Essay Instructions: Please make sure it is in strict APA with references and page numbers and written in the third person. Can we make sure that the context flows well throughout the paper as I have had a number of papers come back that did not flow or was hard to understand. Please do not use complicated sentences. I need the paper by Wednesday April 18th 2012 please. My stance would be on a Christian Protestant base. I have enclosed some information from the book.
OPTION B: CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF A LITERARY WORK AND PERSONAL POSITION
Option B: Critical Analysis of a Literary Work and Personal Position
Between Life and Death The Life Support Dilemma by Kenneth E Schemmer M.D. with Dave and Neta Jackson
Dr Schemmer states that The line between life and death has blurred as doctors have learned new ways to extend physical life with the aid of technology. This blurring of the boundary line has left many people with hard questions about pain and suffering , the quality of life, death with dignity, the costs of long term care, and the slippery slope to euthanasia. He states that we can discover helpful answers to these questions and answers that are informed by God?s word, the compassion of Jesus, and our Christian conscience. He looks at questions such as:
The development of modern medical technologies
The legal aspects of current cases
What it means to be a person
What I, a doctor would want for myself
How to work with families needing answers to the hard questions concerning a loved one- a parent, spouse or child.
The paper consists of four main sections and will vary somewhat based on nature of the book selected. The first section provides a basic introduction to the topic presented in the book for the reader (minimum 2 pages). The second section introduces and summarizes the content of the book and identifies the ethical issues raised (no more than 2 pages in length). The third section presents a critical analysis of the work in relation to the topic(s) it addresses (3 to 6 pages in length). The fourth section consists of your personal position on the issue(s) with a clearly articulated justification using arguments and counterarguments framed in ethical theory and principles (3 to 6 pages in length). Remember to provide a conclusion that summarizes the paper.(1 to 2 paragraphs). Papers average 10 to 16 pages in length excluding the Title page and References page--more pages does not always equal a better paper. Use section headings to identify the primary sections and subheadings to help guide the reader as necessary.
Scoring Rubric
Content Points
Introduction (2 pages)
--The introduction provides adequate definitions and background for the reader to understand the relevance. (Assume the reader of your paper is not familiar with the topic.)
--Outlines the ethical issues and questions. 10
Book Summary (2 pages)
--Provides a good overview of the book and what the book?s author is trying to accomplish in the book.
--Identifies the specific ethical issues raised along with adequate definitions and background for the reader to understand the relevance of the book. 15
Discussion and Critique (3 to 6 pages)
Provides answers the following questions:
--Was the book was informative, factually sound, well-written, clear in its delivery and logical in its conclusions?
--Was the handling of ethical issues objective and balanced or was there an obvious bias presented in the book?
--Was the bias acknowledged?
--Were you able to identify the influence of specific ethical theories and principles in the book?s treatment of the issues? For example, issues related to respect for persons and autonomy; or duty and justice. 40
Personal Position (3 to 6 pages)
--Presents the personal position on the topic with clear and concise justification using ethical theories and principles.
--Notes how this book did or did not influence the final position.
--The personal position is not simply an opinion, it evaluates all reasonable options.
--Personal statement includes both objective analysis and subjective feelings. 25
Organization / Writing / APA format 10
Total 100
Critical Analysis of a Literary Work Checklist
___ You should assume the reader of your paper is not familiar with the topic.
___ Remember there are no right or wrong positions in terms of grading, only well or poorly supported positions. (No more than 6 pages.)
___ Have you carefully proofread the paper for misspelled words, grammatical errors and clarity of presentation? Try reading the paper out loud, or have a friend read the paper and serve as editor. You always know what you meant, but this type of writing is often hard to evaluate by yourself with respect to how someone else might read it.
___ Is the paper written in accepted APA format? Papers not in substantive compliance with APA format may be returned unread. This is a graduate level standard.
? Cover sheet; 1 inch margins and double spaced with paragraph indents
? Title at the top of the first page and running header with page numbers
? Proper use of APA section headers
? APA style references within the body of the paper and an APA style reference list.
