The Christian and the Question of Euthanasia
NOTE to READER - This blog is not based upon ONE Scripture passage as I have been in the habit of writing. Instead, it addresses euthanasia as it is being practiced in Canada. Therefore it is not completely relevant to those outside the country of Canada but the principles remain universal.
In my encounters with Christians who come face to face with euthanasia, I find most have a "gut feeling," which makes them uncomfortable, but they do not know how to express it.
As one fellow follower of Christ put it after hearing some Christian physicians discussing this said, "I knew in my gut there was something amiss but I didn't have the words for it. Now I have the words."
I desire to help you put some words to this complex world where medicine, suffering, and faith interact, especially in Canada's present spiritually ignorant world. Much more could be said about this topic but I have chosen just a couple of ethical concerns for those who follow Christ.
Before I get into the topic, I must clarify the context and meaning of some words used and tell you from what perspective I come.
I have been a physician in the palliative care field for over 20 years.
I have been trusted by clients going from suffering to suffering with courage, compassion, and character.
I have seen their spirit mature and grow strong despite their body weakening and failing them.
I have seen character, life, laughter, resolution of suffering, renewing of hope, and acceptance of outcome in situations I considered hopeless and intolerable.
I have seen the development of skills in palliative care increase and alleviate physical suffering and emotional/social suffering beyond what I could have dreamt possible.
And yet, the desire for hastened death remains in our Canadian culture.
I will not attempt to address the reasons why in this article as it is quite a large topic and needs a book to address it adequately.
I will not attempt to help you understand all that palliative care can do for you, as that topic needs specialized training to understand adequately.
But I will touch on these topics throughout the article where they interact with the topic of a Christian response to euthanasia.
I also want to assure you that the majority of Canadian physicians may consider physician assisted suicide has its place, but they do not want to participate in it. In other words, you can still trust their judgments and decisions on how best to help you.
I mentioned the need to define words so we can have the understanding.
who is a “christian”?
First, the word Christian. In Canada, this word means different things to different people.
The general public considers a Christian as someone who goes to church and believes in God intellectually because it is the "traditional culture". One could call them cultural Christians.
Then some feel the rules and regulations give them a solid foundation to build their lives.
Then some enjoy the rites and rituals of the church or the fellowship and social interaction of the church.
I am not using the word "Christian" in those contexts but using it in the context of one who is a follower of Christ both in intellectual belief and in actions.
definition of euthanasia
The second word is euthanasia.
This word has so many different meanings, permutations and combinations; it is mind-blowing.
Some consider stopping any medication as euthanasia.
Some consider not accepting any medical therapy as euthanasia.
Some consider giving specific pain medications as euthanasia.
But none of these are what I am referring to.
Any question regarding these issues can be addressed with a palliative care specialist.
When I say "euthanasia", I am referring to
a physician deliberately prescribing a medication which is 2-4 times the lethal dose either for you
to swallow on your own time and in your own environment,
or have him/her injecting it into your veins at a time convenient to him/her.
The medications they use are common, everyday medications used in the operating room by anesthetists to put you to sleep for surgery.
The act of using too high a dose of these drugs is what I will refer to as physician killing or physician assisted suicide.
I will use these terms, not the term MAiD, because they are more precise, and truthful.
This is the area which is fraught with moral issues for those who follow Christ.
This is the area I want to address.
BACKGROUND IN THE CANADIAN CONTEXT FOR PHYSICIAN KILLING
Let me first address some of the moral and ethical underpinnings of how Canada got to be the most lenient country in the world regarding injecting people to death. Examining this history will help reveal some moral issues Christians cannot accept.
I will start with the passing of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the 1960s.
I remember my father stating something quite profound at the time the parliament was discussing and passing this statute. He said, "This is the beginning of the end." He was referring to the moral underpinnings of this act.
During the 1960s, moral underpinnings that pervaded Canadian culture were Christian in nature, so this act was acceptable to followers of Christ. But the reasoning and discussion around the act at that time did not include our Christian heritage or the wisdom traditions of different faiths and beliefs. It followed the wisdom and arguments of "enlightened" humanism.
