May 19, 2025 • 20 mins
As more people accept the practice of physician-assisted death, Christians must decide whether to embrace or oppose it. Is it ethical for physicians to assist patients in hastening their own death? Should Christians who are facing death accept the offer of an assisted death? Dr. Ewan Goligher stopped by and offered a Christian response against physician assisted suicide!
https://www.logos.com/grow/hall-physician-assisted-suicide-ethics/
https://www.amazon.com/How-Should-then-Die-Physician-Assisted/dp/1683597478
Donate to Moody Radio: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/morningshow/wkes
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
Kurt and Kate mornings, not just on the radio.
S2 (00:03):
It's a podcast, too.
S1 (00:06):
As more people accept the practice of physician assisted death.
We as Christians, we have to decide where we stand
on this. Is it ethical for doctors to assist patients
in hastening their own death? Should Christians who are facing
death accept the offer of assisted death? You and Gallagher
(00:29):
is a doctor. He is in Toronto. He's a professor
of medicine at the University of Toronto, in fact. And
he's written a book that has been very helpful when
it comes to taking a look at this from a
Christ centered biblical point of view. We had to have
him on.
S2 (00:48):
Yeah. And he was great. Because the thing is, it's
very well could happen to you, someone you love, and
some of the words that are tossed around in the
hospital may confuse you. You may not understand the difference
between things that are happening and physician assisted suicide. So
he really clarified a lot of that.
S1 (01:11):
Why is it that you have decided, you know what
I feel called, and you can correct me if I'm
using the wrong terminology here, but I feel called to
speak out on this issue. Uh, as a follower of Jesus,
do you remember the day when you're like, you know what?
Somebody needs to take a stand for, uh, for what
God has to say. His perspective on all of this.
Do you remember that day?
S3 (01:34):
Yeah. I don't know if there was one day, but
when physician assisted death became widely embraced in Canada just
over a decade ago, and then shortly after that legalized
and began to be practiced as a physician working in
intensive care and caring for patients who were often at
or near the end of life. I knew that I
(01:56):
was this was going to engage the ethics of my
medical practice and at the time I was involved in
speaking to other colleagues about it, writing about it, speaking
out about it, just because I felt burdened to be
able to explain why I opposed this. What was so
strange at the time was that the idea of deliberately
(02:19):
causing a patient's death had been taboo for many, many years,
and all of a sudden it was something that everyone
seemed to believe was absolutely the right thing to do.
And if you refuse to participate, it meant that you
didn't really care about the patient's suffering or care about
the patient themselves. Just insisted on your private religious beliefs.
So I wanted to be able to address that, to
(02:41):
explain why we opposed it. So that's how I got involved.
I didn't initially imagine ending up writing a book about it,
but you know how one thing leads to another. So
here we are.
S1 (02:50):
Yeah, I'm glad you did, because it's really a great
treatment of the subject. So let's just dive in to
some of these arguments against physician assisted Uh, deaths. The
first one you have here is because physician assisted death
intentionally aims to cause the death of the patient. Because
of that, it is distinctly different from other practices in
(03:14):
end of care or end of life medical care. Tell
us more about that one.
S3 (03:20):
Yeah. This is this is really the defining feature, um,
that helps us understand why we would oppose assisted death,
even while working very hard to make sure that patients
are comfortable and free of suffering as they journey towards
the dying process. You know, we have tools in our
medical kit, uh, we refer to as palliative care, where
(03:42):
we work hard to control a patient's symptoms, whether that's
pain or shortness of breath. Um, and do everything we
can to help them live to the fullest, even as
they journey through the dying process. Often that involves a
process of, um, you know, looking back and reflecting on
one's life and and addressing a number of spiritual issues
(04:05):
as well as medical issues. But at no time would
we in doing in in pursuing those things or trying
to help the patient die, well, lift our hands to
actually cause the patient's death. Even in the ICU where
I work, when we think about withholding or withdrawing life
sustaining measures, the intention behind those actions is never to
(04:26):
try to cause the patient's death. That's not what it's about.
