Twin brothers were recently euthanized in Belgium. The two unidentified men – who appear to be in their 40s – were born deaf, and have spent their entire lives together. When informed that they were both going blind, they decided to end their lives because they couldn’t bear the thought of not seeing one another again.
Belgium euthanizes 1% of the population every year. What makes this brother-duo unique is that they were not terminally ill, nor were they experiencing any physical suffering. They simply did not want to live with the quality of life they would be forced to live under, so they found a doctor to kill them before that day arrived.
Let this be a sounding alarm. Euthanasia is not yet legal in this country, and only Oregon and Washington allow for physician-assisted suicide. But there continues to be a big push for the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, and it is gaining momentum throughout the Western world. Those who push for its legalization always tell the public that the legal option for suicide will only be reserved for the terminally ill who are experiencing agonizing pain at the end of their lives. But that’s just the selling point. Once a society buys into that line, the pro-death community always goes for the upsell. Their ultimate goal is death-on-demand.
The twin pillars of the pro-suicide logic are (1) personal autonomy and (2) relief of suffering. These two principles allow for the suicide of a whole host of individuals in a wide range of circumstances, not just for the terminally ill experiencing agonizing pain. There is no logical basis for limiting suicide candidates to the terminally ill. After all, physical suffering is not the only kind of suffering that exists. Emotional suffering is also painful in its own way, and many people want to be relieved of that suffering as well. Given the principles of the pro-suicide movement, why can’t the depressed end their lives, just as these brothers (and others as well) did? Indeed, given the principle of personal autonomy, why should suffering even be a prerequisite for suicide? If people have complete autonomy over when and how they die, no further justification is necessary. There is no reason to forbid a person who is physically and emotionally healthy from killing themselves for frivolous reasons. After all, their will is sovereign.
We’ve already seen this progression in European countries like Belgium, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. The so-called legal safeguards do not work. Justifiable suicide is always broadened to include more and more people. It’s not just the terminally-ill, but the depressed (including teenagers), and the healthy elderly who are simply tired of living. Even the voluntary nature of suicide can be compromised. When suicide is seen as a moral good to end personal suffering, then killing those whose lives we deem unworthy of living is not only a moral good, but a moral responsibility. Babies and adults alike are already being killed without their consent in Europe.
We must not buy into the pro-suicide logic, and we must not fall for their tactics. They gain support for their cause by tugging at our heartstrings, telling us stories of terminally ill people experiencing excruciating pain in their final days of life. They manipulate our emotions to make us believe we are the reason these people have to endure their suffering: “If only you would vote to change the law, they could be spared. Where is your sympathy? Would you want your father or grandmother to experience excruciating pain in their final days?” The stories they tell are truly heartbreaking (of course, with advancements in pain medication very few people experience agonizing pain – a point they do not mention), but hard cases do not make for good law. Legislation must be well-thought out, not a knee-jerk reaction to our emotions and sentiments. Legalizing suicide for any circumstance is a slippery slope to a pro-death culture. That culture resulted in the death of these brothers. Don’t let it happen here. Stand up for a culture of life.
January 16, 2013 at 11:08 am
I don’t understand the worrying tone in your post.
Yes, this is a tragic event. But the fact that euthanasia is legal where they are didn’t make it happen. Are you arguing that because euthanasia is legal that these two men died? They wouldn’t have killed themselves otherwise?
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 11:25 am
What is done by individuals to themselves cannot ever be controlled, so suicide may always be with us. However, what our society does by “assisting” such action is another issue. These men may have killed themselves, but they may not have if it was more difficult to do so and their culture clearly told them is was a poor choice. The problem these men had, according to Scripture, is spiritual blindness. By making suicide easy for them, the government assisted in them entering eternity still blind.
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 11:55 am
JASON:
I DON’T UNDERSTAND YOUR STATEMENT: “The pro death community always goes for the upsell” Who is the pro death community? What is this upsell you are talking about and for what reason?
What is the death on the demand goal you talk about?
The closest to death on demand that I can see in this hemisphere is the National Rifle Association in the USA but I think that is not what you are concerned about. But what is your concern if people want to die regardless of the reason except of course if it is for the religious insanity of muslims so they can get into heaven and be with Allah or God; not that would be a different question. Religion might go for Euthanasia though seeing as if they were members of the church and had real property the church could grab it faster if euthanasia was legal. Now that I would have an opinion about but I am not convinced by anything you have said so far.