___ Have you avoided plagiarism? Any time you use someone else?s words verbatim or even closely paraphrased, you must cite your source. For example, if you use a source that presents an effective interpretation of a particular ethical principle, cite that source in your discussion. Direct quotes should be in parentheses and the page number included in the citation (author, date, page).
THE WESLEYAN CHURCH TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC MORALS AND SOCIAL CONCERNS
POSITION PAPER ON ISSUES RELATED TO DEATH AND DYING
No one likes to think about death. Even less do people wish to consider the complex moral and medical questions
which now confront the dying and their families. Yet until the Lord returns, death will be a constant reality. Every
person will die. Many will be asked to decide on difficult matters such as advance directives, the withdrawal of life
support or the donation of body parts. Given the constantly changing state of medical technology and the variety of
circumstances surrounding each individual, it is impossible to provide specific guidance for any and every situation.
Instead, each believer must be informed by the teaching of Scripture, counseled by the Church and guided by the
Holy Spirit. Therefore we begin by establishing biblical principles related to death and dying, then offering general
guidelines for a number of current issues.
BIBLICAL FOUNDATIONS
The Word of God speaks authoritatively on the subject of death and dying. Our faith is centered on the fact of Christ's
death and resurrection. While the biblical writers do not speak specifically to the issues of our technological age, they
do address the origin and purpose of life, the meaning of death, suffering, and eternal life. These principles form the
foundation for our thinking on death and dying.
Human Life Has Absolute Value
Every human being is created in the image of God and therefore has incomparable worth independent of any other
feature of ability. It is categorically wrong for a human to take the life of any innocent fellow human. (Genesis 1:27;
9:5-6; Exodus 20:13. Discipline 212; 265:17.)
Death Is Certain Punishment For Sin
Death is the punishment for sin under which all persons live. All persons will die except those who remain alive until
Christ returns. Death is not to be sought, nor can it be avoided indefinitely. (Genesis 3:19; 1 Corinthians 15:50; 2
Corinthians 4:16; Hebrews 9:27. Discipline 250.)
There Is Life After Death
Human beings are composed of both body and spirit. At death the spirit leaves the body. All people experience life
after death. The wicked experience eternal punishment in hell. The righteous are granted eternal life in heaven
through faith in Jesus Christ and are given a new, spiritual body. The reality of Christ's resurrection frees believers
from the fear of death. (Matthew 27:50; John 14:1-6; 1 Corinthians 15:55; 2 Corinthians 5:2; Philippians 1:21; 2
Timothy 4:6. Discipline 214; 246; 250.)
Suffering Has Purpose
Suffering is a part of the curse under which human beings live and cannot be avoided entirely. Suffering is not to be
desired, but can have value for both the sufferer, and those who care since it provides an opportunity to display faith
and mercy and demonstrates human dependence upon God. Damnation, not suffering of physical death, is the worst
possible outcome for a human life. (Genesis 3:14-19; Matthew 10:28; Hebrews 5:8; James 1:2-3.)
Love Must Guide Action
Believers are intended to make ethical choices based upon the Biblical imperatives, ?Love your neighbor as yourself?
and ?Do to others as you would have them do to you.? (Matthew 22:37-40; Luke 6:31. Discipline 220; 265:16.)
God Alone Deserves Trust
God is the Giver of life, both physical and spiritual, and is the only proper object of faith. Technology can be a
significant tool for doing good, but has no ultimate value since it can neither create life nor give it meaning. Neither
medical science nor human life itself must ever become the object of trust and hope which properly belong to God.
(Genesis 2:7; Exodus 20:3; Matthew 4:4, 10; John 11:25-26. Discipline 212.)
CONSIDERATIONS FOR DECISION MAKING
The dying and their families must make decisions which balance the desire to preserve life against the reasonable
limits of medical technology. There is no checklist of objective factors which will point to a single right choice for all
circumstances. These decisions must be made by weighing a number of factors against one another. The following
considerations are important for decision making.
Living Versus Dying: Is It Redeeming?