And what's new and different about this is that here,
the goal of the doctor's action is to actually render
the patient dead. And it's really important that people appreciate that,
because this is why we can, you know, be absolutely
devoted to pain and symptom management and good palliative care,
(04:50):
while at the same time opposing this practice as something
totally different from from good palliative care.
S4 (04:56):
Yeah. Yeah.
S2 (04:56):
You know, I my brother Died in the hospital. They
took him in. They. It was his heart. It just
gave out and they brought him back. But then at
one point they said to him, um, you said to
my my other family, you know, he we won't be
able to bring him back again. This is the end.
So someone could be with him. And what I like
(05:17):
about what you're doing is you are differentiating some. I
think there's. We don't understand death. We don't understand, you know,
even natural death. So to be able to differentiate that. Yeah.
We can't do anything else. You can come in and
be with them as opposed to, well, we're done with him.
There's you know, there's a there are so many levels
of dying these days with health care.
S3 (05:41):
Yeah. Kate, that's a really important point. And I think
one of the frustrating things I've found in my practice
is that, you know, with the legalisation of euthanasia and
assisted suicide, people come in and, and they feel confused
about all these different practices. And when I when I'm
having a conversation with a family about the fact that
(06:03):
there's nothing more we can do and that, you know,
it's time to let them go. Uh, they sometimes worry
that I'm suggesting actually performing euthanasia. And so there's a
lot of confusion around these things. And I think having
this clarity around exactly what sets assisted death apart becomes
so important because, you know, as Christians, we, you know,
(06:24):
are very realistic about the reality of death. We understand
that everyone dies. And and as you said in your opening,
we are not afraid of death. Uh, death has been conquered,
but we don't embrace it as a tool to address suffering. And, uh,
and so we want to uphold the sacredness of the
(06:44):
human person even while we care for them through the
dying process. So it is a lot of wisdom is
needed to to do this. Well.
S5 (06:53):
Thank you for taking some time to listen to this
episode of the podcast. We always welcome a review with
your thoughts and comments, and please feel free to subscribe
and follow us as well.
S1 (07:05):
You and I want to talk about this issue of suffering. Um,
people think that suffering is pointless. The Bible has a
lot to say about this. And I mean, let's look
at our let's look at our Savior. Look at Jesus.
I would venture to say no one suffered more than
the Lord. There there is. He allows suffering, uh, for
(07:31):
his for his purposes. And the Christian perspective on suffering,
I think, really helps us frame our thinking in regard
to this whole topic. What do you think?
S3 (07:42):
Yeah. One's perspective on suffering, I think, is really at
the root of of this issue. I think the reason
that people turn to death to escape at or near
the end of their lives is really because they don't
see any point in going on with suffering when when
people advocate for assisted death, they often talk about or
(08:07):
describe the image of a person suffering with uncontrolled physical
agony and death being sort of a means or the
only remedy to escape from that. But that's really not
the issue. People don't actually turn to seek assisted death
because of physical suffering. It's really actually what we might
(08:28):
call existential suffering. This feeling that one has become a burden.
One's life is pointless. Uh, they're losing autonomy and control
and don't see any meaning in going on. It's very
well documented in Canada and everywhere else that those are
the real reasons why people seek assisted death. And so
the problem then is really how do we cope with suffering?
(08:49):
How do we overcome it? How do we transcend it?
And the gospel, I think, is really the only true
solution to this problem, because in Christ We have, as
you said, reasons to be confident that God can have
good purposes. When we suffer in Christ, we have hope
that one day we will live again in this body
(09:10):
free of suffering. And finally, we just know that God
is with us, that he loves us, that he understands us,
that he never leaves us nor forsakes us. He knows
what it's like to suffer because Christ has suffered. And so, um,
we're not alone. And even the body of Christ is
a very powerful means of helping us to see and
remember just how much we matter in these situations. So.