I did not fully understand him then, but reflecting back over the years, I can see where he was pretty prophetic. Let me explain.
The passing of this statute disconnected our governing bodies from common law, Christian principles, and the values and principles of generations past. Instead, it connected them with a "new" set of values and principles.
This "new" set was free from the detailed interpretations discussed and debated by many wise men and women of the centuries. Instead, it gave the government and Supreme Court a clear slate they could interpret as they felt led to interpret from their limited life experience as human beings.
Let's examine this in light of our topic of euthanasia.
I am going to reference a document published by the Royal Society of Canada that summarizes this debate very well.1
The Royal Society of Canada established a "Panel" to discuss the need for physician killing at the end of life. The chapter on ethics extensively referenced the Charter of Rights and Freedom and how the Supreme Court of Canada had interpreted "self-determination".
The term "self-determination" is indirectly referenced in the Charter. The author, as have others, changed the word "self-determination" to the word "autonomy".
Using this word, he wrote how Beverley McLachlan, the past Supreme Court chief justice, had changed her mind on the interpretation of autonomy over this short period of 30 years. She had judged that it was not legal to allow a physician to kill Sue Rodriguez in the 1980s based on self determination, but from the 1980s to the present, her priority position for "autonomy" in court proceedings had changed. The author concluded that she was, therefore, "morally obliged" to use the value of "autonomy" and only the value of autonomy in allowing Canadians to end their lives with a physician's assistance.
No other value could be used to trump "autonomy".
These are powerful words and concepts. First off, as a Christian, my moral code is not based on the interpretation of the recent Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My moral code is based upon the laws of God.
If we truly follow Christ, we will follow God's ancient, proven texts, not the whimsical, unproven text of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Oh, you may say that 60 years of testing this Charter is enough time to prove it, but I would say one generation only provides a narrow perspective given the span of human history and development.
You also may say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has in its preface, "Under the Supremacy of God…" so therefore it’s statements are in the context of Christian values.
Well, the Supreme Court has ruled that the preface of this statute cannot be used to interpret law as it is too vague and "non-inclusive". Therefore, the last remaining vestige of this charter connected with the Christian faith has been removed.
Given this backdrop, the Supreme Court no longer needs to use the moral code of religions nor the standards and interpretations provided by common law.
Hence, the interpretation of "autonomy" as provided by this Charter is under the authority of the Supreme Court judges, the new "gods" of Canadian law.
I will not be surprised if we see the interpretation of "autonomy" change within the next few decades, just as it has in the past few decades.
It is whimsical and dependent upon the "fallen nature" of human judges.
History has proven how unreliable their interpretations can be, whereas history has proven the laws and principles of great wisdom traditions (upon which common law has as its foundation) endure the test of millennia.
This change in interpretation of "autonomy" opens the doors to further narcissistic interpretations under the guidance of the phrase used by our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau,
"Do that which is right for you".
His words sound very much like the Bible verse that says, "There is a way which seems right unto man, but the ways thereof are the ways of death" (Prov 16:25).
Or the phrase one can often read in the account of the period when judges ruled over Israel - "And everyone did what was right in their own eyes".
These words introduced anarchy and the destruction of the Jewish society over and over again as recorded in the Old Testament..
Examples abound throughout history of this happening since the recording of events in the Old Testament.
The Soviet Union, during its civil war of the early 1900s, led to anarchy which was then controlled by dictatorship - a dictatorship that denied and punished faith only to rule by repression and oppression based on humanistic values - those same values our Supreme Court is basing its decisions on today.
The Nazi party of the early 1900s led to humanistic eugenics as determined by humanity, not God - those same values are being perpetrated by our “elites” in academia and senior public service
Let us go back to the article by the Royal Society of Canada and examine it in light of the brief history given above.
The ethicist who wrote this article has clearly shown the standard he has used to argue for physician killing.
It does not come from faith or God, it comes from the Supreme Court of Canada or humanism.
Who does this "Panel" worship?
The Father God of life and truth, or the father of death and deception?
