Touching Story

THE EMPTY CHAIR A man's daughter had asked the local pastor to come and pray with her father. When the pastor arrived, he found the man lying in bed with his head propped up on two pillows and an empty chair beside his bed. The pastor assumed that the old fellow had been informed of his visit. "I guess you were expecting me," he said. "No, who are you?" "I'm the new associate at your local church," the pastor replied. "When I saw the empty chair, I figured you knew I was going to show up." "Oh yeah, the chair," said the bedridden man. "Would you mind closing the door?" Puzzled, the pastor shut the door. "I've never told anyone this, not even my daughter," said the man. "But all of my life I have never known how to pray. At church I used to hear the pastor talk about prayer but it always went right over my head." "I abandoned any attempt at prayer," the old man continued, "until one day about four years ago my best friend said to me, 'Joe, prayer is just a simple matter of having a conversation with Jesus. Here's what I suggest. Sit down on a chair; place an empty chair in front of you, and in faith see Jesus on the chair. It's not spooky because he promised, 'I'll be with you always.' Then just speak to him and listen in the same way you're doing with me right now." "So, I tried it and I've liked it so much that I do it a couple of hours every day. I'm careful, though. If my daughter saw me talking to an empty chair, she'd either have a nervous breakdown or send me off to the funny farm." The pastor was deeply moved by the story and encouraged the old guy to continue on the journey. Then he prayed with him, and returned to the church. Two nights later the daughter called to tell the pastor that her daddy had died that afternoon. "Did he seem to die in peace?" he asked. "Yes, when I left the house around two o'clock, he called me over to his bedside, told me one of his corny jokes, and kissed me on the cheek. When I got back from the store an hour later, I found him dead. But there was something strange, in fact, beyond strange-kinda weird. Apparently, just before Daddy died, he leaned over and rested his head on a chair beside the bed." Pastor Mike Walls Freedom Baptist Church Smithfield, NC jmichaelwalls@juno.com Isaiah 41:10

