Assisted Dying

 

Assisted dying is a term used by campaigners to sound softer than euthanasia. Proponents argue that assisted dying is distinct from euthanasia because assisted dying only applies to those with a terminal illness. But since there is no clear definition of terminal illness this distinction lacks clarity.

What does the Bible say?

The foundational basis for Biblical ethics is the sanctity of human life. Human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). This image of God is not dependent on how old, young, healthy or sick the person is. It is not that some humans are more valuable than others – all are equally valuable in God’s image.

The seriousness of taking human life is emphasised throughout the Bible. In the covenant with Noah, God says:

Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man.

Because human beings are in the image of God, human life is not to be taken. In fact, the death penalty is proposed for unauthorised intentional killing of people.

Then there is the simple and straightforward commandment:

Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder.

Assisted dying clearly counts as a deliberate act of murder and a violation of the sixth commandment. It is the intentional destruction of someone who is created in the image of God and therefore a deliberate act of rebellion against God Himself.

There are a couple of accounts relating to euthanasia in the Bible.

One is the death of King Saul when he was wounded in battle. Saul was injured and asked his armour bearer to kill him:

1 Samuel 31:4 Then Saul said to his armour bearer, Draw your sword and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me. But his armour bearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it.

The armour bearer refused to comply with King Saul’s request, even though the King had authority over him. Another man reported to David that he did comply with King Saul’s request. He said that Saul had said:

2 Samuel 1:9 Please stand over me and kill me, for anguish has come upon me, but my life still remains in me.

When this was reported to David, he ordered that the man be killed because he should not have killed the Lord’s anointed (2 Samuel 1:14-16).

The clear message from these two accounts is that we should not comply with requests to assist suicide – even in a warfare situation or when the person is in a position of authority to order us to do so.

The second is the death of Abimelech when a woman threw a millstone on his head crushing his skull. The Bible relates:

Judges 9:54 Then he called quickly to the young man his armour bearer and said to him, Draw your sword and kill me, lest they say of me, A woman killed him. So his young man thrust him through, and he died.

The passage concludes:

Judges 9:56 Thus God repaid the wickedness of Abimelech, which he had done to his father by killing his seventy brothers.

In other words, Abimelech’s actions and character are not endorsed but criticised. He is regarded as an evil character, and therefore his request for euthanasia is not endorsed.

Perspectives on death

Death is an unnatural consequence of the entrance of sin into the world (Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12). It is an enemy which will be destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:26, 54-56). Barring the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall all die (Hebrews 9:27).

Although death is unnatural and an enemy, we know that death has been defeated (1 Corinthians 15:54-56) and that we can expect to be with the Lord after death (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). Paul writes:

Philippians 1:21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

Philippians 1:23 I have a desire to depart and be with Christ which is far better.

We can therefore look forward to the end of pain and suffering that death will bring us, but this is no justification for assisted dying.

What a Biblical perspective on death does mean is that we should not aim to preserve life at all costs. Physical death is not the end in a final sense. There is a balance here between not acting to hasten death and not using extraordinary means to extend life. Medical technology means that highly expensive and intrusive means can be used to extend life. A Biblical perspective would not require this and would allow patients to die naturally. This does not justify withdrawal of food or water to hasten death but does mean that patients are not required to accept every medical intervention that is on offer.

A helpful way of thinking about this is to ask whether the treatment is preserving life or prolonging death. Treatments that can be judged to be merely prolonging the natural process of death do not need to be accepted. Futile, distressing interventions which may only extend life by a few hours or days can be judged to be prolonging death rather than preserving life.

Death, according to the Bible, is when the spirit leaves the body.:

James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

When the Lord Jesus Christ died, He said:

Luke 23:46 Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit!

John 19:30 Then He gave up His spirit. (CF Matthew 27:50).

Alleviating pain

There is a verse in Proverbs which endorses pain relief for people who are close to death:

Proverbs 31:6 Give strong drink to him who is perishing.

Sometimes administering pain relief may result in shortening life. If the aim was to alleviate pain, then the unintended consequence of shortening life is not equivalent to murder. This is known as double effect when the intention was to help the patient by alleviating pain, but the action resulted in shortening the patient’s life.

 Reasons not to legalise assisted suicide

The primary reasons for not legalising euthanasia or assisted suicide can be summarised as because:

It is wrong – contrary to the teaching of the Bible.

It is unnecessary – alternative treatments are available.

It is dangerous – putting weak and vulnerable people at risk.