Faith says, "Do not intentionally kill" therefore this “Panel” worships the father of death and deception.
Unfortunately, modern translations of the Bible have interpreted the Hebrew word "rasah" as "murder," which was correct until the twisted spirit of man found another way to intentionally kill.
This time, they use personal consent to allow medicine to intentionally kill under the banner of “compassion”.
Humanism says, "Whatever the dictator or democratic governments decide is true, is true".
This is not the God of Creation who is transcendent and whose “thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are His ways our ways”
Their god is no longer a transcendent God above us all, but their god is themselves.
They may say it is the will of the community/society but it is still using limited human wisdom and knowledge.
This god of theirs stems from our desire to have the "knowledge of good and evil".
Where did that come from?
The Garden of Eden and the start of our fallen nature. Oh, the human "heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it" (Jer 17:9).
Or, "there is a way which seems right unto man, but the ways thereof are the ways of death," as quoted above.
In the context of our topic, the "ways of death" can be interpreted as physical death as well as spiritual death. Satan's goal is to see you dead, and the sooner, the better, as far as he is concerned.
Another point we can draw from this article is the capitalization of the word "Panel".
As I read this, I found it strange that the reference to a human panel was capitalized. It did not reference particular individuals or explicitly consider it the ultimate authority, but by capitalizing it, he implicitly implied that this panel had the ultimate authority.
I concluded that he, consciously or unconsciously, was implying that his arguments contained the ultimate truth needed to change the law of physician assisted death.
This panel took the place of God and His Authority.
Once again, we can see that Father God and His Authority has been replaced by the father of deception and his authority.
If you read further into the referenced chapter, the author takes every argument used against allowing physician killing and negates them.
Hence, the only argument worth listening to is “autonomy”.
This is foolishness to use the word found in the prophets time and time again when referring to wayward Israel.
If one takes one value out of context and its interplay with other values, one becomes extreme in their analysis and does not see the whole truth of reality.
This became evident, according to one of the opponent's defence during the Supreme Court's hearing.
One of the many lawyers arguing against allowing physician killing told me that the Supreme Court judges were not hearing their arguments. He said it this way, "We are not getting through to the judges with our arguments. It is seems we do not know what they want to hear."
Well, let's unpack that a bit.
Does that imply that the Supreme Court judges had predetermined what arguments they "wanted to hear"?
Or what values they wanted to discuss as opposed to opening up the debate to include the whole discussion of suffering and end of life, not just an individual's "autonomy"?
Does this imply that the judges did not want to hear about the effects this law would have on the whole of society as opposed to an individual and his rights?
One can conclude that the answer to these questions is "Yes".
And the evidence is pointing more and more that way.
An excellent example of this comes from the Quebec Superior Court judge, Truchon, who stated that not allowing the disabled to ask for physician killing is unconstitutional. As it turns out, she is pro-euthanasia and used some of her father's pro-euthanasia articles as evidence to support her decision.
This is conflict of interest, but the provincial or federal attorney generals never challenged it.
Why?
They are biased toward physician killing as well.
You see, they wanted to hear arguments on "autonomy" and the individual "right to death" (which, by the way, is not in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
They know that implementing this law will draw one away from the Creator and towards them. In other words, they know that they will ultimately control you under the guise of giving you freedom to choose.
If you narrow down the evidence you want to hear, you start going down a "rabbit hole" and lose sight of reality. But the ethicist of the article I am referring to, addressed this in his article.
He actually used the term "rabbit hole" for each of the arguments against allowing physician killing.
One argument he considered a "rabbit hole" was the slippery slope argument.
He argued it was unlikely to happen, and if it did happen, it would be hard to prove that changing the law caused it to happen. In other words, if this law goes sideways, his "Panel" was not culpable.
This is so classic for many arguments used in the pro-euthanasia group.
This tells me they are so wrapped up in their "rights" they will not take "responsibility". It sounds like a three-year-old child talking, doesn't it? "I didn't do it, Mommy," as they stand there with chocolate all over their face.