Many of the issues related to death and dying involve the question of whether a person is alive or dead. This
question would seem to be simple, but sometimes is not. Dying is a process. The precise moment of death can be
difficult to establish. The issue is blurred by our ability to mechanically assist circulation and respiration, and the
increasing tendency to view brain activity (both higher and lower) as a vital sign.
We assert that rational thought should not be considered as a necessary sign of life, nor the absence of rational
thought as a sure sign of death. We further assert that the benefit of any doubt should be given on the side of life.
Yet the more relevant consideration is whether the patient has a reasonable hope of recovery, or is dying. A person
who is dying is one who faces imminent and unavoidable death. . (An example of this would be a person who is in
the FINAL STAGES of a terminal illness.) When a person is dying the value of medical treatment changes. The
technology which extends life or promotes recovery for those who are simply ill may only extend the suffering and
prolong the agony of those who are near death.
Therefore the reasonable prospect of recovery is an important consideration for decision making.
It is important to note that a person may endure considerable suffering with dying. Also, persons who are severely
handicapped or even terminally ill may not be facing imminent death and may be able to continue living reasonably
well with the aid of medical treatment such as kidney dialysis or a respirator.
Benefit Versus Risk: Is It Rational?
All actions regarding the dying should have the intention to do good and not harm. Medical treatment carries the
intention of doing good, but is generally invasive, requires expertise, and involves risk. Therefore there may be
occasions when medical treatment, though of some value, is unreasonably painful, or carries risks greater than
potential rewards. The benefit versus the risk of treatment is an important consideration.
Autonomy Of The Individual: Is It Respectful?
The will of the patient is an important consideration for deciding the issues related to death and dying.
Just Use Of Resources: Is It Right?
Human beings have a duty to show mercy toward one another by caring for the sick. However, medical treatment can
be exorbitantly expensive and yet fail to relieve suffering. Also, the duty to show mercy is not the only Divine claim on
our resources. Therefore it is reasonable to consider the cost of treatment against its probable outcome.
GUIDANCE FOR SPECIFIC ISSUES
The following positions are offered with the advice that decisions on specific cases be made only after prayer, the
study of Scripture, and consultation with one's pastor.
Euthanasia
We are unconditionally opposed to all forms of active euthanasia including assisted suicide, non-voluntary
euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, death selection and any other action which has the intention of inducing death.
We do not oppose the effort to give basic care and comfort to the dying without the use of heroic medical treatment.
Refusal, Withholding And Withdrawal Of Medical Treatment
Medical treatment can be an aid to living, but does not have absolute value. There may be occasions when medical
treatment would only serve to prolong suffering, or carry risks greater than potential rewards. Therefore we recognize
the individual's right to refuse medical treatment which is not judged to be reasonable.
Since medical treatment may be refused, it may also be withheld or withdrawn from those who are not able to
express their own judgment. Such a decision must always include consideration of the patient's wishes, if known.
Living Will, Durable Power Of Attorney For Health Care
We encourage individuals to consider their desire to receive or refuse extraordinary life-sustaining medical
treatments in advance of their need and to communicate their wishes to their family and physician.
Nutrition and Hydration
Food and water are among the most basic human needs and in general should be denied to no one. However, when
these basic necessities are delivered by invasive medical technology they are considered to be medical treatment.
As such, there may be occasions when the invasive means become overly burdensome to a patient. In such rare
cases it may be refused, withheld or withdrawn as medical treatment.
Pain Relief
We do not object to the use of extraordinary pain-killing treatment for those who are dying so long as the intention is
to relieve pain and not to induce death. The possibility of addiction is not a factor for the terminally ill. Also the benefit
of pain relief may outweigh the potential life-shortening risk.
Care And Comfort of the Sick
Feeding by mouth, toileting, personal hygiene, pain relief and the like are care and comfort measures and should be
denied to no one. Further, the care and comfort of the sick should be a priority for Christians today as they have been
throughout history. We call upon believers to imitate the sacrificial love of Christ by caring for the elderly and the ill in
their own families, in the Church and in the world.
