I know the Terri Shiavo case is a hot topic right now. However, I would absolutely love to have a discussion here about the whole "living will" or "end of life" issues. Honestly, I am totally in process on this whole thing, and see the value of both sides of the reasoned argument. I'd love to hear from many of you what you think is the right course of action from a biblical mindset.
This is a SAFE blog entry. In other words, please DO NOT respond overly emotional to someone's viewpoint or attack personally the person making a point. I really would love to have an open 'conversation' about this. Feel free to respond anonymously if that is helpful. I'll be vulnerable in some of my thinking as well in the comments section. Looking forward to a good discussion.
Steve
11 comments:
This has been a hard issue for me as well. I do not think that this is a case where anyone should be able to pass a judgment immediately, as that would require that they had not thought the issue through enough. However, be that as it may, and with the caveat that my thougth are still as of yet not fully solidified, I will attempt to put forth my views.
Modern medicine is able to do incredible things, many of which are marvelous and for which we should be very grateful. God has given us creativity and good minds so that we do what we can, and we would stand condemnable if we were not to do all that we could. However, that does not mean that all of what our modern medicine does is necessarily the best option--or even good.
With regard to the end of life, there is certainly good that can be done in prolonging it. When the person is capable of living a fruitful life, keeping that person alive is good. However, when the person is no longer able to be productive, cannot participate in the normal activities of life, and cannot use their mind, keeping the body alive may not be the best option. If all we are doing is prolonging the 'life' of the body, and thereby delaying the departure of the soul into the afterlife, then perhaps we do a disservice. The single-minded insistence upon the prolongation of life at all costs is based upon a presupposition that the physical life is of the utmost importance--more even than the soul. I do not believe that this ought to be the case. While I simultaneously abhor the idea that only the soul is of import, the primacy of the physical, I suggest, may not reflect Christian values.
In the particular case of Terri Schiavo, I do not presume to know the details nearly well enough to pass a judgment. There has been enough spin-doctoring and also false reports from both sides that I distrust any news outlet that deals with it. Therefore, please take my comments to be general, and not specific, as well as incomplete, not fully thought through.
I can see both sides of it as well. I've come to decide that there's no black and white answer. I think, perhaps, everyone has to make the choice that's best for them. Here's why:
On one hand, I believe
that any God who can turn dry bones to flesh can make someone's brain
function again, so maybe you shouldn't unplug them. Then again, if God
wants you to live, He'll keep you alive no matter if your tube is removed
or not.
The question of faith is big: someone who is an un-believer may need all
the time they can get. A believer in Christ may want to forgo life here on
Earth to go on to be with God, but they may have work to do here still as
well.
Financially, its a big question as well. How much is it going to cost
your family to keep you on constant life support for an un-determined amount
of time? Your personal beliefs might be putting considerable strain on you
loved ones. Then again, with God in control, He can provide for those costs as well.
It is a really tough question. I still haven't made up my mind as to what I've decided. How can I make a decision like this at 25 years old?
It seems that in the Bible, views on death are not the same as we view it today. What is to be lamented and avoided is a premature death. Natural death is treated as the natural completion of life. When someone died at a ripe old age, they were "gathered unto his people" "old and full of days". (a common phrase in Genesis, Job ends this way too) It was their good fairy tail ending. Their story did not envision a “happily ever after”, rather little Hebrew children seemed to hoper that Yahweh would end their story “old and full of day”. Interestingly enough, when someone dies a natural death, it is not even connected to the idea of a "fallen world". The idea of a fallen world in the modern sense might also be difficult to arrive via Biblical narrative, but that is a separate issue. My issue with both topics here is that other modes of thinking appear to have crept in that may have deterred us from determining reality through the lens of the Bible. In this case, our values on life, death, and our life story seem shaped by some other tales which have captured the hearts of our imagination. If we now ascribe all death to a fallen world, then our first reaction is to see all death as evil, and thus something to be avoided at all cost. The Biblical narrative doesn't treat death this way.
I applaud the emphasis of respecting human life in the Terri Schivo case, this is a Christian value which should be emphasized, but I wonder if modern Christians have formed views on death out of the Biblical story or from a modern tale of our own creation.
I would suggest thinking of a symphony written by a glorious composer. Sometimes during symphonies their will be unintended noise and rude distractions. A fan of the composer will be saddened at these distractions because they take away from the full display of the glorious composer's creation. Sometimes, a symphony performance may even be interrupted and even end prematurely. This is a tragedy, not because it ended, but because it did not end with the intended beauty.
A symphony by design is not an infinite song. In fact the song that never ends might be considered less beautiful than the composer’s symphony with a brilliant conclusion.
But what if the audience is called on to participate in the symphony as a way to demonstrate the brilliance of the composer?
I don't think there is meant to be a standardized rule for how, when of if the audience participates in the symphony’s ending. Maybe that is part of the composer’s beauty, all his symphonies end differently.
I have been going round and round in my head with this one. I keep tripping over two sides of this problem; the legal vs. the Christian ethics side.
On the legal side I am comfortable with the court decision. Courts exist to make judgments between parties. I am no expert, but there has been, what, 8 years of legal review. The day in court has been had.