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Ridding the world of religion would necessarily mean also ridding the world of religion’s mindset which is that death brings the rain, helps the garden, avoids the floods, brings freedom and prosperity; no! death never does any of that. The re-education of humanity to a new way of looking at life; that is, life by life, not life by death. Religion has always been life by death and set the pattern for the world to justify whatever it does by religion’s mandate of death.
Religion holds the dismal belief the Laws of Nature respond to wailings, incantations, prayers, repetitions and chants. These ludicrous remnants of ancient mindsets believed the sacrifice of life by someone else’s death to be the ultimate appeasement of the gods. Writings, rituals and religious laws are reflected in world cultures today, riddled by stupidism: death for rain, for eternal life, against infidels, for freedom, for god, for justice; OMG. This is the legacy of religion, DEATH!
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm
I nteresting article Jason,
To be honest, I never thought much on the topic, you make some great points. Life IS valuable!
LikeLike
January 16, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Leonardo,
The caricature of religion you have is sad. If that is the religion you have experienced, I don’t blame you for being so angry as I know there are some real wolves in sheeps clothing out there. I along with many others on the other hand, appreciate our walk with God and live happy lives, full of faith and glad to worship God our creator. I experience no oppression from my pastor and elders and assemble joyfully with other saints of like precious faith.
Also I too am all for the exposing of false teachers btw!
PS – Don’t look now , but the doctrines YOU hold about Jesus are false themselves and need correcting. I know you don’t like that but I just thought I’d point that out anyway.
LikeLike
January 17, 2013 at 11:56 am
NotAScientist,
Law is a moral teacher. It sends a message about what is right. It also encourages people to do X who would not have otherwise done so. Just look at abortion. Most people thought abortion was immoral, and not many people risked breaking the law to obtain abortions prior to Roe. But after Roe, not only did public opinion change regarding the morality of abortion, but the number of abortions skyrocketed.
When suicide is made legal, it not only sends a message that it is morally acceptable to kill yourself, but that killing yourself can be a moral good. There’s no question that more people will choose suicide when it is viewed as a moral good, and when it is so easy to do (and do in a way that will not hurt). I can’t say whether or not these brothers would not have killed themselves if euthanasia was not legal in Belgium, but it would have been less likely (as DesertSage noted).
And what they did – as far as I understand – was not legal. Assuming the law has not changed, it states the condition for euthanasia to be as follows: “the patient is in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious or incurable disorder caused by illness or accident.” See http://www.kuleuven.be/cbmer/viewpic.php?LAN=E&TABLE=DOCS&ID=23.
I’m sure that the doctor who performed the killing will argue that their blindness and deafness are incurable illnesses, and that it caused them mental suffering. But they hadn’t even become blind yet.
Jason
LikeLike
January 17, 2013 at 11:57 am
Leonardo,
The pro-death community are the groups who promote making suicide legal, such as Dignitas. The upsell is the expansion of qualified suicides. Whenever they introduce the notion of legal suicide to a society, they always start by saying it will only be for competent adults who are terminally ill, in their last stage of life, and in excruciating pain. But that’s not the only group they think should be eligible for suicide. Many of these groups and individual-promoters believe that suicide should be available for anyone on demand, including the healthy elderly, depressed teens, etc. And once a culture buys into the idea that some suicides are good, then these groups push the envelope to include more eligible individuals. And given the logic of the pro-suicide ideology, there is no principled reason to say X can kill themselves but Y cannot.
Equating the NRA with death-on-demand is simply irresponsible. Do you truly care about careful thinking?
Jason
LikeLike
January 18, 2013 at 10:12 am
Leonardo,
The difference between a pro-life community and a pro-death community, is that life is celebrated in the first and not the second.
The pro-life worldview assumes that living is generally better than dying. Thus, such a society puts law in place to: 1) insure that as many people as possible have the right to live (thus, abortion is a moral evil); 2) bulwark against people considering taking their own lives; and 3) judge those who take the lives of others (like abortion doctors, doctors who assist in suicide, and murderers).