You see, they do not want to take responsibility if things go sideways.
The unfortunate truth is many of the arguments against euthanasia have come true—especially the argument of the slippery slope.
We have gone from the Supreme Court's definition of allowing those with "intolerable suffering" and "foreseeable death" to ignoring these criteria and allowing disabled people to access it.
Anyone with personal suffering who no longer wants to live can access it whether they are close to death or not.
And now we are considering those with mental illness, children with "incurable" conditions, and advance directives to have access to being killed.
We are ignoring another Supreme Court definition of it coming from "informed consent".
How can one who is depressed and suicidal give informed consent?
How can a child or mature adolescent who does not even know the options life can offer, be able to give informed consent?
How can those who have dementia provide informed consent?
How can I guarantee that the suffering I feel now, or the suffering I fear will happen to me, will actually be present when the time comes?
I can hardly wait to follow the trail of rationalization to allow these people access to physician killing.
Why is this?
Well, one of our past Minister of Justice, David Lametti, has publicly stated that the implementation of MAiD was always intended to be advanced stepwise.
In other words, our current Prime Minister and he have always seen this as an avenue to kill people under the umbrella of medicine under the guise of “informed consent”.
Can we say their pre-determined intent was not to limit it to those close to death and as a medical exception but to allow people to “Do what is right for you” as stated by our Prime Minister?
They have no intention of just following the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
What a "rabbit hole" we have entered in this argument.
And the dead end of this "rabbit hole" is death.
Who is the father of this line of reasoning?
The Father of life and truth or the father of death and deception?
Summary
So, let us summarize the conclusions from this examination of the ethical foundations for Canada's euthanasia laws:
1) Morality for the Christian comes from the Creator God of the Scriptures whereas the morality for Canadian law comes from the gods of Supreme Court, Criminal Code, and humanism.
2) God for the Christian comes from the Creator God of the Scriptures whereas the god for Canadian law comes from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
3) Faith for the Christian comes through Christ Jesus to the Creator God whereas faith for Canadian law comes through human wisdom and its representatives in the government and courts.
4) Life for the Christian comes from the Spirit of God given to us through the Holy Spirit and His principles. In contrast, life for the average Canadian comes from the Supreme Court decisions and the government's provision of health, safety, and peace.
5) Truth for the Christian comes from Creator God, whereas truth for the average Canadian comes from the government, human institutions, science, technology, and human intelligence.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
All of this sounds rigid and harsh, and it is.
Unfortunately, that is the nature of truth,
but there is also mercy, grace, and love if we are to examine this topic further.
You see, it involves human life, which is important, wonderful, and sacred.
How are these portrayed in the argument for physician killing?
Well, suffering does make us plead for pity and mercy.
And so, where do we look to obtain this mercy and grace?
Do we look to God, His principles, and His Presence,
or do we look to Canadian physicians as the "gods" responsible for providing pity and mercy?
Is suffering worse than death?
Or have we been duped into seeing death as a welcoming, friendly escape route out of suffering?
Here, again, we see the hand of the Deceiver who loves death, who wants everyone to die and the sooner, the better.
Do we see the kingdom of Evil and its ultimate goal of death as worthy of our praise?
Are we so afraid of suffering that just the anticipation of it destroys us?
So, how did Canadian law around euthanasia become so lax and accepted?
Well, you can answer that by examining the beliefs of Canadians as presented by the arguments above, but there is more to it than that.
The implementation of this change in law is where the rubber meets the road.
I will start by using the example of an intensivist physician (one who specializes in ICU) who also took some palliative care training.
His articles and blogs have made physician killing just an extension of an honoured and accepted branch of medicine - palliative care.
He said that physician assisted death is "just an extension of the care provided by palliative medicine". This is completely false as modern day palliative care was founded on two principles - faith and medicine.
Herein lies comforting words to ease the existential distress physician killing rises in the soul of medicine.
It is just another option of accepted medical treatment.2
This understanding legitimizes it and does not make physician killing an exception to medical therapy.