Leadership for leaders

LEADERSHIP Leadership is the process of influencing individuals or groups to achieve goals. It can be correlated to the following: authority, direction, motivator, reinforce, persuasion, cheerleader, coach, nurturer and delegate. Leading- means to guide, to go before and show the way. Leader- essential person in a group/organization. Leadership according to Fiedler 1. Distinguished people in an organization or group 2. An ability 3. A relationship *Leadership refers to those who provide direction and guidance (Fiedler) *Leadership as “the art of inducing subordinates to accomplish their assignments with zeal and confidence.” (Koontz & O’ Donnell) *Leadership as “the relationship in which one person (the leader) influences others to work together willingly on related tasks to attain goals desired by the leader and, or group” (Terry & Franklin) Further, it is planned process, which results in the following: 1. Challenging people to work collaboratively toward an ever-expanding vision of excellence in the achievement of organizational and personal/professional goals and objectives. 2. Creating a threat-free environment for growth, so that the creative talents and skills are used to the best knowledge. 3. Encouraging and building working relationships that are individually and organizationally satisfying, unifying and strengthening in the realization of mutually determined goals and objectives. Such relationship results in effective group problem solving. 4. Optimizing available material and human resources. Function of Leadership 1. Providing Vision – as a leader, it is expected of you to develop a vision for the organization through participatory management. It is also better for you to involve your teammates, because several heads are better than one. 2. Achieving Goals –It is your task to see to it that the objectives you have set are achieved. Your team members will have a good performance if you know how to motivate them. 3. Initiating Camaraderie and Smooth relationship – All organizations cannot avoid conflicts or disagreements, because of the presence of individual differences. It is the task of the leader that this misunderstanding be immediately resolved, so that it will not become worse. Leadership Qualities 1. A leader possesses a striking physical personality and is energetic. 2. A leader possesses a sense of purpose and direction. A leader knows his/her own personal objectives and those of the group. He or she is able to set goals and move towards that direction. 3. A leader has the power of ready to speech. He or she is able to communicate in both written and spoken language. 4. A leader is enthusiastic about the purpose of the group and is devoted to its cause. 5. A leader has keen insight into the human nature of people. He or she has faith and trust in the people he/she leads. 6. A leader displays courage and persistence even in the face of opposition. 7. A leader is decisive. He or she uses independent judgment and does not hesitate to consult others when needed. 8. A leader is cheerful and even-tempered. 9. A leader shows technical mastery that inspires others to do average performance in their jobs. 10. A leader is intelligent, versatile and has sense of humor. 11.A leader has moral vision, integrity and idealism. Leadership Styles • AUTOCRATIC LEADERSHIP  Sometimes called directive and bureaucratic.  Most extreme form-- it implies a leader who uses coercion in the exercise of his/her powers  High concern for task accomplishment but low concern for the people who perform these tasks.  Seldom gets ideas and opinions from their subordinates in solving work problems.  It is also called “centric” because the leader makes decision for the group. He is the center of attention.  Also called THEORY X by Mcgregor. Boss-centered. The leader thinks all workers are lazy, need to be coerced, threatened with punishment, indifferent to organizational goals, resistant to change, not very bright and cannot be trusted, want to avoid responsibility and are more interested in financial incentives than personal achievement. • DEMOCRATICC, PARTICIPATIVE OR CONSULTATIVE LEADERSHIP  People oriented  Focus in human aspects and build effective teamwork  Interaction between the leader and subordinates is open, friendly, trusting.  It allows governance through group participation in decision making  The leader consults his/her subordinates in solving problems and work related decisions are made by the group.  Sometimes called “ consultative” style of leadership  According to Mcgregor this style of leadership is called THEORY Y. The leader considers workers as ambitious. He or she does not resist change, is creative, and exercises self-direction and self-control.  This style will satisfy higher human needs resulting in greater employee responsibility which in turn leads to high productivity. • PERMISSIVE, ULTRALIBERAL OR LAISSEZ-FAIRE LEADERSHIP  Laissez-faire or “let alone” style of leadership is one in which the leader who is appointed manager abdicates leadership responsibility and leaves worker without direction, supervision or coordination.  The worker lacks central direction and control  This FREE-REIN leader avoids responsibility by relinquishing power to subordinates.  He permits his followers to engage in managerial activity such as decision making, planning, structuring the organization, setting goals and controlling the organization.  This style is effective in highly motivated professionals, like those in research, where independent thinking is rewarded.  This kind of leader is permissive with little or no control; motivates by support when requested by the group or individual, puts emphasis on the group, does not criticize, disperses decision-making within the group, and provides little or no direction at all. TRAITS OF A LEADER 1. Adaptability 12. Kindness 2. Considerateness 13. Knowledge 3. Dedication 14. Loyalty 4. Dignity 15. Strong personality 5. Faith 16. Persuasiveness 6. Experience 17. Poise. 7. Honesty 18. Resourcefulness 8. Initiative 19. Tact 9. Integrity 20. Thoughtfulness 10. Judgment 21. Unselfishness 11. Justice LEADERSHIP SKILLS 1. Skills in personal behavior- requires sensitivity to the feelings of others, identification with the needs of the group, acceptance of other people’s suggestion rather than criticizing or ridiculing them and helping others feel important and needed. 2. Communication skills – ability to listen attentively to the opinions of others, establish positive communication within the group and make sure everyone understands what are expected of them. 3. Organizational skills – includes willingness to assist the group in making short and long range plans and objectives; to share responsibilities and opportunities; to implement plans, follow-up and evaluate results and to participate in problem-solving. 4. Skills in Self analysis – means awareness of personal motivations of own strength and weaknesses and willingness to improve them. THEORIES • SITUATIONAL THEORY OF LEADERSHIP  Leader behaves according to a given situation which may vary from one setting to other. The theory considers a person’s qualities and motivations, the role expectations of the group, and the social forces at work such as the external factors that bring forth the leadership potential.  The situational or “contingency” style of leadership is one in which the leader’s style matches the situation and its needs.  There are 5 kinds of leader under this theory 1. Natural leader - who becomes a leader in spite of himself. He or she does not seek the role but the group thrusts the leadership upon him/her by the tide of events. 2. Charismatic leader – who is an authentic hero in the eyes of his followers. To them he/she can do no wrong. He/she inspires people to make sacrifices for the cause they represent. 3. Rational leader – who is consistent and persistent in what he/she thinks is right. 4. Consensus leader – who is perceived to be acceptable to all, he/she rises in the absence of the above three. 5. Leader by force – who dominates by force and fear. He/she is ruthless in suppressing opposition. • TRAITS THEORY OF LEADERSHIP  Describes the personal, physical and mental characteristics which are associated with successful leaders  Based on the belief that leaders are born with certain qualities that are properly developed to enable them to be successful leaders  According to this theory, leaders are gifted with certain qualities that are developed and shown in their ability to get along with people, persuade them to a course of action, have forceful personalities, possess integrity and are efficient in their work.  A broad classification of six categories of traits is as follows: 1. Physical characteristics such as age, build, height , weight, bearing 2. Background information which includes education, social status, experience 3. Intelligence – knowledge, judgment, ability 4. Personality – decisiveness, autho ritarianism, extroversion, alertness, aggressiveness, enthusiasm, independence, self-confidence. 5. Task-oriented characteristics-persistence, responsibility, achievement need, initiative. 6. Social characteristics-supervisory activity, popularity, prestige, tact, diplomacy. • THEORY Z  This theory has humanistic viewpoint and focuses on developing better ways of motivating people. 1. Collective decision-making 2. Long term employment 3. Slower promotion 4. Indirect supervision 5. Holistic concern Prepared by: Ms. Joyce Agullana--SUMULONG COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES Note: I just copied from the paper presentation of Dr. Tano for Myanmar Leadership Seminar in Manila

Donate Now

Euthanasia

EUTHANASIA

            Euthanasia simply means good death. Many people want to die when their life seems to be too difficult to continue or when they have serious issues which seem to be impossible to solve or when someone suffers from “chronic illness or terminal illness.”[1] In this case, some people, including some Christians are asked others to help end their life. In Christian society, there are some people who believe any form of killing is wrong whether it is done in good or bad intention, killing is wrong simply because the Bible says so. On the other hand, there are some Christians who believe that there are times where killing is not wrong because all killings are not murder. This paper wants to raise the issue of euthanasia from a theological perspective. First, we need to define the meaning of euthanasia and then we will talk about the issues around euthanasia. Then we will also find out what the theologians are saying about this issue and we will conclude with some possible responses from Christian perspective.