(09:33):
So the gospel gives us very powerful response to this, uh,
to this issue. That just means that we don't need death.
We don't need death to overcome suffering because we have
true life.
S1 (09:45):
Well said. Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Elizabeth. Elizabeth,
good morning. Thanks for joining us.
S6 (09:52):
Hi. Good morning. I'm very conflicted. Elizabeth, uh, I take
care of the elderly. And time and time again. I
have to deal with hospice and their very loving, caring people.
But it seems a method of starvation with morphine to
help them through their pain. And that's why I'm conflicted.
Because I know God died for us with his suffering
(10:12):
and such, but I just don't see how palliative care
extends the suffering at a different rate than hospice and euthanasia.
When you've lost control of every part of your body,
when we die, our soul leaves us and we're healed.
So why wouldn't that be okay? I'm so conflicted. Please help.
S3 (10:37):
Yeah. Thanks, Elizabeth. That's. That's really the really important question.
I think that there's two things that we have to
uphold at the same time. First, that it's really important to, um,
do everything in our power to relieve suffering as much
as we can. And if you have experience with hospice care,
I think you've probably seen that done Well, um, but
(10:58):
by no means does that mean that all suffering can
be ended. Um, you know, I can help someone cope
with their pain, but I can't make pain necessarily entirely
go away. And so there is a sense in which
death is a real temptation. Or to seek death is
a temptation. And the thing I would say is that
what we have to remember is that people are intrinsically valuable.
(11:22):
They're sacred in their person, and that means that it's
always good that they exist. And when you lift your
hand to end someone, what you're saying is it's no
longer good that you exist. Therefore, I'm going to end you.
And that's a denial of the true nature of value
that people have. So because people are sacred, because they're
made in God's image, it's wrong for us to lift
(11:42):
our hand to end them. And the Scripture itself makes
that very clear. But I think once we understand just
how much people matter, just how much that suffering person
in hospice, they remain sacred, even if they're losing abilities,
even if they've become completely dependent on someone else to
care for them, they remain utterly and absolutely sacred. A
(12:03):
creature made in God's image and so.
S6 (12:07):
Healed and go in peace. That's what I don't understand.
I know we're made in God's image and all of that.
I fully understand that, sir, and I'm just saying why,
when we know we'll be healed, when we die and
our soul leaves our body, why wouldn't we accept that
while we're dying and suffering and say, go in peace
and be healed? You would be on your journey. You
(12:29):
would be healed and free of pain, which we've always
been taught.
S3 (12:33):
Right? And and when you're when you're, um, caring for
someone who's in that dying process, that this is why,
for example, we wouldn't do heroic things to resuscitate them
when they wouldn't help or, um, continue aggressive medical care.
We absolutely accept that someone's time to die has come.
And and so we're not running away from death in
(12:55):
that sense. But when you lift when I, you know.
So you know, if I describe how euthanasia is performed,
you know, where you inject a series of drugs to, um,
put a patient in a deep coma, silence their brain,
silence their breathing, and then stop their heart. You're assaulting.
You're directly assaulting the person. You're directly assaulting their body.
(13:19):
And you're saying it's no longer good that you exist.
You're devaluing them. And a willingness to lift your hand
to end someone is a sort of a fundamental denial
of the sacredness of the person. And that's why we
can't do it. So we are stuck. We are, um.
S6 (13:37):
Morals. And and I understand that in your code for your,
your doctor. But I'm saying again, what would be the
difference if you prolong the life like that? You're saying, well,
your life is worth it when it really isn't. And,
you know, that's that's my question, really. When a doctor says, well,
but we can make you comfortable. But the person has
(13:59):
had enough of losing control or can't breathe, or any
symptom they have that they're been told by a doctor.
I'm sorry you have to go home from the hospital.
Your journey has ended and now you have to deal
with it. So I just I appreciate your information and
I agree with you on many points, but I still
(14:20):
am conflicted. Yeah I apologize.