Marriage Covenant and Illness
We believe that the marriage covenant extends through illness to the point of death. There is no justification for the
partner of a terminally ill or incapacitated person to establish ties with another.
Donation of Body Parts
Since the dead body is destined for decay, and since the resurrection of believers does not depend on the integrity of
the physical body, and since organ donation for human transplant or medical research has the potential for doing
good, we do not oppose the donation of body parts. Persons who have suffered whole brain death are dead and may
be considered candidates for organ donation. Under no circumstances should a life be terminated for the purpose of
harvesting body parts. We do not object to the transplantation of mechanical or animal organs to humans.
We oppose the use of fetal tissue for medical research on the grounds that it contributes to the rationale for elective
abortion.
Treatment of Remains
The dead body should be treated with respect as having been the temple of the Holy Spirit and destined for
resurrection. Since the resurrection does not depend on the integrity of the body we do not object to the embalming
or cremation of remains.
CONCLUSION:
The issues of death and dying call for the balance of mercy and justice. In a world where the line between life and
death is ever harder to distinguish, we seek to give people all the life to which they are entitled without prolonging the
agony of death. In a society which seems to value only that life which is pleasant and productive, we recognize the
inherent value of every life.
Knowing that a discussion of specific medical issues will soon be outdated by advances in science, we call attention
to the unchanging, fundamental issues of life and death taught by God's Word: the value of life, the duty to love, the
reality of death, the certainty of resurrection.
It is our prayer that this paper will enable our people to make death-related decisions with confidence because of the
hope of resurrection through Jesus Christ
"If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord."
Romans 14:8
GLOSSARY
Advance Directive: A document which specifies a person's desire to receive or refuse medical treatment in advance.
Similar documents are a living will or a life prolonging procedures declaration. A durable power of attorney for health
care designates a representative or proxy to make decision in one's place. Each legal jurisdiction will likely have its
own laws and terminology on this matter.
Brain Death: Higher brain death is the permanent loss of higher brain functions which include consciousness and
rational thought lower brain death is the loss of the brain's ability to regulate basic body functions like circulation and
respiration. Persons suffering higher brain death may exist in one of a number of unconscious states such as coma,
vegetative state, persistent vegetative state, or locked-in syndrome. They may have some abilities such as
swallowing or sleep-wake cycles. Persons who have suffered whole brain death (both higher and lower) are
considered dead. Persons who have suffered only higher brain death are alive.
Euthanasia: Active euthanasia is any action which is intended to induce death, in order to relieve suffering. Nonvoluntary
euthanasia is euthanasia without the specific consent of the patient. Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia
contrary to the will of the patient. Death selection is the targeting of a person or group of people for euthanasia
without regard to their will. Assisted suicide is action which directly enables persons to take their own lives.
The withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment without the specific intention to produce death, but from which
death may result is sometimes referred to as passive euthanasia.
Life Support: Usually refers to the mechanical assistance of circulation and respiration by machines such as a
respirator.
Nutrition and Hydration: Food and water which are delivered by invasive medical means (so-called ?tube feeding?)
are considered medical treatment by the courts. This includes intravenous fluids.
FOR FURTHER STUDY
Written Resources:
ANA Committee on Ethical Affairs. ?Persistent Vegetative State: Report of the American Neurological Association
Committee on Ethical Affairs. ?Annals Of Neurology?, Vol. 33, No.4, April 1993, pp. 386-389.
Koop, C. Everett and Johnson, Timothy. Let's Talk, An Honest Conversation on Critical Issues: Abortion, Euthanasia,
AIDS, Health Care. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992.
May, William F. ?Religious Justifications for Donating Body Part.? The Hastings Center Report, February 1985. pp.
38-42.
Tada, Joni Erickson. When Is It Right To Die? Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 1992.
Schemmer, Kenneth E. "How Much Help for the Dying?" Focus On The Family Physician, June 1989,
pp. 7-1 O. Excerpted from, Between Life And Death: The Life-Support Dilemma, by Schemmer and Dave and Neta
Jackson, Victor books, 1988.