The Meaning of Euthanasia

Many scholars define euthanasia means good death. In Greek, eu means good, thanatos means death. But this does not mean that euthanasia is morally right or wrong.[2] Today, euthanasia carries different meanings to different people. By knowing the meanings of the terms we use in our discussion, we can say whether it is morally wrong or morally approvable. John and Paul Feinberg divide four categories of euthanasia.[3]

Voluntary and Involuntary

This category depends on whether the patient requests death or not. If the patient requests death, it is voluntary euthanasia[4] and if the patient does not request it is involuntary euthanasia.  Even when the patient could no longer able to express his wish because of sickness or the patient is too young to express his wish, and help him to die then it is also in-voluntary euthanasia.[5]

Active and Passive

There are several different ways to perform euthanasia. Active euthanasia means taking some purposeful action to take life and passive euthanasia means avoiding medical treatment in order to preserve life or to end life faster. Sometimes these terms are used as action and omission. These terms are also called as killing (active) and letting someone die (passive).  Active euthanasia is sometimes better because it is less pain. Passive euthanasia is more painful because it takes time to die. Doing something to end life is active and doing nothing although we see someone dying is passive.

Direct and indirect

Direct euthanasia refers when the patient himself makes decision to die and indirect euthanasia means someone else makes the decision to die. These terms refer to “whether the individual does the act himself or not.”[6]

Death with dignity, mercy killing, and death selection

Death with dignity means allowing someone to die as truly human being. When someone is ill seriously and incurable, rather than taking treatment, he or she dares to die naturally. Mercy killing is killing someone who is suffering from terrible pain and helping him to release from such pain or suffering. In mercy killing, people use medical help or some other thing to hasten death. Death selection means killing someone who is no longer considered or played as a human being.

The American Medical Association's Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs defines euthanasia that: “Euthanasia is commonly defined as the act of bringing about the death of a hopelessly ill and suffering person in a relatively quick and painless way for reasons of mercy. In this report, the term euthanasia will signify the medical administration of a lethal agent to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient’s intolerable and incurable suffering.”[7] The New Oxford Dictionary of English defines euthanasia as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.”[8]

Contemporary Debate over Euthanasia

Personhood and Quality of Life

In order to justify euthanasia, people define personhood according to their perceptions. Basically, a person is the one who has ability to perform as an authentic human being. Therefore, if a human being cannot have that ability to perform, it is better to terminate biological life.[9] It seems that having only biological life is not called as a person. However, in a human being, biological life is much more important than any other things because it is God’s gift to human being.  Of course, there are times that some people possess merely life and it is not sufficient to be a human being. However, it is also true that man has inherent value because they have life. In the Bible, a human soul is much more precious than the whole universe.

On the other hand, medical assistant may help prolong our biological life but it does not guarantee the quality of life. For instance, there are some people who are paralyzed for some years and could not do any help to the family except making trouble to the family financially, socially and even spiritually. For Asians, although parents are no more helpful for them or cannot perform any responsibilities in the society, they still want to have parents with them. They do not think that taking care of deformed parents is burdensome to them.

Understanding of God

            Our understanding on God also affects our interpretation of euthanasia. For any religions, including Atheists, the perception of God is important to handle the issue of euthanasia. Today, many people believe that there is not life after death. This is the reason, according to Paul and John Feinberg, that we need to take care one another while we have this life. No matter what kind of suffering we have, our responsibility is to help him or her rather than finishing his or her life.[10] However, Joseph Fletcher believes that the God who controls our life and death is dead and the God we believe does not control our life. He has given us the freedom and responsibilities to take care of our life and even death.[11] We can choose whatever we want because we are developed and spiritually mature too.

Utilitarian Concern

            According to John and Paul Feinberg, people attempt to justify ethical issues based on consequences or utilitarian grounds.[12] Joseph Fletcher is a significant example of utilitarian ethicist. Fletcher said the end justifies the means. For Fletcher, “human happiness and well-being is the highest good or summum bonum, that therefore any ends or purposes which that standard or ideal validates are just, right, good.”[13] This is the main concept that he wants to builds his ethical teachings. All human concerns and justice also depend on this idea. Therefore, if the consequences are acceptable, the means to those ends are morally justified.[14]

Freedom of Choice, Cruelty and Euthanasia

            Allowing someone who suffers unbearable or incurable diseases, we should understand and accept his choice. Every human is eligible to choose what they want, including death. According to Anthony Flew, denying the request of a dying person to die immediately because of pain is inhumane.[15] Morally, it is wrong to deny the request of suffering people. Marvin Kohl argued that some people reject euthanasia because it is cruel. Kohl said opponents of euthanasia see euthanasia as causing unnecessary pain or harm to the patient. For Kohl, this overlooks the broader meaning of cruelty which allows harm or pain deliberately.[16] John and Paul Feinberg said “merely taking care not to cause cruelty is insufficient. That tells us what not to do, but not what to do.”[17]

Euthanasia in History

            Euthanasia was an issue for society from the very beginning of history. However, it was not mentioned explicitly in the Old Testament about euthanasia. This means the Bible keeps silent about euthanasia although it presents some events of euthanasia. Two philosophers, Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Plato (427-347 BC), opposed suicide and euthanasia. For Aristotle, the reason was economic and political in nature. The attainment of the human form was of great moral significance: the destruction of human life at any stage was thus naturally morally offensive.[18] For Plato, “we did not create ourselves, we are property of the gods; it is therefore presumptuous of use to desert our station before being relieved.”[19] Although their arguments were not clear, they influenced other thinkers throughout history. Eusebius was the earliest church fathers to talk about suicide and euthanasia. According to his records, there were (1) who killed themselves to avoid being arrested and tortured, (2) who had already been arrested but dramatically ended their lives before being executed, and (3) virgins and married women who killed themselves to avoid rape.[20]

When we look at Christian history, early church leaders gave their responses to euthanasia in several ways. First when we look at Christian reformation giant Martin Luther, euthanasia was not acceptable for him. Luther suffered from “heart problem, kidney and bladder stones, a ulcerated leg, severe constipation and hemorrhoids, migraine, headaches, melancholy and recurrent respiratory difficulties”[21] in his whole life. Luther believed that all these things are natural consequences of human fallen nature to be countered with prayer and medication.[22]  Till his natural death, he bore severe pain and suffering. Luther condemned sickness and suffering as the work the devil. He never attempted to hasten death or to flee from suffering.

            Another giant theologian John Calvin totally rejected any form of euthanasia. In his magnum opus the “Institutes of the Christian Religion”, Calvin mentioned that Christian should not hate the present life because it is ingratitude to God.[23] Calvin said our biological life is a gift of God and we should endure hardships and trials until God calls us. Rather than taking away our life, we need to run away from such temptation. Ending our life or death, for Calvin, is God’s decision rather than handling ourselves no matter we suffer badly or not.[24]

            English Puritan leader Richard Baxter also encouraged his followers that Christians should seek the best medical treatment for their sickness but they should bear with incurable diseases or sickness.[25] Later, Westminster Larger Catechism mentions that Christians should preserve the lives of ourselves and others.

Biblical and Theological Considerations

Sixth Commandment Not Absolute

            When we talk about euthanasia, the first Bible passage we consider is the sixth commandment (Exod. 20:13). Many Bible believing Christians think that this passage is absolute for all times and all situations. This commandment is God’s truth to people. However, many other Christians question the validity of this passage. There are times Christians take some commandments of the Old Testament seriously and there are times Christians neglect even the same passage. Sometimes Christians consider one part of the commandment is absolute and we totally neglect other parts of the same commandments although the context is the same. For instance, according to John and Paul Feinberg, Christians totally oppose killing or murder, but they support capital punishment. Paul and John Feinberg said, “the prohibition in the Sixth Commandment seems to be against vengeful killing, not all killing. If so, then clearly some forms of voluntary and even involuntary euthanasia are permissible if no other considerations rule them out.”[26] There are many cases in the Bible where life-taking is not considered as murder or morally wrong. For example, life-taking in a just war against nation’s enemies, accidental killing of one’s neighbor are not morally wrong. There are three kinds of killing in the Old Testament – condemnable killing, excusable killing and mandatory killing.[27] Therefore, it is true that some forms of euthanasia are not wrong because the intention is for the sake of the patient. The Bible clearly says “You shall not murder (Ex. 20:13).” However, there are many cases in the Bible where life-taking is not considered as murder or morally wrong. For example, life-taking in a just war against nation’s enemies, accidental killing of one’s neighbor are not morally wrong.

According to Norman L. Geisler, there are two differences between murder and justifiable life-taking. First, to qualify as a murder the life-taking must be intentional. If a man killed a neighbor by accident, he is not committed murder. Second, killing a man in self-defense or in defense of one’s country is not murder. Therefore, we can conclude that the prohibition against taking the lives of innocent people does not rule out the rightness of taking the life of a guilty murderer.  It is both unbiblical and unrealistic to categorize all life-taking as morally wrong because there are times when taking the life of another human is justified in order to protect the innocent.  It is even necessary to assassinate a dictator (tyrannicide) who has assumed the role of God may be a merciful act for masses of oppressed men.[28]

Perspective on Death and Life after death

            According to the Scripture, it is clear that a human being will face death one day. No one can avoid it and it must be accepted as God’s will. Only through death, human beings can enter into eternal home. Paul also said many times that he was ready for death and to die was gain for him. Thus, death is not totally a curse or not outside of God’s plan.

