Until I experienced God through HIS Word
and deed, I was fearful, apprehensive and didn’t desire death. But when I
believed in Christ and became aware of the glorious life that awaited me, the
fear of death vanished. Today, I welcome death anytime, for when I die I will be
with my God forever. The fear of death is dead in my life (cf. Psalm 23: 4;
Romans 8: 38-39; 2 Corinthians 5: 8; Philippians 1: 21-23), for death is the
gateway to a glorious eternity with God.
While I was discussing with a very dear
brother about the torment of evil and expectation of a joyous life, we hoped
that the Lord’s second coming is imminent, for evil will be annihilated when HE
returns in all HIS glory and splendor. So, death can be viewed as a transition from
the evil world to a joyous eternity in heaven. If death doesn’t facilitate this
glorious transition, then one hopes that the Lord would arrive soon to deliver
us from evil and pain. If one fails to desire death from the perspective of a
glorious eternal coexistence with God, the existential reality of evil could
motivate the frail to die, as an escape mechanism from the pain of suffering.1
This is the predicament of a suffering
man who loses all his means and hope to live on earth. He desires death through
suicide as a means of exiting the world of evil and torment. But, is suicide acceptable?
Imagine a world renowned artist painting
before a large audience. He finishes the spectacular work of art, and the
audience is fascinated. Following are two scenarios: in the first, the artist
unexpectedly shreds the painting to pieces! The audience is greatly saddened.
In the second scenario, after the art is painted, a man from the audience unexpectedly
grabs the art and shreds it. This man is detained by the police.
In both scenarios, the fascinating piece
of art is lost. In the first scenario, the art is shredded by the owner. None
can complain, but for the fact that the world lost a precious work. In the
second scenario, a man shreds the art without the owner’s consent. This being theft
and destruction, the culprit is nabbed by the police.
The above illustration serves as an
analogy of our life. God is the artist and our life is HIS art. God, being the
creator and sustainer, is the owner of every life. As in the scenario of the artist
shredding his art, there could be, at most, a feeble concern, when the creator
God, the owner of every life, chooses to eliminate that very life HE created. However,
if anyone else eliminates that life (through suicide or murder), he is an
unauthorized eliminator, for he rebels against God (the owner of life), who
alone possesses all authority to eliminate the very life that HE created.
I say this at length to affirm that
suicide is a sin against God. God makes and takes life. HE has the sole
authority over every life. When man commits suicide, he dethrones God, and sins
against HIM. Aquinas teaches that suicide is a sin on account of three violations
– nature and self love, community, and God. He states that our freewill (inclination
to commit suicide) should submit to God’s authority, who alone can decide our
exit from this world.2
Having said this, I believe that a Christian
who commits suicide is not hell bound, since we are saved by grace through
faith. My rationale for this fact has been presented in my blog, “Way to
Heaven? Not By Works!” A man who commits suicide violates God’s will and expedites
his journey to the other side of eternity. Therefore, a believer in Christ should
not commit suicide, instead he should trust in God for deliverance during
moments of excruciating pain.
“The
timing and manner of a person’s death belongs ultimately to God (Eccl. 3: 1-2;
Heb 9: 27),” writes
Scott Rae. 3Although death is considered an enemy (1 Corinthians 15:
55-56), for Christians, death is a vanquished enemy. God gives everyone who
believes in Christ, the victory through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus on the
Cross of Calvary. Thus, it is mandatory that death not be resisted or
expedited.
Let us look at physician-assisted
suicide and euthanasia.4 If a man is dying and his prognosis
hopeless with any further treatment determined as medically futile, in general,
he could be allowed to die. However, considering that man’s death is in God’s
hands, removal of life support that leads to physician-assisted suicide and
euthanasia could be problematic. Not every decision to terminate life need be
morally acceptable. For example, removing the ventilator that provides
breathing support to a recovering patient would be unethical. Thus, we need to
think through physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, because our moral
choices would either abide by or abate the moral values that protect the
sanctity and dignity of life - the dying included.
One can posit the validity of euthanasia
from the realm of mercy - as a justified end to needless suffering. But medical
alternates are: to sedate the patient to sleep (unconscious state) or to
relieve pain (which could even hasten the death of a patient, but as an
unintended act).
Scott Rae states that euthanasia could
be advocated from, among others, the perspectives of ‘utility’ – avoidance of a
high cost medical care, and ‘Personal Autonomy’ – one can decide when to die as
one can decide when to marry. ‘Utility’ can be questioned from the ill-advised
future possibility of coercing a terminally ill patient to consent to euthanasia,
and ‘Personal Autonomy’ can be disputed citing the fact that an individual has
no absolute right over his life. (This theme has been discussed in my previous
blog on abortion).
Scott emphasizes that the opponents of
euthanasia conclude that euthanasia and assisted suicide amounts to killing an
innocent person. Since elimination of life is God’s prerogative, they reinforce
that human beings cannot play God by eliminating human life. But this argument
will not be accepted by atheists, who do not believe in God. The opponents of
euthanasia also emphasize the redemptive value of suffering (suffering equips a
believer to comfort others who suffer). If suffering is good for one’s life,
then one can argue against every medical care that eases suffering. But why shouldn’t
medicine alleviate unnecessary suffering? A better reasoning against the
redemptive value of suffering is the proximity of suffering to death. If
suffering leads to death, then the suffering one cannot positively impact the one
suffering. So the redemptive value of suffering diminishes.5
To conclude, all possible medical
treatment should be offered to the dying if the treatment can potentially save
him. But, postponing death is not the only solution because every life is
valuable irrespective of its quality. The development of medical technology
could extend one’s life span, but one should be cautious to not use expensive
medical resources on treatment that is futile. Medical treatment should be
withdrawn when it is no longer helpful to a dying patient or when the treatment
is more burdensome than being helpful to him. “Even though death is rightly to be resisted through reasonable medical
means, the Christian’s eternal destiny is beyond death. In that sense, death
for a Christian is by definition a “good death” because it ushers him or her
into God’s presence in eternal life,” says Scott Rae.
May the strength and wisdom of God
prevail upon those contemplating suicide and those applying medical treatment
in seriously ill patients. May HIS pleasing and perfect will be done in each
life. Amen.
Notes and References:
1 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Human
Life as a Journey to God - 29.4, p208.
2 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Living
in the World – Moral Virtue - 64.6, p391.
3 Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An
Introduction to Ethics, 3rd Ed, p218, 2009.
4 Euthanasia is often termed, ‘mercy
killing.’ It is a direct and intentional effort of a medical professional (e.g.
through lethal injection of drugs) to help a dying patient die. (Scott B. Rae,
Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics, 3rd Ed, p214.)
5 Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices: An
Introduction to Ethics, 3rd Ed, p224-234, 2009.
(6) Thoughts pertaining to Physician
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia have been extracted from Scott Rae’s work,
‘Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics,’ barring sporadic interposals of my
thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment