Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - June/94

Contributor - John Moerman

Title - A Look At The Problem Of Euthanasia

Topic - Euthanasia

Introduction

Member of Parliament, Svend Robinson, the rebel for the cause of radical civil disobedience, both within as well as without our borders, informed the nation on February 14 that "Sue Rodriguez faced her death with incredible courage and dignity." Even the Federal Minister of Justice, the Hon. Allan Rock, felt he had to mention her "courage."

Back Stage

People object to this. Why is a woman, who demanded doctor-assisted suicide, fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and lost, held up for her "courage" in dying this unnatural death? This emphasis on "courage" is an insult to the millions of people who have suffered and died a natural death. And it is the same to their bereaved survivors! Is the inference that people who do not die unnaturally, are cowards? And if this was not the conclusion we should have reached, why hold her up for her "courage" above the millions who suffered and died naturally? Yes, people are offended by Svend Robinson's statement. And for good reasons. The difference between Sue Rodriguez's death and the millions of others who died a natural death, is that the latter waited for God to release them from this earthly life.

People are right to question whether M.P. Robinson is to be known as a Lawmaker or a Lawbreaker? He has aided and abetted in suicide, which is a criminal offence. He should be charged accordingly.

Is it any wonder that many people are asking whether there is a hidden agenda? Was this Svend Robinson's opportunity to further the agenda he had been working on for a long time? And further, thinking of February 14, was all of this a carefully prepared stage performance by a cool and collected lawyer M.P. or was his "emotion" genuine?

Talk shows throughout the nation had a field day. And our politically correct media whipped up a frenzy and hysteria about the need for Parliament to act. The same day that Svend Robinson made his debut at the Ottawa press conference, he also met with the Minister of Justice. Right thereafter, the Hon. Allan Rock announced that Parliament would hold a debate on the issue and bring euthanasia to a free vote.

Looking at euthanasia in perspective, Robinson's statement, "I held her in my arms," was not as innocent as it sounded. We live in a warped society. And all of this is an evidence of what happens when a nation and its government turns farther and farther away from God.

Argument and Excuses

The argument is made that government must step in because AIDS sufferers are committing suicide. This no doubt is true. Moreover, they are not the only ones who are doing so. Drug addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes, jailed people, severely depressed ones, and others unable to cope with life commit suicide as well. We can't prevent this any more than highway killing. Also, we will always have people with a Sue Rodriguez attitude and determination. Throughout all of history there have been people who have killed themselves.

Sue Rodriguez's doctor-assisted suicide came to be an excuse for the government to hold a debate on euthanasia. It fitted in with their agenda to hold such a debate in the near future anyway.

But weaving suicide and euthanasia into the same string is wrong. They are not the same. The two should be kept apart. "Suicide" is what an individual does all by him/herself, and at any age, stage or state in life. "Euthanasia" is asking a doctor, or someone else, to take over the action of killing someone else.

It is obvious that euthanasia lobbyists, such as Svend Robinson and others, sought to have the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice jump on their bandwagon. Well, they were not disappointed: they gladly did so. The government's primary excuse was Sue Rodriguez's assisted suicide, and those of others like her. Non-doctor-assisted suicides were conveniently lumped in with the former.

With me, now, imagine this scenario: For a number of successive years, large numbers ofpeople have been killing themselves by way of motor vehicle accidents.

The number is rising each year. The government debates this, and decides they should do away with yield signs, blood alcohol tests, and maximum speed control on highways. The argument is they should ease up on making people feel guilty about having disobeyed motor vehicle laws. And another argument is this: in other civilized countries they have already been doing this for a number of years.

Elaborating a little on the latter illustration: Holland is a prime example of what occurs when you have freely available doctor-assisted suicide. The problem of suicide though has thereby not been done away with. And in spite of a number of so-called "legal restrictions", doctor and non-doctor assisted suicide is not diminishing either. It is increasing. Also, physicians just are not reporting their assisted suicides as is required by law. In 1988 they reported 191 cases; in 1989, 336 cases; and in 1990, 930. But what is worse, it has come out that of the 130,000 people who died in 1990, about two percent died by way of doctor-assisted suicide; that is, nearly 2,600. How is this for faithfully reporting according to the law?

These figures are public in Holland. I had them given to me by way of the fax machine. I also had one of my relatives speak with a member of Holland's Parliament, who confirmed that all nations around Holland had similar figures and experiences. There is evidence that the numbers are actually much higher! So much for the temptation to have the Canadian ambassador in The Hague fax the Dutch government's euthanasia "package" to Ottawa, and have the bureaucrats translate it for the special Commons and Senate Committee, who, in turn, would study it and recommend it to our government.

Where does it stop?

We must remember that euthanasia goes against every medical principle of treating sick and suffering people. It also goes against the fact that our government is God's servant to do good for our nation. Writing euthanasia into law is actually a contradiction in terms.

How and where should the line be drawn? Should it only include terminally ill persons? And how about including chronically ill persons, critically handicapped persons, those with mental illness, incorrigible men and women in prisons, babies who some people look upon as misfits for a family and society? And the list goes on.