Watkins, James. Death and Beyond: Answers To Teens' Questions About Death, Reincarnation, Ghosts, And The
Afterlife. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishing, Inc., 1993.
Other Resources:
1. Your family doctor, hospital chaplain or hospital ethics committee may help to clarify the medical and legal
issues surrounding death and dying.
2. The Task Force on Public Morals and Social Concerns of The Wesleyan Church, Box 50434, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46250. (317) 570-5147.
This paper was prepared by Lawrence W Wilson. Members of the Task Force on Public Morals and Social Concerns
for The Wesleyan Church are: Sherry Alloway, Sharon Cady, Diane Foley, Lee M. Haines, Charles McCallum, S.
Allan Summers, Earle L. Wilson and H. C Wilson, September 1995.
TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC MORALS AND SOCIAL CONCERNS
OF THE WESLEYAN CHURCH
POSITION PAPER ON
ISSUES RELATED TO DEATH AND DYING
INTRODUCTION. The purpose of this paper is to give Wesleyans guidance on some issues related to death and
dying. In this fallen world, as advances in medical technology have brought great benefits, they have also made
difficult decisions about terminal care commonplace. More and more of us are having to decide about care of
incompetent1 friends and relatives. Such decisions require thought and prayer, and no human individual, or group,
has all the right answers about the questions raised when such decision times come. Nonetheless, this paper is
offered prayerfully, in hopes that, fallible as we are, it will be of assistance. It has been prepared by the Task Force
on Public Morals and Social Concerns of The Wesleyan Church. Although communicated officially by The Wesleyan
Church, it does not have the force of The Discipline, which has been enacted by General Conference.
Abortion, capital punishment, and other topics related to death are certainly important, but will not be considered in
this paper.
MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT DEATH. Decisions about the edges of life that were not even contemplated in
previous times are now necessary. Although the necessity of making such decisions is new, the way Christians
should make decisions has not changed.
When making decisions about dying or anything else, it is best to decide before decision making becomes critical. If
possible, we should make decisions about death before confronting them urgently. It is a relief to the family if a dead
person has made some plans for the funeral service, selected a burial plot, and made a will. It would also be a relief
to the family if their loved one had planned in advance about the possibility of using life support equipment, feeding if
in a persistent vegetative state, taking extraordinary pain killing treatment, and donating body parts for medical use.
How should we make important decisions? We need to define our terms carefully - what are we actually deciding?
Where scripture speaks clearly, we should obey. We should pray fervently, listening for answers. We should examine
the historic positions of the Church. We should get advice from godly people. We should listen carefully to our own
consciences. We should try to obtain consensus when others are involved.
The principle of unselfish, Christian love, as expressed in I Corinthians 13 and the Golden Rule, should inform all of
our deciding. We should examine our motives as carefully as possible. Several scripture passages emphasize the
importance of motive. For instance, a primary motive of making a {patient as comfortable as we can is more
consistent with scripture than the motive of trying to postpone death as long as possible.
If the time comes when decisions need to be made for an incompetent person, God's will, not man's should be
sought above all. The patient's clear wishes should also be considered strongly. Decisions should not be made
hastily. Family consensus should be the goal. Friends and spiritual advisers should be consulted. Decisions should
not be left up to medical personnel. Medical personnel should be consulted, certainly, but it is unfair to leave
decisions about terminating care up to them, if others are available to make such decisions. Decisions should not be
made for selfish reasons, but for the patient's good. We should remember that the Christian's greatest good and
highest goal is not to be kept breathing or even thinking, but to live eternally with Christ (Philippians 1:21). Once a
decision is made, don't second-guess it.
