David Anguish
"Dr. Death" was recently convicted of homicide. As the result of his well publicized 60 Minutes interview last November which included a videotape of him giving a lethal injection to a 52-year-old man with Lou Gehrig's disease, Dr. Jack Kevorkian was tried and convicted in Michigan in late March. But if we think his conviction is the end of the matter - either for Kevorkian personally, or for the much larger movement he represents - we are woefully naive. A column by John Leo (U. S. News and World Report, March 22, 1999, 16), written before Kevorkian's trial, raises several issues, four of which should concern us greatly.
First, Leo notes Kevorkian's effort to frame the debate "as a stark choice between a lethal injection or pointless suffering." It's the ultimate euphemism, worse than the term "euthanasia" itself (literally, "good death"). Of course, it assumes that all suffering is pointless (a point Bible writers often dispute), and it conveniently ignores the extreme measures taken to eliminate the suffering. But it is the debate that advocates of euthanasia would like to see. Christians must be foremost among those who think and speak more clearly.
Second, Leo cites bioethicist Arthur Caplan who has reported "that an analysis of 1,400 TV and print stories turned up only 'a piddling amount' of input from bioethicists and religious leaders,. . ." Now, before concluding that the media is the villain here, we should ask whether part of the problem is that they have not been given enough to report. Have religious leaders and ethicists allowed their focus to be diverted from life threatening issues? As God's people, hungering and thirsting for his righteousness, let's be sure that we are aware of things and say more about our awareness.
Third, Leo points out the shift in emphasis by advocates of euthanasia away from personal choice to the need to contain medical costs. He refers to "a Memphis State University professor [who] proposes that insurance companies cut costs by offering a lump-sum payment to terminally ill patients who agree to commit suicide." Leo correctly asks, "But why stop with the terminally ill? The same bribe could be offered to any medically costly citizen." Of course, this is not the first time that we've heard economics elevated over ethics. But again, let's be sure that as God's people we focus on the right question. We expect people who live for this world to be consumed with its things. The question for an upwardly mobile church is whether we will allow our luxuries to numb us too.
Fourth, Leo notes that the "chief media sin is a failure to notice what's going on in the Netherlands" where, according to a recent report in the Journal of Medical Ethics, as long ago as 1990, "1,040 people died from 'involuntary euthanasia' (they were killed without their knowledge or consent), and that of these, 14 percent were fully competent, and 72 percent had never given any indication that they wanted their lives terminated. This happened despite the assurances of safeguards that we are now hearing in Oregon. Why are we so sure it couldn't happen here?"
Let's be clear. First, there is a difference between euthanasia and disconnecting life support systems and allowing nature to take its course. Second, no matter how dire or distasteful they are, consequences themselves do not automatically make an action right or wrong. Third, euthanasia is wrong because it is murder, the wilful taking of an innocent human life without provocation or just cause.
That a movement advocating such a course has received much of its impetus from the medical community and is gaining momentum sounds more than a little like Germany in the 1930's. We know how that turned out. Just why are we so sure it can't happen now?