The subject of Euthanasia (the act of putting one to
death painlessly; also called mercy killing) is one I have struggled with,
having faced this dilemma twice. It is indeed a personal, if not a moral,
dilemma. Personally, I have come to think a distinction should be made between
a family member deliberately killing a loved one ahead of time in anticipation of avoiding pain
and suffering, versus deciding to withdraw continued life-support methods when
the individual is absolutely beyond any natural hope of recovery. By removing
the machines, the person’s life can then, at least, be left in God’s hands
whether they survive or not. But, this is just my opinion. What do the churches say?
Today, the majority do make an allowance
by saying it is appropriate to follow a patient’s wishes who has a Living Will stating
not to perform any extraordinary
measures (with emphasis on that word) to resuscitate or maintain their body on
life support machines if they are beyond
any expectation of recovery. (Of special interest is the Catholic Church’s comprehensive
declaration at http://tinyurl.com/jxfelqs)
Keep in mind that the excellent article below, by
David T. Blattston, covers the attitudes held among First Century Christians on
the “deliberate hastening of death.” There were,
of course, no life-support machines or Living Wills during those time; but, perhaps it would have made no difference. Nevertheless, with
that said, scripture should be considered our guide.
Original
Christians Against Euthanasia©
The
Problem
Christian principles of love and
genuine concern for the welfare of a patient or other disadvantaged person are
put forward as the motives for euthanasia. However, there is abundant evidence
in Scripture and other early Christian writings that “mercy killing” is grossly
immoral, beyond the pale of behavior acceptable from Christians.
Euthanasia
Described
Euthanasia is the deliberate
hastening of death to spare the patient a period of suffering or incapacity.
The usual cases for which euthanasia is advocated are persons with an incurable
disease or permanent coma, but secondary uses include sparing the deformed, the
mentally impaired, or the handicapped from languishing the rest of their lives
under irreversible barriers that prevent them from living a self-sufficient or
“full” life. Far from ill-will, the motives of the killers are thus laudable or
at least understandable, for they are rooted in compassion toward the patient;
hence the alterative terms “mercy killing” and “put them out of their misery”.
Thou
Shalt Not Kill
Despite this, the Fifth Commandment
clearly provides “Thou shalt not kill”, which is repeated in summaries of God’s
law in Matthew 19:18f, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, and Romans 13:9. But does “kill”
refer only to violent murder, such as in the course of armed robbery? In
considering the word in the New Testament, the church father Tertullian
believed “kill” there had a wider meaning. Referring to the Creator, Tertullian
wrote: “He puts His interdict on every sort of man-killing by that one summary
precept ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”(1)
Why
Consult the Early Sources?
Tertullian was a clergyman and the
founder of Latin Christian literature. His works cited in the present article
date from AD 197 to 220. The value of consulting him and other post-biblical
Christian writers before AD 249-251 is that the Bible interpretations and oral
teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and other New Testament writers were still
fresh in their memories and they preserved the exact sense and parameters of
“kill” in which it was understood by Christians—or Christians not many
generations earlier—who knew New Testament authors personally, and hence the
way in which Jesus had meant it to be understood.
All
Killing Forbidden, especially of the Innocent
The earliest Christians considered
any type of bloodshed to be forbidden. Paul the Apostle does so in Romans 3:15.
Tertullian concurred,(2) as did the Epistle of the Apostles 35, which dates from between AD 140 and 160,
and twice by Origen, the most outstanding Bible scholar, teacher and preacher
of the first half of the third century.(3)
The early sources particularly
discountenance killing the innocent. Remember that the people for whom
euthanasia is advocated have not committed any crime nor is it because of their
sins that they are to be put to death. They would be killed merely because they
have a disease or infirmity they did not bring upon themselves. The First Epistle of Clement, written while
some apostles were still alive, points out that in the Old Testament the
righteous “were slain, but only by the accursed”.(4) Sometime
between AD 175 and 200, Bishop Theophilus of Antioch, in summarizing God’s law
mandated “The innocent and the righteous thou shalt not slay”.(5)
The Acts of Paul, a compilation
around AD 160 to 170 of deeds of the apostle not found in the Bible, similarly
condemns shedding the blood of the innocent unjustly.(6)
Among the innocent, aged parents are
the people for whom mercy killing is commonly sought. Killing adult family
members—especially parents—was the worst crime imaginable among the pagan
Greeks and Romans of early Christian times, and is condemned in 1 Timothy 1.9
and by such post-biblical authors as Tertullian,(7) the
mid-second-century Acts of John 48,
the Christian philosopher Aristides of Athens around AD 125,(8) and
by Bardesanes, a Christian in Syria who wrote a description of Christian
practices and customs in the early AD 200s.(9)
Mercy killing is also sought for
infants, particularly newborns—the most innocent of all—to save them from a
lifetime of deformity, mental deficiency, dependence, handicap, or other
impediment to a “full” life due to congenital or genetic causes. In a
description and defense of Christianity to pagan readers, around AD 177 another
Christian philosopher in Athens stated as well-known Christian principles the
fact that the church forbid abortion and killing children at any stage of life.(10)
Motive
for Killing Irrelevant
Even the best intentions do not
justify killing anyone. Shortly after his conversion Tertullian wrote: “in
regard to child murder, as it does not matter whether it is committed for a
sacred object, or merely at one’s own self-impulse”.(11) The Acts of Thomas 51-52 in eastern
Syria in the early third century relate an incident not recorded in the Bible,
about a man who killed a woman to spare her entering a life of fornication but
God intervened to punish him, and the Apostle Thomas is alleged to have
considered the young man’s intention as a serious sin.