S1 (14:22):
No, let's be honest. That's good. Thank you so much.
S3 (14:27):
I honestly, I just worry that what you're describing, Elizabeth,
is not what actually happens. I don't think patients get abandoned.
Just sent home from hospital without ongoing care. And certainly
it's important for us to be ready to put limits
on what we're willing to do. We don't need to
aggressively prolong life, but to actually lift our hand. To
(14:48):
end someone is a fundamentally different action that that undermines
and denies the value of that patient, which is what
motivates our concern for their suffering in the first place.
S1 (14:58):
Yeah. In essence, what we're doing is we're playing God,
aren't we?
S3 (15:04):
Yeah, that's exactly that's exactly right. You know, when when
God made us in his image and made us sacred,
in a sense, it made us untouchable because we're sort
of representations of his presence in the world. And so
if I was to lift my hand to end another
fellow human creature, what I'd really be doing is denying
(15:27):
the honor and glory of God that they've been imbued with.
And so, yeah, I completely understand elisabeths tension and conflict
and struggle. I face it too. But, um, in the end,
what's glorious about being human is the fact that we
have this sacredness and that makes us untouchable.
S1 (15:46):
Well, Elizabeth, thank you so much for calling. Awesome. So
glad you did call in using death as a remedy
for suffering. Physician assisted death presumes to know what it's
like to be dead. You bring up this point. Let's
talk more about that.
S3 (16:06):
Yes. So one of the really important things to appreciate
about this issue is that no matter what point of
view you're coming from, on it you bring to bear your,
what we might call metaphysical assumptions. You're kind of quasi
religious notions about the nature of the world, the nature
of ultimate reality. So many of many of my friends
(16:28):
and colleagues who believe in physician assisted death are coming
to it as seculars or atheists or agnostics. Um, and,
you know, they would say you and it's not appropriate
for you to inject your Christian beliefs into this issue.
But what I see them doing is injecting their beliefs
(16:49):
into this issue, specifically their beliefs about what it's like
to be dead. And when they talk about the decision
to seek assisted death, they describe it as a process
of weighing up what's good about being alive versus what's
bad about being alive. And if the bad outweighs the good,
then they would say the death is rational. But what
all of that deliberation totally ignores is what it's like
(17:11):
to be dead, and they are making assumptions about what
it's like to be dead without actually having any evidence
or any even rational deliberation about that. And so for
this reason, I really see assisted death as an act
of blind faith. You're making assumptions about what lies beyond
(17:32):
the grave or or even assuming that nothing lies beyond
the grave when you have no reason particularly to believe that.
And so in this sense, everyone sort of is religious
about death, and everyone has their assumptions being brought to bear.
And what I explain in the book is that insofar
as doctors have no authority to weigh in on what
(17:54):
it's like to be dead. We really can't claim for
this to be a rational form of medical practice. It's
not an appropriate thing for a doctor to do. And
and I think more generally, I think people need to
bear that in mind, that in a lot of ways,
this is like an experimental therapy where we perform the
act on the patient and then have no way of
knowing what the outcome is. So I think that from
(18:17):
that point of view brings great, um, uh, should should
prompt great caution, no matter what point of view you're
coming from that we need to take seriously the fact
that we don't actually know the outcomes here.
S4 (18:28):
Yeah.
S3 (18:29):
From a medical point of view.
S1 (18:31):
Let's go to Lisa next from Lutz. Hey, Lisa. Welcome.
What's your question?
S7 (18:35):
Always with her.
S1 (18:37):
Hi, Lisa. Are you with us? Here?
S7 (18:39):
This is me?
S1 (18:40):
Yes. What's your question? Sounds like Lisa. Yeah. She may
have had her the volume up on her radio. Yeah.
You chatted with her?
S2 (18:51):
Yeah, I did. And Lisa was saying how they. She
watched her mom die in hospice with the with morphine.
