peace, secularism, compulsory military service, the Christian family, the child, persecution behind the Iron Curtain, censorship, the secular press, and bigotry.

Volume III: 1962-1974. Publication Number 870, 500 pages. Includes statements on the government and birth control, clerical celibacy, abortion, human life, birth control laws, population and the American future, and the Human Life Amendment.

Volume IV: 1975-1983. Publication Number 875, 605 pages. Statements include the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities and resolutions on abortion and human sexuality.

Volume V: 1983-1988. Publication Number 200-4, 775 pages. Statements include the Updated Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities and resolutions on abortion and school-based clinics.

All volumes may be ordered from the Office of Publishing Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1312 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.

David N. O'Steen, Ph.D. "Euthanasia: Modern America's Rendezvous with Death." 

This booklet examines the role of the media and the court system in advancing the cause of euthanasia in this country, and shows what pro-lifers can do to stop the tide of legal killing that looms just ahead. Booklets are free for one copy or 35 cents for multiple copies from: National Right to Life Committee Educational Trust Fund, 419 7th Street NW, Suite 500,

Professor Charles E. Rice. 50 Questions on Abortion, Euthanasia, and Related Issues. 

Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. This book examines the tactics and approaches used by the pro-life movement to fight abortion and euthanasia, and the various sources and causes of conflict between individuals and organizations within the Movement. Every activist and pro-life group should use this book as an aid to examining their attitudes toward the issues and toward their fellow activists.

Roman Catholic Church, Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980, contained in Contemporary Catholic Social Teaching, number 704-9). 

This and other encyclicals that are landmarks in Catholic social teaching are available from the Daughters of St. Paul, 50 St. Paul Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, telephone: (617) 522-8911, and the United States Catholic Conference Publishing Service, 3211 Fourth Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20017-1194, telephone: 1-800-541-3090 FREE.

A.R. Saqueton, M.D. In Defense of Life. 

ARS Publishing Company, 1981. 232 pages. Reviewed by Felicia Goeken on page 9 of the May 10, 1982 issue of National Right to Life News and page 11 of the July 8, 1982 issue of the same publication. The 'Right to Die,' Living Wills, terminal conditions, and many other aspects of euthanasia are contained in this primer-type work.

Earl Shelp. Born to Die? 

New York: Free Press, 1986. 206 pages. A candid endorsement of euthanasia and infanticide for all the usual reasons, including 'quality of life' and cost containment. Reviewed by Rosemary Bottcher on pages 5 and 6 of the October 23, 1986 issue ofNational Right to Life News.

Beth Spring and Ed Larson. Euthanasia: Spiritual, Medical & Legal Issues in Terminal Health Care. 

Multnomah Press, 10209 SE Division Street, Portland, Oregon 97226. 1988, 220 pages. A very good general and basic primer on the various issues surrounding a debate that is becoming more and more intense. The book covers the medical realities of aging; euthanasia and the law; the leading views of prominent ethicists and theologians; the traditional and current Christian perspectives and their logic and roots; living wills; and hospice care. The book also suggests a detailed action plan in Christian response to the euthanasia threat.

United States Government. Report of the Commission on the Evaluation of Pain.

The assessment of pain to determine eligibility and disability payments under Titles 2 and 16 of the Social Security Act, the definition of pain, and the major concerns regarding acute and chronic pain. Serial Number 017-070-00427-0, 1987, 220 pages. Order by mail from Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by telephone from (202) 783-3238.

Robert N. Wennberg. Terminal Choices: Euthanasia, Suicide, and the Right to Die. 

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 255 Jefferson Avenue SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503. 1989, 250 pages. This book covers a lot of ground in moderate depth, including the basics of euthanasia in general, a definition and description of the issues surrounding self-euthanasia (suicide), the morality of suicide, voluntary active euthanasia, passive euthanasia, the refusal of life-sustaining treatment, the permanently unconscious patient, and the issues surrounding the legalization of active euthanasia.

© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111

This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

www.ewtn.com

Read More