Schemmer, a practicing Christian physician, states that he uses a three-point checklist when considering instituting
1 Incompetent means no longer capable of making or expressing important choices for themselves.
life support. He asks, "Is it rational? (Does it make sense - will it improve the patient's condition or ease pain?) Is it
redeeming? (Is there really hope of survival?) Is it respectful? (Is it what the patient would want? Is a massive assault
on his body necessary in order to administer life-support?)".2
A Christian family member making a decision about how a relative should be treated should act, finally, according to
a Spirit-informed conscience. Medical personnel, Christian or not, should not be expected to act against their own
principles, either:
The physician's decisions regarding the life and death of a human being should be made with careful
consideration of the wishes and beliefs of the patient or his/her advocates (including the family, the church,
and the community). The Christian physician, above all, should be obedient to biblical teaching and
sensitive to the counsel of the Christian community. We recognize the right and responsibility of all
physicians to refuse to participate in modes of care that violate their moral beliefs or conscience.)3
Questions like "What is life?" "Who is a person?" or "When does the soul enter or leave the body?" may be of great
interest. However, in the first place, these questions are very difficult to answer. Secondly, scripture gives no direct
guidance on any of them. Thirdly, even if we could decide some of these questions definitively, what we usually
should be asking is not these questions, but the more practical question "How should this situation be treated?"
DEFINITION OF DEATH. The definition of death is not merely a medical question. Medical science can tell us
whether there is a medical possibility of a person recovering conscious brain function. However, medical personnel
alone cannot legitimately decide whether or not a person who has no medical possibility of conscious brain activity is
to be treated as though dead. Such decisions are ethical, theological, legal and political. For this paper, death will be
equated with loss of any medical. possibility of recovering brain activity, including thought and control of breathing
and heart function.
Whatever anyone says or writes about reincarnation or pleasurable "out-of-body" experiences, we believe that the
Bible teaches that there is a final end to the natural physical life of every person, that each person will be judged, and
that the only way to a pleasurable experience after death is through Christ's atonement. (Discipline 125, 1264)
BRAIN DEATH AND PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE. The term, brain death, may be used in two senses. In
one sense, the person has lost the capacity to recover any significant brain function. Breathing, and perhaps other
vital activities, can be maintained only by machine. There is no reason to believe that conscious thought is possible.
The second sense is when his/her brain function is not possible. That is, the person is capable of breathing and
swallowing on their own, but cannot respond to stimuli, and has no consciousness. To eliminate confusion, we will
not use brain death for such situations, but call such a condition persistent vegetative state. The case of Karen
Quinlan is the most well known example. Another body remained in persistent vegetative state for over 30 years.
We see no reason for prolonged life-support if brain death has occurred. For a short period, it may be advisable, for
example, to make donating body parts possible, or to rule out any possibility of misdiagnosis. Unfortunately, there are
occasions when life-support seems to have been continued in an attempt to "play God," that is, to maintain breathing
merely because it is possible. Such futile attempts may have deprived others of some care.
How a body in a persistent vegetative state should be treated is problematic. Can nutrition and fluids, and other
2 Schemmer, Kenneth. ?How much help for the dying?? Focus on the Family Physician, June 1989, page 9.
3 From a statement on Euthanasia, by the Christian Medical & Dental Society, passed unanimously by its House of
Delegates, April 29, 1988, at a meeting in Seattle. The Christian Medical & Dental Society is an organization of
evangelical health professionals.
4 Discipline paragraphs cited in this paper are cited not only because The Wesleyan Church has spoken on these
matters, but because important scripture references are part of these paragraphs.
treatment, be withheld? We have not made a decision on that, but will give positions for both sides.
Many thinkers, Christian and non-Christian, have stated that we should respect such bodies, and give care. One
reason for this is that to make a practice of not giving food in such a case might make society more likely to deprive
persons who were merely incapacitated, or mentally retarded, of food. A second reason is that these thinkers don't
consider food and water medical care, but basic necessities that should not be withheld - it is unjust to deprive
someone of food and water.
Others have stated that irreversible destruction of higher brain function (i.e., the body is not capable of conscious
thought, and, barring a miracle, never will be) means that the body is already dead - the soul is no longer present.
Care of such bodies cannot possibly do the person any good, because there is no person. Therefore, goes this side
of the discussion, we can withhold nutrition and fluids, because, even though they are not medical care in the usual
sense, it is extraordinary to feed a dead person.
