Imagine with me the following scenario: You are resting peacefully at your home, when all of a sudden you hear a loud bang. You rush outside to see what happened, and across the street is a wrecked car with a man trapped inside. As you approach the car to offer help, it becomes engulfed in flames. The man is fully conscious, but unable to escape. You’ve called 911, but it will be 15 minutes before they are able to arrive with a fire truck and the jaws of life. The man is burning before your eyes with no chance of survival, and you hear his blood curdling cries from within the car: “Shoot me, please! Shoot me! Ahhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!”
You own a gun, and have the means to honor this man’s request. The choice is yours: Do nothing, and watch this man burn to death in excruciating pain for the next 10 minutes, or get your gun, and shoot the man to hasten his death to avoid the unbearable suffering. What would you do?
Once you have answered this question, scroll down below for an additional question.
Euthanasia is the practice of actively and purposely killing an individual because they are experiencing some form of unbearable suffering. Think, for example, of the person with terminal bone cancer whose body is wracked with pain. If you were to meet such a person, and they requested that you kill them to end their suffering, would you do it?
If you would kill the man in the car, but not the man with cancer, please explain what you see as the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios. Likewise, if you would not kill the man in the car, but would kill the man with cancer, please explain what you see as the morally significant distinction between the two scenarios.
Thinking to Believe 
December 6, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Jason:
There is no moral distinction between the two. It would be wrong in both cases as far as I am concerned. But your burning car and shooting the trapped man analogy is rather far fetched but I get the point even though the comparison is somewhat dramatic.
Even a little hope is better than no hope but it is a sorry commentary on society that it would offer a “no hope” scenario; and worse, that the unfortunate buy into it.
Euthanasia is hardly any different than abortion from where I sit.
LikeLike
December 6, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Actually, it’s not far-fetched. It’s a real scenario. Over the years, I have heard of a couple of stories involving someone trapped in burning car begging to be shot because he could not be saved. If a bystander had a gun (such as a citizen in states that allow people to carry guns, or a cop who is present), then they would be in this dilemma.
Jason
LikeLike
December 6, 2013 at 3:43 pm
Well the cancer patient is under a Drs care so we can justify our inaction by telling ourselves that they are in charge and know what’s best, are providing painkillers etc. whereas the other situation puts us in charge , it’s up to us to provide relief. I think if it is a stranger most people would try to rationalize ,that although its horrible its not going to be that long before they die, whereas if its a loved one you may not care about any adverse consequences , all your thinking about is they are suffering and I must stop the suffering. In talking to a state patrol officer, he related the worse part of the job was being the first to arrive at a vehicle accident and be there with someone in pain and not have the ability to really help them. There has been several cases in Europe lately that have been unsettling to me, one involved a set of twins who were deaf, who learned they were going to go blind in the next few years, they said this would be to much for them so they chose to have their lives ended , they were killed by a dr. They were not even blind yet, it was something that would happen in the future, another involved a person who had a sex change and wasn’t happy with the results , so they too chose death at the hands of a Dr. I guess that’s all off topic. Obviously many of us may face the scenario of a loved one living in much pain who wants it to go away, but very few will face seeing someone in the car fire. I suppose I would turn from the car and pray for them, and later try to convince myself that it was the correct decision .
LikeLike
December 6, 2013 at 4:34 pm
different situations. the cancer patient can be treated, the person in the burning car can’t. have you seen the movie “the last of the Mohicans” ? the british soldier was killed not murdered when he was shot. the real question should be, if a terminal cancer patient was in pain and a minor increase in the morphine injection to treat the pain would kill the patient would you give the injection ? i would, because the intent is to relieve pain not murder the patient. now if the morphine injection was much larger than required to relieve the pain and the only purpose is to murder the patient, i would not give that injection. imo it’s all about intent. the commandment is thou shalt not kill, but what does that really mean in light of the old testament? the rite to die movement wants to murder people not treat their pain and imo that not only breaks the letter of G-d’s law, it breaks the spirit of His law.
LikeLike
December 6, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Christians are taught that one of the characteristics of a believer is compassion, I am sure some would feel it to be an expression of love and compassion to help stop the suffering of the man in the car. Since one brought up the Mohicans, I remember several movies where the enemy has captured a fellow comrade and is tortureing them and someone is able to shoot the individual being tortured and this is always potrayed as being acceptable . Just trying to understand the reasoning of some Christians , I myself am not for playing God. I think to take a life is wrong and I sometimes wonder about the excessive surgeries that some infants are put through may almost be as bad, are we trying to hard to save a life , we want them to live and even though the odds are one in a million , we put the loved one through hell because we do not want to lose them. How about spending all your $ , and going into debt , selling your home etc. looking for some cure, even though drs say no hope, your terminal , then you die and your family is financially in ruin, because you couldn’t face the will of God for your life. If God isn’t healing then perhaps it’s his will to take you home. Everyone wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die. Sorry off subject again.