What is the just and righteous thing for a Christian to do? I do not know. I can almost rationalize either choice. The limits of our technical knowledge prevent us from saying she is absolutely alive or completely gone. We have the ability to guarantee maintenance but not restoration.
I have been married for 15 months. My wife and I talk about this issue in context of what we would do or want done. I have come to this BQ, If God allows can I bear this cross?
Could I be Terry? Not alive and not dead. Not with my family and not in Glory. Christ would still be with me, but could I bear her cross?
Could I be Michael? I pray that I would not be exactly like him, having taken up with another woman before the death of his wife. Would I be able to honor my marriage covenant for 15, 30, or even 60 years in such a situation? Would I be able to live with myself if I did not?
In the face of my limitedness all I can do is turn to God and say in the simple words of this Orthodox prayer.
Jesus Christ,
Son of God,
Forgive me,
A sinner.
This will be a bit of a tangent, I am afraid. However, on the topic of death from a Christian perspective, I hope that it will be illuminating. I have been doing some reading in and about the early church fathers. One of them, John Chrysostom, dealt with death. I quote from a book by Christopher Hall, and the quotes within the quotes are Chrysostom.
"Death, surely, is a genuine evil, yet Chrysostom argues that death can be a benefit for both the believer who has died and for those who remain behind. How so? Those who continue to live in this world after the death of a loved one have received a powerful lesson on the transitoriness of life and the danger of thinking and acting as though life will never end. One is 'humbled, learns to act in a more level-headed fashion, is taught to think in a more spiritual manner, and introduces into his [sic] mind the mother of all goods, humility.' The one who has dies is in no way wronged, 'for he [sic] will receive this same body pure and incorruptible.' Thus, death actually becomes 'a teacher of the spiritual life, instructing the understanding, bridling the passion of the soul, quelling its billows and creating calm.'"
Again, Chrysostom asks, "You were born human, and mortal; why then do you grieve that what is natural has come to pass? Do you grieve when you are nourished by eating? Do you try to live without this? Act in the same way in the case of death. If you are mortal, do not yet seek for immortality. Once for all this thing has been appointed. Therefore, do not grieve, or play the role of the mourner, but submit to laws laid on all alike."
In something that is perhaps more directly applicable for us in the case of Terri Schiavo (and the Pope as well), John Donne, as he was laying sick on his deathbed, penned the following: 'No man [sic]is an Iland, intire of it selfe; every man [sic] is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans [sic]death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde [sic]; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.'
On this topic of death, I would be interested in hearing an opinion on Genesis 3 and whether death is part of the "original" creation. If one takes the Genesis acount as their starting point for death, one might think death was part of created life. Genesis 3:17 is often cited to suggest death is a concequence of "the fall", but the Geneis text doesn't appear to support this. I have an evangelical hunch that Romans 5:12 is often exegitically retro-fitted into the text here. In this passage, God does not hand out physical death as a punishment in Genesis. Here, hard work is the punishment untill the enevitable death arrives. This becomes more clear in Genesis 3:22 when The Lord God says, "see the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now, he might reach out and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever".
Exegetically speaking, What do we make of this?
after hearing what some of the doctors have said about terri, i'm under the impression that she was capable of speaking and reacting to pain and light for years after her heart failure. and then michael refused to pay for the physical therapy needed for terri to regain her normalcy. if all this is truly the case, than this death is a completely different issue. than the issue becomes financial, (tho it's always spiritual). so i don't know what the truth is for sure. but i do know that if the doctors had not introvened with the life support machine, terri would have died years ago. and so then the question becomes, 'is medical technology playing god?' and for that answer i have to think, 'yes'. but the answer to the question, 'is that morally right or just?'... well, i don't know. so i totter on the fence also.
If being hooked up to a machine to extend life is playing God, then so is using soap. Thousands of people died in the middle ages from poor higiene. Once soap was introduced, life expectancy shot way up. However, we call things like using soap "responsible". Then, why isn't being hooked up to a machine simply thought of as being responsible. We're just as dependent on soap as Terry was to her feeding tube.
Just thought I would add what Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Church in Seattle) had to say in the Seattle Times found at [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/faithvalues/2002220598_schiavocopy.html]
First, Terri was created by God with inherent worth and could live except for her inability to swallow food and water. Second, to me Terri's feeding tube is no more of an extraordinary life-saving measure than a spoon held by a caregiver providing food and water to someone who is disabled or elderly. Third, her parents want to care for her and I believe Terri's wishes are unknown. Fourth, the Bible forbids taking an innocent human life, and Terri has committed no crime deserving a torturous death by dehydration. Fifth, Terri's husband should not be her legal guardian because they have not lived together since 1990, and he is in effect married to his girlfriend, with whom he has two children and has lived since 1995.
Therefore, I would preserve Terri's life so long as extraordinary measures were not required to sustain it.
I tend to agree with this, but, I do think the issue is a bit clouded as to her wishes in the matter, i.e., what did she really wish in the matter. I will no weigh in with because her wishes were NOT CLEAR, and NOT LEGALLY RECORDED DOWN, we should have erred on the side of caution here on not forced her to starve to death.
I've really enjoyed this discussion. Thanks for your contribution!
Trike
Post a Comment