And she felt, did we do the right thing by
giving her morphine, or would it have been better for
her to just. Did she know she was going home
to Jesus? She's not sure what she knew at that point.
S3 (19:12):
Yeah. I always try to reassure people about this because, um,
when we use drugs like morphine to control pain and
shortness of breath, we're not doing it to try to
cause the patient's death or to hasten it. We're really
working very hard to ensure that somebody suffers as little
as possible. And, um, that's really consistent with Christian ethos
(19:36):
and the long Christian tradition of how to care for
the dying. Um, and some people sometimes worry that when you,
when you start the drip or you start those medicines
that it could hasten death. And there's a long tradition
of Christian reflection on this issue that says that as
long as you're not trying to cause the patient's death.
As long as you're trying to relieve their suffering, and
(19:57):
as long as you're as careful as you possibly can
be to avoid unwanted harms, even if the drug were
to somehow hasten death a little bit, that's not actually
a moral concern, because that's not the goal or intention
of the action. And in fact, the best available medical
evidence suggests that really good palliative care and control of
(20:20):
pain and symptoms actually prolongs life. So I always try
to reassure people about this, because I don't think we
want to respond to the issue of euthanasia and assisted
death by, you know, having people suffering unnecessarily. So that's
an important issue that Lisa raised.
S2 (20:38):
Thanks for listening to Curt and Kate Morning's podcast. Please
take a minute to follow, subscribe and review us. And
no matter where in the world you are, you can
listen to us live from 6 to 9 a.m. weekdays
on the Moody Radio app.
Kurt and Kate mornings, not just on the radio.
S2 (00:03):
It's a podcast, too.
S1 (00:06):
As more people accept the practice of physician assisted death.
We as Christians, we have to decide where we stand
on this. Is it ethical for doctors to assist patients
in hastening their own death? Should Christians who are facing
death accept the offer of assisted death? You and Gallagher
(00:29):
is a doctor. He is in Toronto. He's a professor
of medicine at the University of Toronto, in fact. And
he's written a book that has been very helpful when
it comes to taking a look at this from a
Christ centered biblical point of view. We had to have
him on.
S2 (00:48):
Yeah. And he was great. Because the thing is, it's
very well could happen to you, someone you love, and
some of the words that are tossed around in the
hospital may confuse you. You may not understand the difference
between things that are happening and physician assisted suicide. So
he really clarified a lot of that.
S1 (01:11):
Why is it that you have decided, you know what
I feel called, and you can correct me if I'm
using the wrong terminology here, but I feel called to
speak out on this issue. Uh, as a follower of Jesus,
do you remember the day when you're like, you know what?
Somebody needs to take a stand for, uh, for what
God has to say. His perspective on all of this.
Do you remember that day?
S3 (01:34):
Yeah. I don't know if there was one day, but
when physician assisted death became widely embraced in Canada just
over a decade ago, and then shortly after that legalized
and began to be practiced as a physician working in
intensive care and caring for patients who were often at
or near the end of life. I knew that I
(01:56):
was this was going to engage the ethics of my
medical practice and at the time I was involved in
speaking to other colleagues about it, writing about it, speaking
out about it, just because I felt burdened to be
able to explain why I opposed this. What was so
strange at the time was that the idea of deliberately
(02:19):
causing a patient's death had been taboo for many, many years,
and all of a sudden it was something that everyone
seemed to believe was absolutely the right thing to do.
And if you refuse to participate, it meant that you
didn't really care about the patient's suffering or care about
the patient themselves. Just insisted on your private religious beliefs.
So I wanted to be able to address that, to
(02:41):
explain why we opposed it. So that's how I got involved.
I didn't initially imagine ending up writing a book about it,
but you know how one thing leads to another. So
here we are.