LikeLike
December 13, 2013 at 12:19 am
Dear Jason
the question is hard indeed to answer because it touches one of the most sensitive area of our human life, called emotion.
Emotions lately have become a priority, so our lives turn around what feels right, and not necessarily around what is right.
I believe that the story of King Saul gives some ground to answer this question. He is about to die and asks his armourbearer to kill him. He refused to do it although the King was already badly wounded. So Saul committed suicide. See 1 Samuel 31.
After that a young man went to David bringing news; he told David a lie, he said that King Saul had been badly wounded and that he had asked him to put an end to his pain, so the young man, not seeing any possibility for him to survive, had killed the King.
David’s reaction was to punish this young man by killing him, because he had stretched his hand to destroy God’s anointed (2 Samuel 1).
The right thing is not always the one that feels right. God has never authorized a man to take the life of another man, nor to take their own life. God takes a life when it is the time, and we need to respect that, even when it is difficult and painful. God’s timing is the best timing, even when the journey becomes hard.
God bless you all.
LikeLike
December 13, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Gioele:
It is always amusing to me when people speak on God’s behalf as though they are in direct talks with him like at a negotiating table of Creator and a bunch of self appointed Creatures. God does not take a life when it is time; wherever did that nonsense come from? If people even for a moment thought that was true what good would all the prayers be for?
LikeLike
December 14, 2013 at 1:09 am
I am a born again Christian, therefore I believe that God does indeed talk to his people. The Gospel is all about that, people repenting of their sin and entering in a relationship with God through the blood of Jesus and hence receiving the Holy Spirit. If you haven’t got a relationship with God you probably won’t understand what I am talking about and will need to do some research into it.
Said that, I started my argument saying “I believe that the story of King Saul gives some ground to answer this question”. I am not mother tongue in English but I was taught that this is a way to start a sentence when I share your opinion. That comment is my personal conviction of what the Bible thinks about euthanasia. If you don’t like it, don’t take it. Your comment did not have any Biblical ground, prove me that I wrote nonsense, and I will have a look into it.
Finally, the Sovereignty of God is also a very important pillar in Christian faith, God is in control of all things. Unfortunately this truth isn’t clear in all its facets. Some believe in a sort of predestination and destiny written by God; others believe in men doing their choices and God respecting them; others are in the middle, believing that God has a plan, but that man’s choices or prayers might influence, tweak, or change the way God’s will develop it.
I am probably in the last slot. I believe in prayers, in a spiritual realm, and in a God who wants the best, in an enemy who wants the worst, and in man who wants the best doing (often) the worst.
LikeLike
December 14, 2013 at 9:00 am
Gioele:
Thank you for your reply.
I understand what you are saying about Christian teaching which I refer to as Church Dogma however one does not have to go back vey far in history to see how church dogma treats people who disagree with church dogma. The first example that comes to mind is Galileo Galilei. I suppose the born again Christians (aka minions, pawns, proxies and proselytes) of that day would have sided with the Pope convinced that Galileo was a heretic forced to live the rest of his life under house arrest because he agreed that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around.
The next problem with Church Dogma is that they are like Pit Bulls who grab onto an idea and never want to give it up regardless if it is right or wrong; in other words Dogma is like the old time idea that eating meat on Fridays was a sin and one needed confessing before receiving the communion host or that Limbo was a place that children went because they died before receiving a church ritual.
The one I disagree with ardently is the idea that you have a relationship with God because Jesus blood was shed. Jesus’ legacy is one of attitude and disposition, graceful and genuine in compassion and kindness, always ready to forgive those willing to receive it and that legacy was from his life. Jesus gave the presence of peace and righteousness by his life, not through his death; the clergy has it all backward by claiming Jesus gave the world life through his death, uh uh. Couldn’t be farther from the truth. Jesus gave life to the world through his life not his death
Much of my own understanding of Jesus is taken from biblical scripture but researching scripture without the magic, miracle and myths of a supernatural mindset. I have discovered to my own satisfaction that most miracles are embellished narratives of common sense events which can easily be imagined and understood without the context of the supernatural which in my mind does not exist and I also believe in the mind of Jesus did not exist either. Jesus constantly referred to the Father that lives within you as the true guide in life, not an external supernatural entity.
I know I cannot convince anyone through logic or reason because most minds are made up by indoctrination of the values of the society they are born into; that is, Church teachings, and therefore are also too dogmatic to be easily persuaded to see another point of view but I have studied The Way of Jesus all my life since I was 12 years old. Jesus, for the most part, is none of the things said of him in churches by preachers, pastors, priests and popes.