            The objection that miracles happen even in “incurable cases” is sometimes leveled against allowing mercy killing.  There are some statements that say that why should we pray for healing. Or scientists may find some new ways to cure the diseases.  It is necessary to keep alive as long as there is any reason for hope that he can recover to a meaningful human life.  However, when there is no reason to live for, we can assume that God wants him to die a natural death.  One should not perpetuate an inhumanity while futilely waiting for a miracle. Hoping for a cure without any assurance it will come while on delays an act of natural mercy does not seem morally justifiable. Waiting without reasonable expectation for grace is not a justifiable basis for refusing to allow mercy to do its work.[29]

Voluntary Euthanasia and Suicide

            If one wants to deny euthanasia is sin, then he will also deny that suicide is wrong. According to David Hume, we cannot say that God owns our life just because he created us. Hume attempted to justified suicide along with Euthanasia. He argued that human lives are under the control of natural causes, and we do not need to ask God for life and death. Many people understand that God is sovereign over whatever happens in this world, attempting to escape from this world by suicide is rebellion against God. If God is really in control of this world, even suicide, for Hume, will not happen unless God allows it.[30]  If someone is in a situation there he cannot perform any good to the society and a burden to the society, according to Hume, taking life and choosing death is much better. Even in the Bible, there were many cases of suicide, but they were not condemned.

            Active/Passive – Killing/ letting die

            James Rachels said there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia. Sometimes, active euthanasia is more humane than passive because rather than letting die slowly with terrible suffering, helping the man by killing is more ethical.[31] Even today, many people will deny active euthanasia, but in practical life if his or her dear one is suffering, we cannot bear and we agree to take his or her life rapidly.

            Regarding this, Rachels gave an example. Smith and Jones got two cousins. If the two cousins die, Smith and Jones will receive a huge inheritance. Smith killed his cousin by drowning in the water. Jones attempted to kill another cousin but while the cousin was taking bath, he falls face down in the water. Rather than saving him, Jones watches and lets his cousin died. In these two cases, no one is more right than the other. If we accept this argument, there will be no difference between active and passive involuntary or voluntary euthanasia. Singer also argued there are times that we can distinguish between the two and there are times not easy to do. If we do not see the difference, we are saying that “failing to aid starving Africans would be the moral equivalent of sending them poisoned food.”[32]  The conclusion of the argument will be absurd. Because to kill a person is worse than allowing a person to die. Therefore, there are times that we need to distinguish the two although the difference is not always prevailed. We are as responsible for our omissions as we are for our actions.

According to Geisler, taking a life is wrong but letting one die in the same situation is not wrong. Geisler gives example for this. To withdraw the medication from a terminal patient and allow him to die naturally is not wrong morally.  If an illness is incurable and the individual is being kept alive only by a machine, then pulling the plug may be an act of mercy. However, this does not mean that the doctor should give a medicine for speed death. In order to relief pain, the doctor needs to give medicine but for death, God is responsible.

            However, this does not mean that we should not protect people from killing someone. It is wrong not to prevent a murder if there are possibility to prevent. Preventing a murder is preventing the suffering of an innocent victim. But preventing a death of someone already suffering is actually perpetuating the continuance of one who has the desire and possibility of living a meaningful human life.

A Christian Response to Euthanasia

The Sanctity of Life

            Opponents of euthanasia are arguing that only in very exceptional case, we should keep the human life in any means because human life is so valuable. Even in the Bible, there were some exceptions such as just war and self-defense. However, the exceptions do not allow us to find more exceptions in life. We should use our efforts to keep human life rather than terminating human life.

            Human life is precious because human beings are created by God. No matter what situation they are in, they are so valuable. They have inherent value although they are abnormal or serious ill. God gives the human life as a gift and sustains it. God owns it and we should be grateful to God for giving such precious life. The act of terminating life is insulting to God and ingratitude to God. Although the Bible mentions about exceptions, these exceptions are telling us the value of human life and the importance of keeping human life. According to consequentialists, the end result of active or passive are not different, so there is no moral difference between the two. However, the Bible does not agree with such kind of arguments because there are times that we are not so sure about the end result.

Abortion is morally justifiable because it saves a mother though it needs to take the life of a pre-human. However, it is really difficult question when it comes to a real human being or a full human being. Taking a life is a much more serious than letting one die naturally and taking a pre-human or subhuman life is less serious than taking a fully human life. However, it is not merely a question of the seriousness but of the justification of life-taking. It is always wrong to kill another human being. However, there are some circumstances which may exempt one from this duty. There are times when it is necessary to take one life in order to save many lives.

When someone is trapped helplessly a burning airplane or those who are hard to die, it is always helpful to think that fulfilling their desire is an act of mercy.[33] It is sure that human life has intrinsic value and should not be taken by another person. It is also true that God is sovereign over all existence and where there is human life there is hope for that human life. However, it is not right to watch a dying people who cannot die for days. In such cases, the Bible allows to use certain means to help the victims.