The Netherlands, known for its euthanasia, does not consider physician killing as an option of medical therapy. It considers it an exception to medical therapy and therefore has built a structure around it which is monitored by the legal system, physicians, and other health professionals.
But Canadian medicine, considering it another option of medical care, makes it fit into the existing framework of medicine, thereby excluding the legal oversight and the involvement of other health professionals and their regulatory bodies. It is just another medical option that can be offered between patient and physician.
The result is lack of accountability.
The colleges who license physicians have no disciplinary structures surrounding this because it is considered "an accepted medical option".
If someone "breaks the rules", it is not their problem; it is a legal matter that must be addressed legally by the courts.
The legal system sees it as another medical option and says it is outside their jurisdiction, and so refers it back to the medical colleges.
Oh, what a circle we have created.
No one is accountable to anyone, so the physician can do whatever he/she wants without repercussion.
An expert in Health Care Serial Killers from the UK has stated that at least 3 Canadian physicians show all the traits of serial killers.
One physician has made physician killing their practice and, over the span of 5 years, has killed over 450 people. Even before the change in law allowing those with chronic disease (without foreseeable death), she was killing those meeting these criteria. Even now, before the law allowing mentally ill patients to access physician killing, she performs it on these people. Why do they get away with it? Because of the reasoned circle described above.
And no charge of health care serial killing dares enter the Canadian courts.
The evidence from other health professionals and physicians who have followed the patient for long periods is looked at cursorily in those requesting physician assisted suicide, but not in the spirit of "is this case so exceptional it warrants treatment outside of medical therapy".
It is looked at in the spirit of "gathering information" to fill in their form of guided questions.
You see, it is a written form with questions to make it look like the final decision is "objective".
This objectivity does not consider the person or the subjective nature of suffering.
That approach is considered out of the domain of "medicine".
Their final decision is only "medical" and does not include the full spectrum of human meaning and value.
Oh, they ask questions about social and religious concerns, but anyone can change their beliefs or answer the questions superficially without considering the implications.
No wonder this law has expanded and enlarged itself so rapidly. It's deemed accepted medical therapy.
And so when a physician asks a suffering patient who has placed their trust in him/her,
"There is always the option of MAiD for you"
What do you think their response would be?
The whole circumstance and context has been primed to see it as a "medically acceptable option". Who wouldn't want to eliminate the present suffering or the potential risk of future suffering?
But realize the solution is not guaranteed to eliminate suffering, but it is guaranteed to eliminate the sufferer.
It is not a level playing field. The stage has already been set. It is only those with strong determination or who have thought out their decisions beforehand who will say "No" to such an offer.
And some physicians enjoy the power and control over life it gives them.
Illustrative case study
I think of one such case.
She discovered she had very advanced cancer, which paralyzed her legs. They said she would never walk again and had a prognosis of less than one year.
She started expressing her grief very loudly. The anguish was so pronounced, and the lack of acceptance so profound the medical staff asked for a psychiatrist's consult.
During that consultation, he agreed with her distress and said, "There is always the option of MAiD for you".
She didn't understand the term MAiD, so he explained it was physician killing.
She was appalled by this thought. She covered her face with her pillow and screamed.
She couldn't wait to get out of that hospital.
She came to the center I was working in because she could no longer live alone at home. It took months for her to trust us because of the fear instilled by this psychiatrist.
She feared we could "kill her" if she expressed the depth of her grief. She continued to express her suffering out loud and forcefully but now into her pillow as she did in the hospital for fear that we would misinterpret the intent.
We gave her the needed medical and nursing support so she could walk again and live.
She did walk and she did live, not just one year but five years.
So much for accurate medical prognostication of life expectancy. Instead of living one year, as determined by the medical experts, she lived five times longer.
So much for accuracy in addressing patient suffering. She wanted to express her grief in a way that was considered excessive in our culture and was interpreted as “intolerable”. She expressed her grief so she could build up the courage to walk again, and she did.
So much for understanding the hyperbole in the expression of suffering.
She, as have many others, showed me that our ability to determine the time of death is appalling and that our patience in walking alongside someone suffering can be appalling at times. If it were not for her strong determination to reject the offer of physician killing and choose life, she would not have been with us.