The common phrase: “there are always exceptions.” Yes. There is a no man’s land of gray in the middle in the medical world (when exactly does a person die, what is life support, what of harming the mother, etc.), but we should prefer the happy land of absolutes where life is honored rather than reasoning from the extremes to the center and muddle our thinking.
The pro-death worldview assumes that death should not be an obstacle to our freedom. Thus, a potential child should never endanger the future of a mother (because children are a burden you know). And second, if you wish to die, instead of helping you find meaning in the life you do have and finding a way to live meaningful through it (or resolve your problems in the case of depression, disappointment with life, mental illness, etc.), the pro-death community will hand you the syringe.
The pro-life community turns to history and finds heroes in people like Helen Keller, who found meaning and made a great impact with their lives living in a state all the rest of us find horrifying. What would be like not to see? Or not to hear? The pro-death community would make sure that Helen Keller’s parents knew that Helen could commit suicide if she wanted to. They might encourage it, such a horrible quality of life, you know! I wonder what Ms. Keller would say about us today?
The pro-life community celebrates heroes like Ms Keller, while the pro-death community celebrates as heroes these two men who with the approval of their own government, took their lives! Nothing could be more stark or bleak. These men had decades of life left, what difference could they have made, what great impact and influence if someone had instead been their encourager and shown them a way to live a meaningful life through their difficulties?
Ultimately, any person is free to take their own life. The question is will we help them or we will try to prevent them? Will we prefer death or life? Will we try to give hope, or end all hope?
If you read history, the verdict of history is that cultures which take these moves are always cultures in a state of decay or destructive upheaval. Before the Nazis were ever massacring Jewish citizens, they had been practicing on the mentally ill and dying for some time. The only upside to the current trend, is that society’s future undesirables will get to die more quietly and humanely than those of the past. A society that begins to allow this is merely building the machinery for the martydom of the future. The slippery slope argument is not a logical one, but a very real historical one!
The article claims that there was draft legislation for extending this legal right to Alzheimer’s patients and children. Perhaps is was not and will not be put into law, but the fact that that is, as a mere proposal, not seen as morally repugnant and held in horror and revulsion, is an example of the slippery slope in action. Someone should be exclaiming, who proposed this insanity? Once moral compromises are made, they become easier. In these cases, who gets to decide for Alzheimer’s patients and children, both of whom are easily manipulated?
To repeat Jason, the questions of gun ownership, or other red-herrings such as capital punishment are entirely different discussions from this one. A culture which allows gun ownership is giving people the right to protect their own lives, which given the history of the world (as our founders acknowledged), is absolutely necessary for personal freedom. And a culture which allows capital punishment is affirming, not denying, the value of life by judging those who take life with the harshest sentence possible.
Jason,
Sorry for the length of the post! Got carried away!
Chad
LikeLike
January 21, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Speaking of the slippery slope, Wesley J. Smith reports on an article in the most prestigious bioethics journal, promoting euthanasia for Alzheimers patients. See http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/338148/lets-find-way-kill-alzheimers-patients
LikeLike
January 25, 2013 at 4:52 pm
Chad, your thoughtful insight and perspective justifies the length of your comments. I couldn’t have said it better. How sad I feel for these brothers that they didn’t explore how their circumstances could have turned out differently if only they valued life. Apparently they had the support of their family and they will live out the rest of their lives wrestling with the “what ifs”.
LikeLike
January 28, 2013 at 9:48 am
Those were excellent comments by Chad….thank you.
It is sad about these 2 brothers, very tragic.
It was mentioned that they had spiritual blindness, I cannot agree more. The brothers understanding of the “quality of life” was limited in their mind to what they could physically see.
I do not want to diminish the pain not being able to see would cause, as I contemplate how difficult it would be to live not being able to see my wife and kids any longer. That said, with an eternal perspective and God in their lives, these brothers could have endured and overcome the pain by faith. I also believe that God would have used their pain and struggles to help someone else or God willing, they could have been healed altogether !
Again, I am very saddened at this tragic event and can only plead God’s mercy for people brought to these ends, Lord help us….
Naz
LikeLike
January 28, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Great comments Chad. Those could be a post in and of themselves.
Jason
LikeLike
October 10, 2013 at 10:55 am
[…] recent example of the PAS/EUTH slippery slope was when deaf Dutch twins were euthanized in Belgium because they were going blind and couldn’t bear the thought of not seeing one another […]
LikeLike