Another question is over how fluids and nutrition are given. Some believe that if a gastrostomy tube has already been
inserted into a body in a persistent vegetative state, fluid and nutrition should be continued. They hold that surgery to
insert such a tube is extraordinary medical care, therefore, such treatment may be refused by a guardian, especially
if the patient had made the decision to refuse such treatment while competent. Others are of the opinion that
gastrostomy surgery is morally required. There are similar differences of opinion about administration of antibiotics to
a body in persistent vegetative state.
Cases of persistent vegetative state certainly require prayerful decision-making.
We do not believe that mental retardation is equivalent to persistent vegetative state, unless, of course, the mental
retardation is so severe that higher brain function is lacking. But, for example, to refuse to feed a baby simply
because it has Down's Syndrome is monstrous.
REFUSING TREATMENT. We believe that a competent person may legitimately refuse treatment. For example, a
patient may decide that a treatment is too risky, too likely to be futile, or a violation of conscience. We also believe
that others may decide, on behalf of an incompetent person, that treatment may be refused. It does not follow that a
patient may legitimately request to be killed, or refuse to eat or partake of fluids, if the motive for such refusal is
primarily to end life.
The Christian church has, historically, regarded suicide as wrong. We believe that this stance is correct. There are
several reasons for this. First, suicide is murder, even though it is a special kind of murder, and murder is forbidden
by the Ten Commandments. Second, Christians generally believe that life is a gift from God, as and when He wills.
For instance, the Christian Medical & Dental Society has stated that
We, as Christian physicians and dentists, believe that human life is a gift from God and is sacred because it
bears His image. The roll [sic] of the physician is to affirm human life, relieve suffering, and give
compassionate, competent care as long as the patient lives. The physician as well as the patient will be held
accountable by God, the giver and taker of life.5
Third, two biblical characters who committed suicide clearly were out of God's will when they took their own lives.
Saul, chosen by God to be king, disobeyed God several times. Hours before his death, he disobeyed by seeking
advice from a medium, and, by his own testimony, God would not listen to his prayers. Judas had betrayed Christ
when he committed suicide.
EUTHANASIA. This term has had a number of meanings. For example, to some, it means only deliberate killing (so-
5 Christian Medical & Dental Society, Statement on Euthanasia.
called "mercy killing"). Perhaps the word would be more useful if it was only used in conjunction with adjectives such
as active or passive, voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary means that the person killed requested, or agreed to, the act.
Involuntary means that they had not so agreed or consented. Active euthanasia means that the life of someone by a
purposeful deadly act ("killing"). Such an act is done to free the victim from misery. An example would be
administering a lethal injection to a parent who had cancer. We oppose this sort of action, whether by medical
personnel, family members, or others, and whether voluntary or involuntary. The reasons for the opposition are the
first two reasons that we oppose suicide, given above in the section on refusing treatment. We are not alone in this
opposition:
We oppose active intervention with the intent to produce death for the relief of suffering. economic
considerations or convenience of patient, family, or society.6
Passive euthanasia means withdrawal of life-supporting treatment, or not providing life supporting treatment ("letting
die"). We believe that such acts may be justifiable in some cases. As the Christian Medical & Dental Society puts it:
We do not oppose withdrawal or failure to institute artificial means of life support in patients who are clearly
and irreversibly deteriorating, in whom death appears imminent beyond reasonable hope of recovery.7
We would point out that the motivation for acting, or not acting, is very important here.
PAIN.KILLING TREATMENT. We do not oppose giving extraordinary pain-killing treatment to those who are in
severe pain, and who, barring a miracle, are not going to recover. Such treatment may be hazardous, but we do not
oppose administration, as long as the purpose in giving it is to relieve. pain, rather than to attempt to kill or to release
a hospital bed. Extraordinary pain-killing treatment of a terminal patient may be habit forming, but, unless the patient
refuses It, there seems no reason not to administer such treatment, if the patient is going to die shortly, anyway.
CARING FOR THE ELDERLY AND THE TERMINALLY ILL Christians should set the example in this. Surely the
practice of agape love constrains us to help our family members, friends, and our church constituency, in spite of
inconvenience and various kinds of cost, material and mental. While all Christians do not have the same abilities, or
opportunities, in such care, all of us must be careful to respond to opportunities that meet us. As always, our
responses must be colored by love and we must attempt to act justly.