And the strength of her determination must be measured by the fact that it was tested in the midst of great suffering. How many of us have that strength and bias to life that we would reject death in the midst of suffering? Their example gives me courage when my time comes.
The reality of physician assisted death not only sounds rigid and harsh, it is.
But the deception of the recent decades has softened it to sound merciful and compassionate. Let me give you some examples.
What used to be called the "Hemlock Society" changed its name because they found people were shunning them.
So, they changed their name to "Compassion and Choice" for public relations' reasons. Their popularity rose.
Unfortunately, in changing their name, they chose words that are acceptable to society but do not tell the truth.
Look at the word "compassion".
Compassion means walking alongside someone with care and warmth, whereas the word pity means asking someone who has the power to help you out of a situation.
When this Society offers assisted death, they are not showing compassion. They are giving you pity.
Why didn't they use the word "pity"? Because the connotations of the word "pity" are not popular and convey the idea that you are asking for someone stronger than you to help you get out of a situation.
Our society does not want to look like there is someone with more power over us. We are "autonomous" beings who control our own lives.
They want you to believe that you are in control throughout the process, which is a lie in this field of physician assisted death.
Picture someone, or yourself, as suffering.
They are so desperate, they are out of control.
Their suffering consumes them.
They are looking for someone to bring back control in their lives. Being out of control creates a void.
Who walks into this void?
Is it God, friends, and faith,
or is it physicians and death?
Your choice determines who you want to control your life when you can't. Some physicians love control. They love the power it gives them. And as the proportion of physicians who shun God grows, the proportion who love power as opposed to servanthood grows along with it.
Of course, it is all hidden under the banner of compassion and care instead of pity and power. It looks good, but its roots are perverse.
You can hear this in physicians' answers when asked if they agree with euthanasia. When asked about specific examples, they quote brain tumours which can cause bad seizures, ALS, which ends life with shortness of breath, or cancers which leave you deformed.
If you ask them how many brain tumours lead to seizures, they must admit it is not the majority and they can be controlled.
If you ask them how many ALS die of shortness of breath, they must admit that it is less than 10%, and present-day palliative care can control it. I
f you ask them what is an unacceptable deformity produced by cancer, they do not know the answer.
So if it is true that all these clinical diseases can be addressed and addressed well, why do physicians still feel euthanasia is needed?
In the Canadian context, I find most of them think that if they cannot handle the suffering, there is no other source the patient can turn to for help.
In other words, the patient sees them as "god," and they agree.
I have encountered this attitude in patients or their family members where they demonstrate that they consider me, their physician, as having all the answers. My response to many of them was, "We have reached the limit of what medical science can do. We can provide comfort and relief for pain, but the final outcome is now between you (the patient) and your Creator".
It amazes me how often their attitude and source of hope changes.
Their anxiety changes, their focus changes, and they no longer cling to me as their ultimate and only source for answers.
I allowed them to take me off the "god" pedestal.
I am no longer considered the only one who has the answers so they start looking elsewhere - to a power higher than medical science, to a power higher than physical life, to a power beyond themselves.
The result?
The suffering they were experiencing lessens.
The hopelessness they felt from the impotence of medical science changes to one seeking hope elsewhere, and they find it.
And they view me, a physician, as an equal who will journey alongside them. It is then, and only then that I, as a physician, can show the true definition of compassion. I become equal with them on this journey of life, and I will walk beside them on this journey of life.
Unfortunately, those who administer lethal doses do not take themselves off that "god" pedestal. Or worse yet, they do not want to be considered as less than "god" which is the case in those who continue to promote physician killing. They demonstrate pity and power, not compassion and humane care.
And, why does Canada call physician killing MAiD, which stands for "Medical Assistance in Dying"?
For the same reasons the Hemlock Society changed its name.
So that physician killing would sound better for public relations and promotion, but also to soothe the consciences or confuse the minds of Canadians.
One seminar I gave to second-year Family Medicine residents comes vividly to mind.