S1 (02:50):
Yeah, I'm glad you did, because it's really a great
treatment of the subject. So let's just dive in to
some of these arguments against physician assisted Uh, deaths. The
first one you have here is because physician assisted death
intentionally aims to cause the death of the patient. Because
of that, it is distinctly different from other practices in
(03:14):
end of care or end of life medical care. Tell
us more about that one.
S3 (03:20):
Yeah. This is this is really the defining feature, um,
that helps us understand why we would oppose assisted death,
even while working very hard to make sure that patients
are comfortable and free of suffering as they journey towards
the dying process. You know, we have tools in our
medical kit, uh, we refer to as palliative care, where
(03:42):
we work hard to control a patient's symptoms, whether that's
pain or shortness of breath. Um, and do everything we
can to help them live to the fullest, even as
they journey through the dying process. Often that involves a
process of, um, you know, looking back and reflecting on
one's life and and addressing a number of spiritual issues
(04:05):
as well as medical issues. But at no time would
we in doing in in pursuing those things or trying
to help the patient die, well, lift our hands to
actually cause the patient's death. Even in the ICU where
I work, when we think about withholding or withdrawing life
sustaining measures, the intention behind those actions is never to
(04:26):
try to cause the patient's death. That's not what it's about.
And what's new and different about this is that here,
the goal of the doctor's action is to actually render
the patient dead. And it's really important that people appreciate that,
because this is why we can, you know, be absolutely
devoted to pain and symptom management and good palliative care,
(04:50):
while at the same time opposing this practice as something
totally different from from good palliative care.
S4 (04:56):
Yeah. Yeah.
S2 (04:56):
You know, I my brother Died in the hospital. They
took him in. They. It was his heart. It just
gave out and they brought him back. But then at
one point they said to him, um, you said to
my my other family, you know, he we won't be
able to bring him back again. This is the end.
So someone could be with him. And what I like
(05:17):
about what you're doing is you are differentiating some. I
think there's. We don't understand death. We don't understand, you know,
even natural death. So to be able to differentiate that. Yeah.
We can't do anything else. You can come in and
be with them as opposed to, well, we're done with him.
There's you know, there's a there are so many levels
of dying these days with health care.
S3 (05:41):
Yeah. Kate, that's a really important point. And I think
one of the frustrating things I've found in my practice
is that, you know, with the legalisation of euthanasia and
assisted suicide, people come in and, and they feel confused
about all these different practices. And when I when I'm
having a conversation with a family about the fact that
(06:03):
there's nothing more we can do and that, you know,
it's time to let them go. Uh, they sometimes worry
that I'm suggesting actually performing euthanasia. And so there's a
lot of confusion around these things. And I think having
this clarity around exactly what sets assisted death apart becomes
so important because, you know, as Christians, we, you know,
(06:24):
are very realistic about the reality of death. We understand
that everyone dies. And and as you said in your opening,
we are not afraid of death. Uh, death has been conquered,
but we don't embrace it as a tool to address suffering. And, uh,
and so we want to uphold the sacredness of the
(06:44):
human person even while we care for them through the
dying process. So it is a lot of wisdom is
needed to to do this. Well.
S5 (06:53):
Thank you for taking some time to listen to this
episode of the podcast. We always welcome a review with
your thoughts and comments, and please feel free to subscribe
and follow us as well.
S1 (07:05):
You and I want to talk about this issue of suffering. Um,
people think that suffering is pointless. The Bible has a
lot to say about this. And I mean, let's look
at our let's look at our Savior. Look at Jesus.
I would venture to say no one suffered more than
the Lord. There there is. He allows suffering, uh, for
(07:31):
his for his purposes. And the Christian perspective on suffering,
I think, really helps us frame our thinking in regard
to this whole topic. What do you think?
S3 (07:42):
Yeah. One's perspective on suffering, I think, is really at
the root of of this issue. I think the reason
that people turn to death to escape at or near
the end of their lives is really because they don't
see any point in going on with suffering when when
people advocate for assisted death, they often talk about or
(08:07):
describe the image of a person suffering with uncontrolled physical
agony and death being sort of a means or the
only remedy to escape from that. But that's really not
the issue. People don't actually turn to seek assisted death
because of physical suffering. It's really actually what we might
(08:28):
call existential suffering. This feeling that one has become a burden.
