Advocacy for death

I’ll post this piece because I was so struck by it. I guess suicide advocacy is on the rise though it still sounds like a marginal idea to me. But what was marginal 50 years ago is not so much now. Wesley Smith does an excellent job explaining the ideas.

Family-Supported Suicide Harms Society

by Wesley J. Smith March 21, 2015 | National Review – The Corner

There was once a time when friends, family, and society worked to prevent suicides. Now, if the suicidal person is ill or disabled, there is support for self-killing, with friends and family members even attending the deed.

That–and what it may portend–is the subject of my biweekly First Things. From, “Family-Support Suicide and the Duty to Die:”

Is it right or wrong to support a loved one’s suicide? This seems to be one of those issues, increasingly prevalent in our society, about which debate is not possible: The answer depends on one’s overarching worldview.

Some will believe that their duty is to support their family member’s choice, come what may. Others, including this writer, believe that supporting suicide is an abandonment that validates loved ones’ worst fears about themselves—that they are a burden, unworthy of love, or truly better off dead.

What might this phenomenon portend?

Family backing for suicide furthers the normalization of hastened death as a proper response to human suffering. Such normalization, over time, will put increasing pressure on those coping with the infirmities of age and with the debilitations of serious illnesses and disabilities to view their suicides as not only a suitable approach, but perhaps even as an obligation to those they love.

This is known in bioethics as the “duty to die,” which has been debated for years in professional discourse.

I quote some advocacy material for a duty to die:

A duty to die becomes greater as you grow older. . . . To have reached the age of, say, seventy-five or eighty years without being ready to die is itself a moral failing, the sign of a life out of touch with life’s basic realities.

This isn’t a fringe idea. Books have been written on the topic. I conclude:

No, a day won’t come when the euthanasia police kick down doors and force unwanted lethal injections upon the sick and elderly. But legal compulsion isn’t the only way to push people out of the lifeboat. The more public support families and friends give their ill or debilitated loved ones’ suicides, the greater the prospect that a moral duty to die will become culturally legitimate.

Again, I don’t see how we debate this. Either we want such a society, or we don’t.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415774/family-supported-suicide-harms-society-wesley-j-smith

(Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism and a consultant to the Patient’s Rights Council.)

Also see First Things article

He has a followup post “$200,000 per Year to Push Assisted Suicide”

Seems to be two issues here, what they are doing — or is it we — and the industry it has become. Neither of which bodes well for society.

Euthanasia expanded to children in Belgium

Belgium’s parliament votes through child euthanasia

BBC.com

Parliament in Belgium has passed a bill allowing euthanasia for terminally ill children without any age limit, by 86 votes to 44, with 12 abstentions.

When, as expected, the bill is signed by the king, Belgium will become the first country in the world to remove any age limit on the practice.

It may be requested by terminally ill children who are in great pain and also have parental consent.

Opponents argue children cannot make such a difficult decision.

It is 12 years since Belgium legalised euthanasia for adults.

In the Netherlands, Belgium’s northern neighbour, euthanasia is legal for children over the age of 12, if there is parental consent.

Conditions for child euthanasia

• Patient must be conscious of their decision
• Request must be approved by parents and medical team
• Illness must be terminal
• Patient must be in great pain with no treatment available to alleviate their distress

Under the Dutch conditions, a patient’s request for euthanasia can be fulfilled by a doctor if the request is “voluntary and well-considered” and the patient is suffering unbearably, with no prospect of improvement.

‘Immoral’ law

One man in the public gallery of Belgium’s parliament shouted “murderers” in French when the vote was passed, Reuters news agency reports.

Supporters of the legislation argue that in practice the law will affect an extremely small number of children, who would probably be in their teens, the BBC’s Duncan Crawford reports from Brussels.

The law states a child would have to be terminally ill, face “unbearable physical suffering” and make repeated requests to die – before euthanasia is considered.

Parents, doctors and psychiatrists would have to agree before a decision is made.