Medical Concerns

There are some arguments regarding medical help to terminate human life. First, a request to end his or her life from a patient is based on “fear or misinformation than anything else.”[34] The patient might think that his situation is worse than the reality. He thinks that he is serious than it actually is. This is the reason why he requests to die.  Second, advanced medical findings may be found to cure the incurable diseases.[35] There are full of examples in human history that people think incurable but later they found out new medical methods to cure the diseases. It is true to say that sometimes we cannot say some diseases as incurable diseases. Third, in order to relief pain and suffering, we do not need to choose death because the medicines can help to reduce pain. Fourth, every doctor takes oaths to save human life and not to harm any patients, just to protect and to save their lives. However, today many people think that this oaths are not really applicable.[36]

The Value of Suffering

            Although suffering is not enjoyable, it does not mean that it does not have any value for human beings. The Bible does not see suffering as totally evil. Sometimes it seems that suffering and pain in life does not have any good to thing to human being but there are times it brings good things to man. God also uses suffering as a channel to reveal his plan to human beings (Job 14:5, Ecc. 3:2, Jas 4:13-14). Alex Tang describes the role of suffering in Christian life: “Being a  Christian does not exclude one from suffering. The Scriptures note that sometimes Christians are afflicted as a means of punishment (Pslam 94: 12-13); to be kept humble as with the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:7); or to prove to Satan that there are those who love God because of who He is, not because of what He gives (Job 1-2).[37]

            In reality, the meaning of pain, suffering and death is tied to the meaning of life itself. Christian belief tells us that suffering can be transformed. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus tells us that the tragedy of suffering, including dying and death cannot be stronger than God’s love. By suffering, the sufferer is brought near to God. United with Christ is the means to overcome suffering in life. Actually, no human can avoid suffering in life although we pretend to be free from suffering and we try to run away from suffering and pain. However, suffering and pain, including death is a part of our life.

Perspective on Life, Death and after death

            The Bible mentions several times that God is in control of all lives including human beings. Nothing will happen to human being without God allows it. According to the Bible, no one can add a single day to human life because “there is a time to be born and a time to die” (Ecc. 3:2). For those who are seriously ill, death is a good to hope for although the Bible mentions about unavoidable death. When God first created human beings, they were created to glorify God rather than to suffer pain and die. Only because of sin and disobedience, death entered into the world. The Bible does not mention that death is a good thing but it says that death is the last enemy of human beings. Paul Ramsey argues that we should not talk about the beauty of death or death with dignity.[38]

            In the Bible, there were some people who asked God for good death. For instance, Balaam, Simeon. However they did not ask for early death. What they asked is “for deliverance and restoration to a full active life.”[39] When Paul encouraged his readers not to grief like people who do not have hope, he did not say that Christians should rejoice in death. Paul sees the hope that we have is not deliverance from suffering and pain through death, but a resurrection to life which occurs at Christ’s return (1 Thess. 4:13-18).  Although Paul says that death is gain, but he never encourages us to perform speedy death. For Christians and even non-Christians, death is not the end of suffering and pain, but the resurrection is the only hope and victory over pain and suffering including death.

            According to The American Journal of Psychiary, “The striking feature of our results is that all of the patients who either desired premature death or contemplated suicide were judged to be suffering from clinical depressive illness; that is, none of these patients who did not have clinical depression had thoughts of suicide or whished that death will come early.”[40] This means that if we could give enough care and warm environment to those who are suffering, they will not ask to end their life although they are terminally ill. Herbert Hendin also said, “Patients who request euthanasia are usually asking in the strongest possible ways they know for mental and physical relief from suffering. When that request is made to a caring, sensitive, and knowledgeable physician who can assure them that he or she will remain with them to the end and relieve their suffering, most patients no longer want to die.”[41]

Active/Passive – Killing and Letting Die

            For consequentialists, the end is important and there is no difference between killing and letting someone die. However, for deontologists, the two are quite different because they emphasize on the means. However, when we look at these two, the distinction between killing and letting die is not a simple issue. According to John and Paul Feinberg, there are times active and passive euthanasia is morally different and other times the two are not different. In Jones and Smith example, they are free to kill or to let them die. They choose death although they knew that it was morally wrong. In cases like these, although active and passive euthanasia is morally different, but it is morally wrong.