Even with the consent of the victim,
euthanasia is still a sin, for then it is suicide—which is also a sin according
to Christian authors before AD 200.(12)
An
Ancient Equivalent
The nearest approximation to
euthanasia in Christian literature before the mid-third century is the ancient
practice of “exposing” infants. If weak, sickly, deformed, or handicapped, a
baby would be abandoned in a remote unpopulated place to be devoured by wild
animals or die from neglect. The “lucky” victims were rescued by strangers who
raised them as slaves. This was perfectly acceptable practice under secular law
and provided the social advantages of improving the gene pool and reducing the
proportion of the population that takes but does not contribute to the economy,
as well as sparing the children themselves a lifetime of handicaps.
But early Christians believed we are
not wiser or more compassionate than God. Justin, who was martyred for the faith
around AD 165, wrote in describing Christian teachings and practices: “we have
been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men”
because some are rescued and brought up to become prostitutes,(13) and
“[we fear to expose children], lest some of them be not picked up, but die, and
we become murderers.”(14)
Origen’s predecessor as dean of the
world’s foremost Christian educational institution pointed out in the AD 190s:
“But what cause is there for the closure of a child? For the man who did not
desire to beget children had no right to marry at first; certainly not to have
become, through licentious indulgence, the murderer of his children.”(15)
In writing against people treating their pets better than human beings:
they do not receive
the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and they take
up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures; although
they ought to undertake the maintenance of old people with a character for
sobriety, who are fairer in mind than apes, and capable of uttering something
better than nightingales; and to set before them that saying, … “Inasmuch as ye
have done it unto the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.”(16)
The infirmities of old age or bodily
defects do not render a potential euthanasia victim totally useless to church
or society. After writing of wrongdoing, particularly stealing, lying, hatred,
and deception, Bardesanes pointed out:
For even if a man
be poor, and sick, and old, and disabled in his limbs, he is able to avoid
doing all these things. And, as he is able to avoid doing these things, so is
he able to love, and to bless, and to speak the truth, and to pray for what is
good for everyone with whom he is acquainted.(17)
Advances
in Medical Technology
But might these traditional
Christians be outdated in the twenty-first century, now that we possess more
painless means of causing death? Actually, mercy killing is less justifiable
now than in ancient times because we also possess better and a wider variety of
painkillers. The only analgesic in early times was alcohol,(18) at
most mixed with myrrh.(19) Of course, this contributed to the sin of
drunkenness—which is a crime under United States secular law in certain
circumstances.
Moreover, modern medical science
makes great strides almost every day, with cures for painful or disabling
conditions suddenly becoming available. This should extend hope for intended
victims of euthanasia, and 1 Corinthians 13:13 enjoins Christians to have hope.
Nothing is more contrary to the virtue of hope than suicide or putting people
to death because they are thought incurable.
Jesus
Himself
Lastly, we have the teaching and
example of Christ Himself. First, whoever inflicts euthanasia on the least of
His brothers inflicts it on Jesus (Matthew 25:35-45). Secondly, when Jesus
encountered people who were diseased, handicapped, or suffering, He cured them
or otherwise relieved them of their afflictions for the rest of their natural
lives; He never “put them out of their misery” by killing them.
About the author
David W. T. Brattston is a retired lawyer
residing in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, Canada. He holds degrees from three
Canadian universities. His mission is to make early Christian literature
known and used by all Christians, especially as Christian moral teaching from
before A.D. 250 relates to today. In the
last quarter-century, over three hundred of his articles on early and
contemporary Christianity have been published by a wide variety of
denominations in every major English-speaking country.
Notes
All direct quotations from the
church fathers are as translated in The
Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D.
325 ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. American Reprint of the Edinburgh ed. by A.
Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo, N.Y.: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885-96;
continuously reprinted Edinburgh: T & T Clark; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson), cited as “ANF”.
1 Tertullian De Spectaculis 2 ANF 3.80.
2 Tertullian On Idolatry 2 ANF 3.62.
3 Origen Homilies on Genesis 3.6; Origen Commentary
on Romans 6.4.2.
4 1 Clement 45.4 ANF 1.17.
5 Theophilus To Autolycus 3.9 ANF 2.114.
6 Martyrdom of Paul 6.
7 Tertullian On Modesty 14.
8 Aristides Apology 9.
9 Bardesanes On Fate.
10 Athenagoras Presbeia 35.
11 Tertullian Apologeticum 9 ANF 3.25.
12 Justin Martyr 2 Apology 4; Acts of John 49; Sentences of
Sextus 321; Three Books to Abercius
Marcellus in Eusebius Ecclesiastical
History 5.l6.13.
13 Justin Martyr 1 Apology 27 ANF 1.172.
14 Justin Martyr 1 Apology 29 ANF 1.172.
15 Clement of Alexandria Stromata 2.18 ANF 2.368.
16 Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus 3.4 ANF 2.279.
17 Bardesanes On Fate ANF 8.725.
18 Proverbs 31:6.
19 Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23.
Copyright © Canada
2009 by David W. T. Brattston
No comments:
Post a Comment