DONATION OF BODY PARTS. There seems no scriptural reason not to make body parts available for helping
others. As Discipline 124 states, "the raised body will be a spiritual body." Our resurrection is in the hands of the
Omnipotent, and His ability to resurrect us is not dependent on whether or not all our parts were connected at death.
Although Discipline 131:5, 16 were not written explicitly to cover donating body parts to others, the scriptural
principles behind these paragraphs apply to donation of body parts. What is said about body parts also applies to the
total dead body. One of the ways that a Christian can do good is to request that their body be donated to a medical
school for use in teaching.
THE MARRIAGE COVENANT AND ILLNESS. Although we recognize that there are temptations associated with
having a spouse who is terminally ill, or even one that is merely infirm, we know of no scriptural justification for a
married person establishing ties with another while a spouse is still alive. The marriage bond, for Christians, should
be a covenant between three parties, God and two humans, and this covenant should not be broken merely because
one of the partners is incapacitated. In the words of the popular marriage vows, "For better or worse... in sickness
and in health."
CONCLUSION. Although it is not possible for one of us to solve all of the world's problems by deciding properly, our
6 Christian Medical & Dental Society, Statement on Euthanasia.
7 Christian Medical & Dental Society, Statement on Euthanasia.
decisions should be colored by justice. There are people who do not have access to the medical care we enjoy.
Concentrating medical care on a few people may, directly or indirectly, be denying it to others. Besides, it is said, it is
unjust to expend resources on a body in persistent vegetative state, while others are untreated.
In these times of rapid change, the most fundamental things have not changed. Life is still precious. Physical life is
still temporary. We still have limited wisdom, and still need Divine guidance. We still need to decide, about end-of-life
matters or anything else, with Christ-like love as our primary motive.
The Task Force acknowledges input from fellow Wesleyans James Bross, Sr., Steve Foley, Lawrence Keever, Stacy
LaBar, and Don Wood.
The members of the Task Force on Public Morals and Social Concerns of The Wesleyan Church are O. D. Emery,
Diane Foley, Lee Haines, Martin LaBar, JoAnne Lyon, Audrey Marples, Robert Mitchell, Earle Wilson, and H. C.
Wilson.
August 1989
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, J. Kerby. "Euthanasia: A Biblical Appraisal" Bibliotheca Sacra 144; 208-217, April-June 1987.
Christian Medical & Dental Society. Statement on "Euthanasia," April 29, 1988.
Christian Today Institute. "Biomedical Decision Making: The Blessings and Curses of Modem Technology.".
Christianity Today 30: pages 1-I to 16-I, March 21, 1986.
Frame, John M. Medical Ethics: Principles, Persons and Problems. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Company, 1988.
Lamb, David. Death, Brain Death and Ethics. Albany, New York: SUNY Press, 1985.
Larson, Ed and Beth Spring. "Life-defining Acts: Do Modem Medical Technologies Sustain Life or Merely Prolong
Dying?? Christianity Today 31:17-22, March 6, 1987.
Lynn, Joanne, ed. By No Extraordinary Means: The Choice to Forgo Life-Sustaining Food and Water. Bloomington,
Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1986.
Mitchell, Virgil A. "Sanctity of life." in Shepherds After My Own Heart, by the General Superintendents of The
Wesleyan Church, pp. 93-96. Marion, Indiana: The Wesley Press, 1983.
Ramsey, Paul. Ethics at the Edges of Life. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1978.
Schemmer, Kenneth E. "How Much Help for the Dying?," Focus on the Family Physician, 1:7-10, June, 1989. The
article was excerpted from Between Life and Death: The Life-Support Dilemma, by Schemmer and Dave and Neta
Jackson, Victor Books, 1988.
Walter, James J. "Food and Water: an Ethical Burden," Commonweal 113:616-619, November 21, 1986.
Walton, Douglas N. Ethics of Withdrawal of Life-Support Systems. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1983.