            John and Paul Feinberg gives another perspective where active and passive euthanasia might be different but they are morally not wrong. Even though we have a desire to save the dying patient with medical help, but we cannot. We want to preserve life but we are not free to do and we are not guilty letting someone die. Likewise, when we know the patient has incurable diseases, we are free to  help him by killing. If we kill, it is morally wrong because we can choose not to kill. Hence, in this way, the act of killing (active) is wrong and letting die (passive) is not wrong. John and Paul Feinberg argues, “the reason is that the moral differences stems not from one’s ethical theory, nor from different means used in an attempt to reach ends, nor from different intentions in the two cases.”[42] Therefore, it is important to look at different cases of euthanasia in different ways rather than making general conclusion. For Catholics, the distinction between killing and allowing to die is important because it is grounded in the principle of the sanctify of life which affirms the sublime dignity of human life as a reflection of God.”[43] Gula argues that two obligations come along with the meaning of “sanctity of life.” Positively, we need to preserve and to support life. We need to respect all human life and to help others to grow spiritually and even physically. Negatively, “sanctity of life” reminds us that we are not allowed to harm and not to destroy life.[44]

Voluntary/Involuntary Euthanasia

            Many people agree voluntary is right because the patient requests it. Since the patient grants permission and the intention is also to fulfill the desire of the patient, voluntary euthanasia is morally right. However, it is difficult to say whether it is right or wrong only because it is performed by the permission or it is done by good intention. Killing is prohibited although it is done by good intention. Taking the life of innocent people is wrong.

            We cannot say that an action is right or wrong mainly because it is voluntary or involuntary. Sometimes, right or wrong is depended on one’s own ethical assumption. For consequentialists, the end result determines the act is right or wrong. If the patient is happy and death brings some good results for him, then killing is not wrong. On the other hand, the non-consequentialists argue that the act is more important than the result. Whether it brings good or bad, any kind of killing is wrong. Alex Tang said, “To opt to end the process prematurely means that we are truncating it, with the result that there may be no closure for the person involved and for his family.”[45] Death is a process just like living. Euthanasia will short-circuit the dying process. Alex Tang argues that human beings are free but they are not free to end their life. From the moment we are born to the moment we die, we are a product of our environment, upbringing, racial make-up, cultural conditioning, education and socio-economic moulding and sexual orientation. We have always been guided by our own society’s norms. A decision to end one’s life does not operate in a vacuum. It will affect others – families and friends, and the whole community. Daniel Callhan also said euthanasia “cannot properly be classified as a private matter of self-determination or an autonomous act of managing one’s private affairs.”[46]

            According to Singer, however, every human being values their lives and their interest is always to continue to live in their normal situation. This means if they want to die, and the person asks to end his life, the one who kills or the one who lets die is “not harming but benefiting the person whose life it is.”[47] Therefore, in many cases, euthanasia is not killing and it is not wrong.

            The issue of euthanasia is not only a challenge to our character but also to our moral principles. In life, we need to endure hardships, bear suffering, helping the sick, taking care of the elderly and even those who are dying. Rather than seeing these things as they are, if we avoid them by ending our life, this is opposing to the natural process and even to God. If we agree a sick person or a dying man to end his life, then it tells us what kind of person we are and how we see our community. By developing humility, courage, hope and faith, we need to see death and dying person as it is. Those who live in a faith-based community will see euthanasia as unthinkable.

Conclusion

            Euthanasia is an issue which we cannot say right or wrong simply because the Bible says that we should not kill. This was an important issue for the church in history and it will continue an issue in the future too. On the one hand, it is quite clear that we are not allowed to kill in any situation. Killing is wrong because it is morally wrong too. On the other hand, we are given the authority to rule the world and we have the responsibility to take care the world including human beings. We have authority to make decision in very special case. This means that we can involve in euthanasia without violating God’s commandments. In saying this, we should be careful that we are not free to do whatever we want to do. Richard M. Gula says, “Freedom is not having absolute control but it requires submission to what cannot be controlled. We exercise such freedom in the face of death by accepting ourselves as creatures of God and by admitting to our powerlessness before death.”[48]

Bibliography

Battin, M. Pabst. “The Least Worse Death,” Hast Center Rep 13 (April 1983): 14.

Baxter, Richard. A Christian Directory. Ligonier, PA: Soli De Gloria, 1990.

Blacker, Russell. “ Suicide Down the Ages: A Judeo-Christian Perspective” http://www.cmdscanada.org, accessed on February 20, 2012.

Brown, James H. Paul Hemteleff, Samai Barakat and Cheryl J. Rowe, “Is It Normal for Terminally Ill Patients to Desire Death?” in American Journal of Psychiatry, (February 1986) 143, 2: 210.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. London: R. Tegg, 1838.

Daniel Callahan, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok” in Hastings Center Report, 22.

Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today. Philipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1993.

Feinberg, John S. and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997.

Fleming, John. “Care for the Chronically and Terminally Ill,” Celebrating the Gospel of Life Basic Issues in Bioethics, Fausto B. Gomez, ed., Manila, Philippines: University of Santo Tomas, 2006.

Flew, Anthony. “The Principle of Euthanasia,” in A. B. Downing, ed., Euthanasia and the Right to Die. Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970.

Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010.

Gula, Richard M. “Euthanasia” in Christian Ethics: An Introduction, Bernard Hoose, ed., London/New York, Continuum, 2002.

Hendin, Herbert. Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients and The Dutch Care. New York: Norton, 1997.

http://www.abc.net.au, accessed on March 23, 2012.

http://www.quantonics.com, accessed on March 4, 2012. The Ethics of Euthanasia, by Garn LeBaron Jr.

Kuhse, Helga. “Euthanasia” in Blackwell Companions to Philosophy: A Companion to Ethics, Peter Singer, ed., Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993.