Should we kill to alleviate suffering?

The argument is that it is cruel to force people who are suffering and in pain to continue to suffer. But in fact, pain can usually be well-managed in palliative care. Requests for assisted suicide are extremely rare when people are well cared for. The argument for legalising assisted suicide then amounts to saying, it’s kinder to kill than to care!

In most cases, wishes for a hastened death are based more on fear of anticipated suffering rather than current suffering.

People may also fear loss of control or fear becoming a burden to the family. These fears should be discussed openly and with medical professionals. Rather than deciding that killing is easier than caring, a humane society should decide that caring is more humane than killing. Professor of palliative medicine, Baroness Finlay told the House of Lords in 2019:

With early palliative care, patients live better and longer at no additional cost overall.

Society should protect the weak and vulnerable

The legalisation of assisted suicide would put pressure on weak and vulnerable people. People who are dying are weak and feel vulnerable and reliant on others for their basic needs. They often feel a burden on relatives and carers and society. If assisted dying was legal then they would feel huge pressure to request to be killed. The law would be open to abuse. Relatives and doctors can claim that the patient requested euthanasia. Patients can be pressurised into accepting EAS. Relatives and medics may feel under financial pressure to encourage EAS.

Lord Walton of Detchant was an eminent neurologist who authored a Select Committee on euthanasia in 1994 that was long regarded as a gold standard. In his oral remarks to the House of Lords summarising the report, he said:

We concluded that it would be virtually impossible to ensure that all acts of euthanasia were truly voluntary and that any liberalisation of the law in the United Kingdom could not be abused. We were also concerned that vulnerable people — the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed — would feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to request early death.

The lesson we learn from other countries that have legalised euthanasia or assisted suicide is that the right to die very quickly becomes the duty to die.

Society should maintain the trust relationship between patients and carers or medics

If assisted dying is legalised, then carers or medics would suggest it to patients. This makes carers or medics into agents of death rather than trusted providers of care and medicine. Can you imagine your doctor suggesting that he or she could always help you kill yourself? This does happen in countries where assisted dying is legal. Financial pressures on medical professionals would incentivise them to offer death over life. This would fundamentally undermine the trust that we should be able to place in carers and medics.

Legalisation of assisted dying devalues human life

If assisted dying is legalised, then society gradually comes to accept that some human lives are not worth living. This quickly moves to a duty to die because of the perceived burden on loved ones and the costs of care. All of this serves to fundamentally undermine the dignity and sanctity of human life. People then start to think that some human lives are worth more than others, and that some people should not have the right to life. Human dignity changes into human worth – where some are worth more than others. It is no wonder that disability rights organisations are opposed to assisted dying. Human dignity is intrinsic – not dependent on a person’s health or circumstances.

Suffering is subjective

Assisted dying laws tend to specify intolerable suffering or similar terminology as criteria for eligibility. The problem is that no-one can define precisely what counts as intolerable suffering. Inevitably the interpretation widens over time as assisted dying becomes more accepted across society. The experience of legalisation in other countries shows that what counts as intolerable suffering has been diluted following legalisation of assisted dying.

Slippery slope

Assisted dying has been legalised in several countries – normally under what are believed to be very strict conditions. As the practice of assisted dying increases, the conditions loosen over time so that more people qualify, until you reach a point where we have assisted dying on demand by default. This is very similar to what has happened following the legalising of abortion under strict conditions in the UK in 1967. We now have something very close to abortion on demand as the interpretation and practice of the law has softened. The point is that once legalised, experience shows that assisted dying cannot be controlled. The culture will start to accept that people should have death on demand. And then that sick people have a duty to die.

A Christian Response

What should we do about this evil engulfing our country?

1. Oppose it openly

If being a Christian means anything, it means that we will stand up for the hurting, the weak, the helpless and the defenceless. Who fits that category more than the elderly and sick?

2. Vote on your convictions

Yes, the economy is in a mess, but the economy is not the number one issue for God’s people. Far more important for us is that we vote for those candidates who will stand up for the sanctity of life.

Please understand. I’m not telling you how to vote because that’s not my place. You can vote any way you like. This isn’t a party issue. This is a life issue.

3. Support pro-life pressure groups

Thirdly, we must support pro-life pressure-groups – especially those with a Christian foundation.  A small number of people who campaign single-mindedly can have huge influence.

4. Pray

James 5:16 The effective fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.

The earnest, sincere prayer of a person living in accordance with God’s will is powerful and effective, producing significant results.

Back to blog