I was talking about the literature and experiences of other countries on physician assisted suicide (PAS) or physician assisted death (PAD), which are the terms used in the literature. This seminar was held the same year (2016) the law in Canada was being debated, and the anachronym MAiD was already introduced.
I received feedback from the attending residents a few weeks after the seminar. About 10 of the 30 participants gave comments like -
"He is old and out of date",
"He does not know what he is talking about".
And one stated, "He is outdated because he doesn’t even know it’s called MAiD, not PAS or PAD”.
Did the comments hurt me?
Yes, but not in a personal way.
I was hurt to realize that thinking young men and women, the cream of our society, were accepting our government's propaganda without question. That is the power of words; that is the power of half-truths. It was being accepted without reflection.
The chosen words pervert and can ultimately destroy the lives of young men and women who then, in turn, share it with those they serve.
That is what hurt me the most.
Concluding comments
Hopefully, this discourse has outlined some of the reasons for the bad feeling in your gut around euthanasia.
Hopefully, it has exposed another side of this issue than that which you hear from the media, the government, and some physicians.
We need to use our minds to guard our hearts, and that is my intent.
They can kill the physical body, but do not let them destroy your soul along with it.
As a retired palliative care physician, I cannot support physician killing of any sort.
Why?
The spirit behind it is of the world, not God. It is against my life-giving principles and my Creator God who created life.
But what about those caught up in this pursuit or administration of lethal drug doses?
How do we approach them?
And, more poignantly, how do we approach those who confess Christ and still go through with physician killing?
Are we to judge them? No, we must realize that that judgment is not ours to make. That remains between them and God.
1) We can provide them with information such as found in this article,
2) or we can provide them with an alternate route, such as palliative care and preparing for the dignity of natural death.
3) Or we can continue to give compassion and care by walking beside them.
That is the proper foundation of palliative care.
That is the true foundation of the Christian life.
We live in a fallen world, and we are to live the example of Christ. So when someone involved in MAiD comes across our path, we must pray for God's guidance on how best to be Christ to them.
This involves "abiding in the Vine (Christ Jesus)" (John 15).
This consists in praying for them.
This involves sharing with them.
This involves actively listening to them.
I am in the process of writing a book entitled "The Hyperbole of Suffering - A Palliative Care Physician looks at the Book of Job". In this book, we see that those who suffer say things and do extreme things, and we need to take them in the context of suffering.
The goal of suffering is to destroy the "person".
We need to walk with them to show them that they are valuable and more than their suffering and that their "person" need not be destroyed by suffering.
Lady Cecily Saunders, the mother of modern medicine, stated it this way, "You matter because you are you; we will help you live until the day you die".
So, we have now examined the moral and intellectual side of physician assisted killing.
What are our next steps?
I would like to introduce a course prepared by the Catholic Church entitled "Horizons of Hope" .3
It consists of four modules, each addressing the topic from the two perspectives of faith and medicine.
It is meant for the general public who consider themselves followers of Christ. It helps you personally prepare for the day of foreseeable death as well as enables you to help others who find themselves on this journey of discovery. The course provides a facilitator's guide as well as a promotions kit. Here are the titles for each of the four modules:
1) Understanding the experience of dying and death
2) Discerning and making decisions at the end of life
3) Accompanying at the end of life
4) Supporting and integrating inside the wider community
Each module takes about one hour but can be longer if there is more discussion. And it is recommended that one module be done per week. Therefore the entire course could be completed within one month. You can view all the material on the website using this link
This is the best solution for the process of dying.
Dying is tough, complex, and gut-wrenching, but it can be character-building, life-giving, and hope-filled.
I highly recommend you lay down firm foundations in preparation for this day that befalls all mortals.
References
1. The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: End-of-Life Decision Making, November 2011
2. Canada: Euthanasia (MAiD) has become an ideology, Dr. Scott Kim, Globe & Mail, Feb 25, 2023
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-in-canada-maid-has-become-a-matter-of-ideology/
3. Horizons of Hope, CCCB Canada see link intext.