And to what extent will overcrowded palliative care facilities enter into the decision making? Will it include only those who ask for doctor-assisted suicide, or also those who are unable to do so? Right now, in Holland, the government is trying to have doctors report all assisted deaths. It is an ongoing debate. Most doctors only report assisted deaths they were sure to be within the law. Furthermore, to wh at extent could a critically strapped government be tempted to close their eyes to unlimited and unreported cases of doctor-assisted suicide, in order to ease the financial burden? This is not an unthinkable situation, with all kinds of governments in deep financial trouble.

"It is my body!"

An AIDS sufferer, defending euthanasia, said, "This is my body and I can decide to do with it what I want." Other people have said the same, but this does not make it so. Our bodies are supposed to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Bible says, "You are not your own. You were bought with a price. Therefore honour God with your body" (I Cor. 6:18-20).

Perhaps, the AIDS sufferer was saying the same prior to becoming HIV positive. Let us recognize that it was this very syndrome - "This is my body and I can do with it what I want which most likely brought the person into this state. This, always with exception of course, of the unfortunate hemophilia AIDS infected people. Yet, here too, the Red Cross failure of 1982-88 is enough evidence that those who hold the concept of "this is my body and I can do with what I wanted act often not only fatally for themselves, but when donating blood their actions prove fatal to people who never practiced this concept. And this is a doubly sad story.

The Fallacy of Hedonism, Nihilism and Fatalism

Now let us look at suicide from a deeper perspective. The above is only surface stuff. What is lying underneath all of this we are facing today? I believe that Canada's belief system has largely been disappearing. Universities became agencies for change, expounding a sexual revolution and other ideologies that all were anti-traditional family. There is a long tale to secular humanism and human rights having gone overboard. All of this brought on a philosophical fantasy that people are not ever to suffer greatly, and certainly not on the North American continent. And, as these dreamers' thinking goes, no matter what kind of life style people may live.

Of course, this Utopia backfired! Who said people must never greatly suffer? Surely, there are no such hints in the holy Scriptures. Surely this did not come from the mouth of God. Surely all of human history testifies to the contrary. What a false syndrome this brain child of hedonism, nihilism and fatalism has proved to be! How sad when this becomes the ruling culture of the nation. These "-isms" develop into nothing else but the crumbling foundation stones of a peoples' existence and their decaying society.

This is what made people do away with "the sanctity of life" and replace it with "the dignity of life". Clinging to this false syndrome, that suffering has no place in this push-button and pleasure-mad society, was bound to bring an Adolph Hitler kind of "final solution". We all know that abortion has been telling us the same tale. Therefore, if and when euthanasia becomes law, it will evolve and mushroom out of control in the same way "therapeutic abortion" did when it became law in 1969. Now, 25 years later, according to Stats Can, the tally stands at one and a half million innocent and defenseless children's lives cruelly being snuffed out.

What else can we say but "God, have mercy on us", or, in the face of all of this, c-ain we no longer rightfully say this?

Cruising On?

It is an understatement to say that we stand at the crossroads of time. However, I see the Church of Jesus Christ still has its "barricade" up there. And, yes, it would be the height of foolishness and irresponsibility for our nation and government to cruise on and crash through, thinking there is nothing behind there anyway. There is! Beyond it is the abyss of unforeseen consequences of a frightening nature. Euthanasia is more than a highly charged ethical and emotional issue. It is, first and foremost, a spiritual matter. Our government and Parliament thereby start doing the same as our Supreme Court has been doing-playing God! Anyone who thinks euthanasia is the answer to prolonged and unbearable suffering will, some day, have a rude awakening.

Trampling on Trust

Euthanasia is a recipe for undermining patient-doctor trust, grandparents-children trust, patient-nurse trust, patient-relative trust, patient-executor trust, etc. Here too, money can be the root of all evil. And to have Parliament arrange for a "two doctor committee", as Svend Robinson's House of Commons Bill contains, is a worthless safety procedure. It is a joke. Who cannot find two doctors willing to sign such a statement? We have seen the same with the "three doctor therapeutic hospital committee". When a few of these committees operated effectively, provincial governments replaced them with their own medical "experts".

The Real Problem

Medical science and technology have been making such phenomenal advances during the last decades that, humanly speaking, practically nothing is impossible anymore. Thus, masses of elderly and incurably ill people are being kept here by this advanced medical know-how. An abundance of medication, combined with all kinds of intravenous paraphernalia can accomplish this.

This is why it is my belief that the to be-appointed House and Senate Committee studying euthanasia should devote their time, money, expertise and energy on that problem alone. We are having a medical explosion problem. This is where guidelines are called for. This is where limitations are in order. It is the medical practices and expenses that are to be studied. These issues and euthanasia are two different components. Neither should these two be woven into one. If they are, we see a Sue Rodriguez type of doctor-assisted suicide.

When a dying person and family have been assured by several trusted physicians that there is no longer any hope of living with this disease, the ebbing away of their life should be made as comfortable as possible, and they should be allowed to leave this earth when the Lord calls them home.

Conclusion

Suffering is so intensely personal and private that no piece of legislation will be able to take care of it. This is why a person's passing away from this earth must be left in the hand of God alone. He makes the ultimate choice. Jesus said, "Father, into Your hand I commit my spirit." All of us must learn to do the same. Loved ones who stay behind would be wise to prepare to say the same about the one to go home. This is the ultimate surrender for all involved.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.