LikeLike
December 15, 2013 at 7:00 am
Dear Sonofman
I read with interest your answer, in fact we have more in common than I thought. I disagree on the fact that a truly born again Christian would have sided with the Pope in the days of Galileo Galilei, in fact born again Christians, especially the ones believing and practising spiritual gifts, have often been persecuted by the official Church. They have been called heretics and killed. Many of the so called witches which were burned alive, for example, had nothing to do with witchcraft, but perhaps simply practised Christianity in a different way. Church history mentions several revivalists who went through either persecution or integration in the Church (by losing their first intentions). But I agree on what you said on dogma. That is indeed a big problem of religions, whether Christian religions or any other religions. Different is for the Christian who doesn’t follow dogmas or religions, but is a Bible follower because of a personal encounter with God that drastically changed his life. I am talking from this last perspective.
For what concerns my relationship with God, that is not an idea or a Christian teaching. Just as you, I was only 12 when I had my life-changing encounter with God. No one pushed me into any particular experience and I was not even thinking about it when I received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (see Acts 2). I know what I am talking about as a fact, not as an indoctrination, in fact from that day onward my life changed, my fears disappeared and everything was new. And what to say of my fractured knee which was suddenly healed after a prayer? Or of another more personal healing which I received? Or what to say of special revelations I received in particular times which were then confirmed by the facts of life? It is true, I can’t convince anyone through logic or reasoning because certain things can be understood only by personal experience. I could tell you some more but I wouldn’t want to write too much in Jason blog or annoy other bloggers. You can contact me privately through the contact details on my Blog http://www.wordsforthechurch.wordpress.com/contacts/
On another thing I agree with you, it is not by the death of Jesus that humanity can be saved, but through his resurrection. I imagine you disagree also on this belief, but all the Scripture that you studied talks about faith and hope as things not seen but believed for.
I also imagine how you could get to different conclusions on the Bible through your own studies. The Bible is a special and unique book that is to be read with the help of the Spirit of the Author. This happens only by an encounter with the very Author by having a relationship with Him (thing that you do not believe). That is why I don’t wonder that you got to wrong conclusions, but I surely appreciate you effort, which many more Christians should take as example. The revelation of the Bible has always been given to the Church, called the Body of Christ. You can say many things about the Church, but among the many different denominations and doctrines, the pillars of the Christian faith are the same in all Christian confessions (not considering Christian cults).
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Shooting a dying man…
Responding to this scenario within in a Biblical context, and that from the traditional perspective, I am not under obligation to a suffering man who is dying but I am under obligation to a suffering man who is living (Matt 25:42-45, James 2:15-16, 1 Jn 3:17-18 to cite a few).
Most scenarios posited as this are for the basis of generating a deeper level of thought – I get that.
Kant’s approach to Deontology was very strict and runs parallel to the level of commitment fundamentalists of Christianity have. Deontology holds people to an obligation of rules and duty therefore it is never acceptable, regardless of any positive outcome that might result, to venture beyond established rules.
An element of rationality says the morality of an action is based on the result (s) it can produce. Shooting the suffering man would produce an immediate change. But from my standpoint, I wouldn’t shoot though I carry…I say biology will take over in the case of the fire and that soon. (i.e. shock, rapid sensory deterioration, smoke inhalation, etc).
LikeLike
July 6, 2016 at 2:53 am
There is no moral distinction although the bone cancer is slightly worse due to the duration of suffering (minutes vs possibly months). I disagree that the burning car scenario is unlikely. Horrifically, I saw this once on the freeway (thankfully from a distance since I was only fifteen years old at the time and just kind of shut down in horror – we didn’t have a gun at the time unfortunately). If we had, I know my uncle would have done the deed if he would have been able to as he is a very selfless and decent person who would even go to jail to prevent the suffering of another and although I’m not quite as honorable, selfless, and moral as him, I (and any other reasonable person) would have applauded him for doing what cowardice or fear of consequences might have stop us from doing ourselves…
Now that I’m older and can handle those type of situations better, I’d have absolutely no moral problem euthanizing either individual although I may hesitate due to the fear I would be charged with murder… Bottom line, I WOULD euthanize someone I loved and hope and pray I could plea bargain down to manslaughter. Sadly, due to our backward and archaic laws, I might just have to watch someone else like a stranger suffer… I would probably have nightmares and feel guilty for the rest of my life, but the alternative is going to jail for 15-life and being taken away from family & friends who love and need me… It is really fucked up that doing the right thing can be punished in these types of circumstances… The law should be changed.
LikeLike