Protesters have lobbied politicians against the changes.

Church leaders argued the law is immoral.

“The law says adolescents cannot make important decisions on economic or emotional issues, but suddenly they’ve become able to decide that someone should make them die,” Brussels Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, head of the Catholic Church in Belgium, said at a prayer vigil last week.

Some pediatricians have warned vulnerable children could be put at risk and have questioned whether a child can really be expected to make such a difficult choice.

Last week 160 Belgian pediatricians signed an open letter against the law, claiming that there was no urgent need for it and that modern medicine is capable of alleviating pain.

But opinion polls have suggested broad support for the changes in Belgium, which is mostly Catholic.

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26181615

————-

Other sources reported a condition that the child understand the decision is final.

No lack of politicking from pulpits

Can’t get no, can’t get no… satisfaction … no, no, no. [part 1]

I never imagined saying this, but our problem today does not stem from a lack of taking on political issues from the pulpit. No. Wait; hold the tomatoes! It’s just that when they do mention anything related to politics, it is mostly a sanitized politically correct view. I know that is not every church or pulpit. Some pastors treat social issues equally serious.

But many pastors and clergy who will not talk about something in any way related to politics often do find their voice, but on other political matters. One could make a list: social justice, peace, being thy brother’s keeper, not judging others, not using certain outdated labels that may sound offensive, tolerance, and so on. So it is just so-called hot button issues they will not talk about – i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc. Is that what we are called to do, effectively “screen” our speech? And to do it for political correctness?

(Note: keep in mind that I had written this a while ago, over a year, as the elections were still heating up)

I recently got schooled from the pulpit about vocal support and candidate endorsements. The sermon was basically we should “be very cautious about endorsing” in politics. (one notable Texas pastor’s endorsement of Perry was Exhibit A) You can read into that, ‘you ought to refrain from publicly endorsing politics or candidates’. You would be reading my mind too. The basis was probably meant as endorsing from the pulpit but there it was in broad daylight, an anti-activism type message to Christians.

It is far deeper than just candidate endorsements of clergy from the pulpit, the same principle is then applied to all politics and all of us. Message: stay clear of politics. You also might correctly assume the basis for all this was ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’. The actual passage and I’ll give various scriptures:

Mark 12:15-17
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Matt 17:24-27
Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own sons or from others?”

26 “From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

This is usually the reference used

Matt 22:17-21
17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Of course, many use that latter exchange to broadly lecture us to “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Thus, since this politics stuff is rendered Caesar’s turf now, it all therefore belongs to him. “Go back to your prayer closet, Christians.” The truth is our life and rights come from God. With that we have some responsibility. We are accountable to God. And we are responsible for our leadership, and choices.

Something similar may unfold in the Middle East, in countries where people are crawling out from under brutal dictators. We might sympathize with them but they could be headed down a tough road – do they know it? That is, if as they say claims are true that they strive for democracy. Whether that is really the case or not, let us accept that premise for now. They might discover the ideal is not as simple as it sounds. They will share some responsibility for their democracy at some point. Then, they cannot just blame a tyrant and authorities for the results. They will have to accept some blame for problems and consequences, or reap credit when things go well. So they might have a few surprises ahead, such as accountability. It will not be easy for those who have not experienced “freedom” before. Providing they get that far … and that is their goal.

We have the example of Jesus crucifixion. Remember Pilate washed his hands of the deed, or tried to, in as much as the event was already in process. He wanted to escape responsibility for Jesus’ death. Though we still associate Pilate with Jesus’ crucifixion. In Acts, the apostles made it known to political elites that they had a shared responsibility for His death. That was not a convenient message they wanted to hear, and it did not tickle their ears. In fact, they wanted to shut down the apostles for that reason. It made them look bad. Some people suggest “…but we must keep clear of politics.” But we can see in Christ’s time the air was thick with politics.