Larson, Edward J. and Darrel W. Admundsen, A different Death: Euthanasia and the Christian Tradition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” in Tom Beauchamp and Seymour Perlin, eds., Ethical Issues in Death and Dying. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.

Ramsey, Paul. “The Indignity of Death with Dignity,” in Dennis Horan and David Mall, eds., Death, Dying and Euthanasia, Passim. University of Publications of America, 1977.

Robitscher, “Living and Dying: A Delicate Balance,” E/SA 1 (October 1973): 44.

Tang, Alex. A Good Day to Die: A Christian Perspective on Mercy Killing. Singapore: Genesis Books, 2005.

The New Oxford Dictionary of English, s.v. “euthanasia.”

---

[1] John Fleming, “Care for the Chronically and Terminally Ill,” Celebrating the Gospel of Life Basic Issues in Bioethics, Fausto B. Gomez, ed., (Manila, Philippines: University of Santo Tomas, 2006), 164.

[2] John Jeferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today (Philipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1993), 108.

[3]John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1997), 104.

[4] Mary F. was dying from a progressively debilitating disease. She had reached the stage where she was almost totally paralyzed and periodically, needed a respirator to keep her alive. Knowing that she has no hope, she asked the Doctor to end her life. After consulting with family members and other medical workers, the doctor finally give lethal injection and she died. (See more at Helga Kuhse, “Euthanasia” in Blackwell Companions to Philosophy: A Companion to Ethics, Peter Singer, ed., (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993), 295).

[5] Singer called this non-voluntary euthanasia because he views three kinds of euthanasia: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. Ibid. 295.

[6] John and Paul Feinberg,105.

[7] http://www.quantonics.com, accessed on March 4, 2012. The Ethics of Euthanasia, by Garn LeBaron Jr.

[8] The New Oxford Dictionary of English, s.v. “euthanasia.”

[9] Feinberg, 106.

[10] Ibid. 107.

[11] Ibid., 108.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid., 108.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Anthony Flew, “The Principle of Euthanasia,” in A. B. Downing, ed., Euthanasia and the Right to Die (Los Angeles: Nash Publishing, 1970), 33; Quoted by Feinberg, 109.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid., 109.

[18] Alex Tang, 63.

[19] Russell Blacker, “ Suicide Down the Ages: A Judeo-Christian Perspective” http://www.cmdscanada.org, accessed on February 20, 2012.

[20] Edward Larson and Darrel Admundsen, A different Death: Euthanasia and the Christian Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 114.

[21] Edward J. Larson and Darrel W. Amundsen, Euthanasia and the Christian Tradition: A Different Death (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 147.

[22] Ibid.

[23] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (London: R. Tegg, 1838), 568-569.

[24] Ibid., 569.

[25] Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory (Ligonier, PA: Soli De Gloria, 1990), 780-781.

[26] Feinberg, 110.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Contemporary Issues and Options (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), 233.

[29] Ibid., 233.

[30] David Hume, “On Suicide”, quoted by Feinberg, 116.

[31] James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” in Tom Beauchamp and Seymour Perlin, eds., Ethical Issues in Death and Dying (Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), 214.

[32] Singer, 298.

[33] Recently, two Uruguay nurses were arrested for killing 16 patients. According to the papers, they were suspected killing more than 50 patients. The judge in the case, Rolando Vomero, says they killed their victims out of pity. See more on http://www.abc.net.au, accessed on March 23, 2012.

[34] Feinberg, 116.

[35] M. Pabst Battin, “The Least Worse Death,” Hast Center Rep 13 (April 1983): 14. Quoted by Feinberg, 116.

[36] Robitscher, “Living and Dying: A Delicate Balance,” E/SA 1 (October 1973): 44; Quoted by Feinberg, 116.

[37] Alex Tang, A Good Day to Die: A Christian Perspective on Mercy Killing (Singapore: Genesis Books, 2005), 51.

[38] Paul Ramsey, “The Indignity of Death with Dignity,” in Dennis Horan and David Mall, eds., Death, Dying and Euthanasia, Passim (University of Publications of America, 1977), 296; Quoted by Feinberg, 117.

[39] Feinberg, 117.

[40] James H. Brown, Paul Hemteleff, Samai Barakat and Cheryl J. Rowe, “Is It Normal for Terminally Ill Patients to Desire Death?” in American Journal of Psychiatry, (February 1986) 143, 2: 210.

[41] Herbert Hendin, Seduced by Death: Doctors, Patients and The Dutch Care (New York: Norton, 1997), 204.

[42] Feinberg, 121.

[43] Richard M. Gula, “Euthanasia” in Christian Ethics: An Introduction, Bernard Hoose, ed., (London/New York, Continuum, 2002), 282.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Alex Tang, 85.

[46] Daniel Callahan, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok” in Hastings Center Report, 22.

[47] Singer, 298.

[48] Richard M. Gula, “Euthanasia” in Christian Ethics: An Introduction (London/New York: Continuum,1998), 280.