One's life is pointless. Uh, they're losing autonomy and control
and don't see any meaning in going on. It's very
well documented in Canada and everywhere else that those are
the real reasons why people seek assisted death. And so
the problem then is really how do we cope with suffering?
(08:49):
How do we overcome it? How do we transcend it?
And the gospel, I think, is really the only true
solution to this problem, because in Christ We have, as
you said, reasons to be confident that God can have
good purposes. When we suffer in Christ, we have hope
that one day we will live again in this body
(09:10):
free of suffering. And finally, we just know that God
is with us, that he loves us, that he understands us,
that he never leaves us nor forsakes us. He knows
what it's like to suffer because Christ has suffered. And so, um,
we're not alone. And even the body of Christ is
a very powerful means of helping us to see and
remember just how much we matter in these situations. So.
(09:33):
So the gospel gives us very powerful response to this, uh,
to this issue. That just means that we don't need death.
We don't need death to overcome suffering because we have
true life.
S1 (09:45):
Well said. Let's go to the phones. Let's go to Elizabeth. Elizabeth,
good morning. Thanks for joining us.
S6 (09:52):
Hi. Good morning. I'm very conflicted. Elizabeth, uh, I take
care of the elderly. And time and time again. I
have to deal with hospice and their very loving, caring people.
But it seems a method of starvation with morphine to
help them through their pain. And that's why I'm conflicted.
Because I know God died for us with his suffering
(10:12):
and such, but I just don't see how palliative care
extends the suffering at a different rate than hospice and euthanasia.
When you've lost control of every part of your body,
when we die, our soul leaves us and we're healed.
So why wouldn't that be okay? I'm so conflicted. Please help.
S3 (10:37):
Yeah. Thanks, Elizabeth. That's. That's really the really important question.
I think that there's two things that we have to
uphold at the same time. First, that it's really important to, um,
do everything in our power to relieve suffering as much
as we can. And if you have experience with hospice care,
I think you've probably seen that done Well, um, but
(10:58):
by no means does that mean that all suffering can
be ended. Um, you know, I can help someone cope
with their pain, but I can't make pain necessarily entirely
go away. And so there is a sense in which
death is a real temptation. Or to seek death is
a temptation. And the thing I would say is that
what we have to remember is that people are intrinsically valuable.
(11:22):
They're sacred in their person, and that means that it's
always good that they exist. And when you lift your
hand to end someone, what you're saying is it's no
longer good that you exist. Therefore, I'm going to end you.
And that's a denial of the true nature of value
that people have. So because people are sacred, because they're
made in God's image, it's wrong for us to lift
(11:42):
our hand to end them. And the Scripture itself makes
that very clear. But I think once we understand just
how much people matter, just how much that suffering person
in hospice, they remain sacred, even if they're losing abilities,
even if they've become completely dependent on someone else to
care for them, they remain utterly and absolutely sacred. A
(12:03):
creature made in God's image and so.
S6 (12:07):
Healed and go in peace. That's what I don't understand.
I know we're made in God's image and all of that.
I fully understand that, sir, and I'm just saying why,
when we know we'll be healed, when we die and
our soul leaves our body, why wouldn't we accept that
while we're dying and suffering and say, go in peace
and be healed? You would be on your journey. You
(12:29):
would be healed and free of pain, which we've always
been taught.
S3 (12:33):
Right? And and when you're when you're, um, caring for
someone who's in that dying process, that this is why,
for example, we wouldn't do heroic things to resuscitate them
when they wouldn't help or, um, continue aggressive medical care.
We absolutely accept that someone's time to die has come.
And and so we're not running away from death in
(12:55):
that sense. But when you lift when I, you know.