The Sadducees didn’t care much for the resurrection message; and the apostles didn’t care to be silenced by political pressure. The point is the apostles did not stop preaching, even as it was seen as a form of political speech and dissent with powers that be. On the contrary, they prayed and with the help of the Holy Spirit grew bolder in speaking out. (even to those who sent Jesus to his death)

I don’t read those events as an example to stifle or tone down one’s message to suit elite politicos, and cede one’s virtue to authorities or powers that be. Likewise, those cautious clergy today never suggest taking a silent approach on, say, the “social justice” agenda. They endorse that. The social justice advocates will demand taking a bold approach to preferred “social issues” – just not certain others – while likening their stand to bold traditional Christian activism.

So my instinctive reaction about ceding certain aspects, political issues or turf to powers that be – under the guise of giving to Caesar what is his – is to remember Pilate. Are we to reject our own responsibility for the circumstances we are in and our God-given rights, remaining silent, then try to wash our hands of the blame for the results in view of the consequences? That would be slightly hypocritical, wouldn’t it? Should we render to Caesar the all-encompassing political turf, stifling our conscience or virtue, and cede all “controversial” social matters to his authority? Politics have usurped cultural matters

Our first allegiance is still to God. If I silence my voice, or cede to status quo those matters over to political authorities or others, I cannot escape accountability. I still bear some responsibility for the outcome. So what then about what we owe God?

The double standards are amplified when the pulpits do talk about their pet issues, social justice and peace. They want to do that “loudly and proudly”. Seriously, are the rest of us demanding injustice, or are we actively opposing peace just for the sake of it? It’s been a while since I attended a good anti-peace march, or a rally against justice. Sorry, I never did and don’t know anyone who has. But I somehow am vehemently against peace and justice according to them, if you follow their accusation to its logical conclusion. That is, to follow their entire “social justice” agenda – as they define it. In fact, they actually posit in their rhetoric that, unless we jump aboard their political agenda, we must be anti-peace or anti-social justice. Many Christians resent that insinuation but it does exist. Many Christians have signed on to that. (one only has to look at the [message of churches])

It’s like that with “99-percenters”, Wall Street Occupiers. They point to everyone outside that 1 percentile of wealth as part of the 99% they speak for. Thus, we must be part of that 1%, then, if we don’t agree with their agenda. I think there are more than 1% of us who look past this fallacy and their unreasonable approach. Some Christians are disgusted by these political tactics. But many buy into them.

When I hear preachers and leftists claim their staunch support for social justice, I wonder who is opposed to justice? It must need a whole lot of defending. Of course, their subjective, ever-evolving definition of “social justice” holds the real key to them.(and we are beholden to their definition) But in simple and clear terms, supporting true justice or peace is a no-brainer. Who could really disagree? We can support justice. It’s a fallacy that we do not.

However, many of these passionate advocates are reluctant to take on matters of abortion, gay marriage, or state-sponsored euthanasia from the pulpits. (all presently ensconced in politics) Their ‘passion pond’ dries up quickly. Statistics are reserved for issues like war or hunger. No, those “political” issues are too controversial. “Better to wash our hands of those. We don’t want the stains that come with those.” In doing so, they advise the flock to leave those “cultural” matters alone. But if their advocacy were not so lopsided and full of double standards, it probably would look much different.

We may better ask if we are really cheating God and not rendering to God what is His? And are we giving Caesar more power authority and control than he should have? Those questions do not seem to come up.

Today, rendering to Caesar not just what is his but what he wants is far more popular and convenient than giving to God what is God’s.

The message is clear: “everything will be fine if you just leave those divisive, controversial, cultural matters alone.” Leave that all to Caesar. Otherwise, full steam ahead. Some see all this as “a culture war”, but I think it’s more like ‘cultural survival of the best fit’, to compliant Christians.

So some clergy can keep right on making blanket disclaimers about not endorsing any specific political candidates or Party politics. But they will likely keep right on endorsing specific “preferred” political issues .

Part 2 to follow
(continued- Part 2 )