~ A place to find answers to gnawing spiritual questions ~
Question: I am a reborn Christian and neonatologist by profession. What is your opinion on the "sanctity of life". As neonatologists we are frequently confronted by situations that spell out "futility" with regard to maintaining life-sustaining therapy, i.e. withdrawal of artificial ventilation. Is it correct to assume that all human life should be regarded as "sacred" and therefore worth to be sustained at all cost and under all circumstances? I find no direct reference to support the fact that the Word of God attributes sanctity to all human life. The word "sanctity" of life is not in the Bible? There are however those who were sanctified in their mother's wombs, i.e. Jeremiah, John the Baptist, etc. Surely it cannot be extrapolated to all human beings? Do we consider physical life (bios) and mental life(psuche) "lower" life than what our Lord considers to be worthwhile life - i.e. eternal life. What I am getting at is, how do you think the Lord views withdrawal of life-support in medical cases that have no prognosis of surviving without that support? I am not trying to be difficult, I honestly am seeking the Truth and would therefore appreciate your response.Answer:
Your question is both thought-provoking and expedient in our culture. I had wanted to wait until I could thoroughly research an answer both from the scientific and Scriptural points of view. My schedule of late has not allowed that, so, today I determined to answer from my opinion of how the tenor of Scripture addresses the question. In other words, I won't be listing and quoting Scriptures, but answering from a background of Biblical principles. Certainly, you are more qualified to speak on the scientific dimension of the question. Since, unfortunately, I have as a pastor had to counsel quite frequently with families with the dilemma of whether or not to remove life-support, I will focus on that aspect of your question. Well, enough preface remarks.
Undoubtedly, Scripture teaches that God is the giver of human life. His breath in the first man gave physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual life all together. As Giver of human life, only God is the rightful Taker of life.*(Please see note at end.). Man has proven he cannot handle the job. It was inevitable that abortion would lead to euthanasia. Francis Schaeffer (whose writings I would highly recommend) warned of this decades ago. None were willing to believe it. Dr. Kevorkian came on the scene and proved Dr. Schaffer correct. Once you put the decision of who lives and doesn't live into man's hand, you're into trouble. To kill an unborn fetus(human) destroys the sanctity of all human life. Once you establish one condition where one human can take another human's life then the door is opened to introducing other conditions where taking a human life is acceptable. First, it was abortion. Next, it was euthanasia. Soon, it will be clearing out overcrowded nursing homes of suffering or incognitive older people who are costing our government too much. Already, with multiple fetuses, selective reduction is being practiced. Again, the point is man cannot make the decisions of who lives and who doesn't. It will always lead to a Hitlerian society.
Invariably, once man assumes the right to take a human life, the question of quality of life comes up. In this line of thinking, if one isn't enjoying a quality of life, that life should be ended, or at least, it would be acceptable to end it. There is a big problem here. Who is to decide what quality of life is? Hypothetically, a person with a painful, terminal disease is given as a case. Let's leave that alone for a minute. Many have no terminal disease but are severely mentally handicap. Others have tramatic emotional baggage. Others eke out a meager, miserable existence economically. Should all these in all cases be euthanized, or assisted in suicide? Many teenagers face things that to them has ended any semblance of quality of life. But they grow beyond that. Severely mentally handicapped and physically handicapped people either experience joy or give care-givers a sense of purpose and object of love. But back to the question. Who decides what is quality of life? A doctor? Which doctor? An abortion doctor? The community? The family? The person himself that is too tramaticized to make any rational choice? I'm sure the point is made.
Conclusively, only the Giver of life should be the Taker of life. Now, all that may seem like I'm against removing life-support. I'm not. All the above is simply the principles with which we need to make the decision. With families in consternation of whether or not to remove the life-support from a loved one, I always first encourage the family to ask several doctors whether or not the life-support is remedial or simply prolonging the inevitable. Unless life support is remedial, it is invasive. The next thing I stress is the fact that there is a BIG difference between letting die and taking a life. Certainly, I'm not talking about letting someone die that has a treatable condition. But, there is a death process. To simply try to impede or prolong the death process is invasive. If the life-support is not remedial, not a treatment, then to remove someone from it is not killing a person, but letting them die. It is letting God make the choice. (Here I am Armenian enough to believe that God often let's us stand in the way of His will. Hezekiah was dying and protested. God gave Hezekiah extra years which he used badly, sinning against God.) It may be God's time for a person to die, (as evidenced by either untreatable disease or injury, or by the evidence of the body's death processes) and to continue life support is actually saying no to God's will.
Human life in all cases is sacred because God is the Giver. But we must also realize that even though life is sacred because God is the Giver, God is also the Taker.*(Please understand "Taker" in the sense given in the note below). We should not interfere with His giving it (abortion) nor with His taking it (invasive life-support). Of course, we should never assume ourselves to be God's assistant in taking life. It is His to take. Also, unless in the best of medical knowledge a person is untreatable, one should never fail to attempt to save a life however bad the disease or injury. Measures should only be stopped when available treatment has been tried and death is still inevitable. A death among family and friends, although sooner, is better than a death where medicine continues to engage in treatment that only prolongs life. There comes a time when medicine should focus on the comfort, not the treatment, of the terminally ill. Why continue hopeless chemotherapy when it will make the patient suffer a worse death than simply going sooner without treatment. No, these aren't easy determinations to make for either the doctors or family. But there is great comfort of knowing we have done all we can do and then can simply put the matter in God's hands.
Certainly, God can take a life if He wants to even if that person is on life-support. And certainly God can cause hopeless chemotherapy to work. But that isn't the point. The point is that we don't try to play God. If life-support in medical opinion won't work, let God make the decision with the person off of it. To turn it around, yes, God can take a life even if they are on life support. But He can also keep them alive when they are off of it. Yes, God can heal during hopeless chemotherapy. But He can also heal without it. Again, in both cases with life-support and with chemotherapy we are considering treatment that in the estimation of the medical realm cannot scientifically remedy anything.
I think the above principles and practicalities illustrates that to believe that there are times we do not attempt to sustain life is not inconsistent with believing that we should never take a life. Life in all cases is sacred. Let God give it. Let God take it. And bless the wonderful name of the Lord.
Thank God for Christian professionals like yourself. You will be a big help to families medically and spiritually.
*The way I use "Taker" in "God is the Taker of life" must not be misunderstood. I am using Taker to contrast man taking a life as opposed to leaving the decision to God. Thus the contrast is between man as a taker of life and God as the Taker of life. In no way do I believe that God actively takes the life of small children my means of cancer or takes the life of a Daddy by means of an automobile accident caused by a drunken driver, for examples. It is cruel when a small child has died to tell the parents, "God took your baby." It is the effects of sin, the devil, catastrophes of a fallen world, evil choices of bad people, etc., that "take" lives. Certainly, God rules and overrules. He allows, in His great wisdom, lives to be taken as the affairs of men are worked out in the larger picture of the battle of good and evil. He allows that which ultimately is for our good and His glory. I just want it clear that I do not believe that God is the Taker of life in the sense of being the Agent of death. The devil and sin are the agents of death. God in His infinite wisdom makes the decision of when a person's life will be taken by the enemy death. Leaving the decision of when a life should end to God is the sense in which I use God as the Taker of life.
Copyright © 2010 - The Lorain County Free-Net Chapel
North Central Ohio, U.S.A.
Home of David Wilkerson's World Challenge Pulpit Series Multilingual Web Site
www.tscpulpitseries.org
Webmaster
This page was last updated August 14, 2010.
Why Revival Tarries/ "Help!"/ What's Here/ Bookstore/ Statement of Faith/ Bible Study/ Around the Piano/ Bulletin Board/ Library/ Home