So you know, if I describe how euthanasia is performed,
you know, where you inject a series of drugs to, um,
put a patient in a deep coma, silence their brain,
silence their breathing, and then stop their heart. You're assaulting.
You're directly assaulting the person. You're directly assaulting their body.
(13:19):
And you're saying it's no longer good that you exist.
You're devaluing them. And a willingness to lift your hand
to end someone is a sort of a fundamental denial
of the sacredness of the person. And that's why we
can't do it. So we are stuck. We are, um.
S6 (13:37):
Morals. And and I understand that in your code for your,
your doctor. But I'm saying again, what would be the
difference if you prolong the life like that? You're saying, well,
your life is worth it when it really isn't. And,
you know, that's that's my question, really. When a doctor says, well,
but we can make you comfortable. But the person has
(13:59):
had enough of losing control or can't breathe, or any
symptom they have that they're been told by a doctor.
I'm sorry you have to go home from the hospital.
Your journey has ended and now you have to deal
with it. So I just I appreciate your information and
I agree with you on many points, but I still
(14:20):
am conflicted. Yeah I apologize.
S1 (14:22):
No, let's be honest. That's good. Thank you so much.
S3 (14:27):
I honestly, I just worry that what you're describing, Elizabeth,
is not what actually happens. I don't think patients get abandoned.
Just sent home from hospital without ongoing care. And certainly
it's important for us to be ready to put limits
on what we're willing to do. We don't need to
aggressively prolong life, but to actually lift our hand. To
(14:48):
end someone is a fundamentally different action that that undermines
and denies the value of that patient, which is what
motivates our concern for their suffering in the first place.
S1 (14:58):
Yeah. In essence, what we're doing is we're playing God,
aren't we?
S3 (15:04):
Yeah, that's exactly that's exactly right. You know, when when
God made us in his image and made us sacred,
in a sense, it made us untouchable because we're sort
of representations of his presence in the world. And so
if I was to lift my hand to end another
fellow human creature, what I'd really be doing is denying
(15:27):
the honor and glory of God that they've been imbued with.
And so, yeah, I completely understand elisabeths tension and conflict
and struggle. I face it too. But, um, in the end,
what's glorious about being human is the fact that we
have this sacredness and that makes us untouchable.
S1 (15:46):
Well, Elizabeth, thank you so much for calling. Awesome. So
glad you did call in using death as a remedy
for suffering. Physician assisted death presumes to know what it's
like to be dead. You bring up this point. Let's
talk more about that.
S3 (16:06):
Yes. So one of the really important things to appreciate
about this issue is that no matter what point of
view you're coming from, on it you bring to bear your,
what we might call metaphysical assumptions. You're kind of quasi
religious notions about the nature of the world, the nature
of ultimate reality. So many of many of my friends
(16:28):
and colleagues who believe in physician assisted death are coming
to it as seculars or atheists or agnostics. Um, and,
you know, they would say you and it's not appropriate
for you to inject your Christian beliefs into this issue.
But what I see them doing is injecting their beliefs
(16:49):
into this issue, specifically their beliefs about what it's like
to be dead. And when they talk about the decision
to seek assisted death, they describe it as a process
of weighing up what's good about being alive versus what's
bad about being alive. And if the bad outweighs the good,
then they would say the death is rational. But what
all of that deliberation totally ignores is what it's like
(17:11):
to be dead, and they are making assumptions about what
it's like to be dead without actually having any evidence
or any even rational deliberation about that. And so for
this reason, I really see assisted death as an act
of blind faith. You're making assumptions about what lies beyond
(17:32):
the grave or or even assuming that nothing lies beyond
the grave when you have no reason particularly to believe that.
And so in this sense, everyone sort of is religious
about death, and everyone has their assumptions being brought to bear.
And what I explain in the book is that insofar
as doctors have no authority to weigh in on what
(17:54):
it's like to be dead. We really can't claim for
this to be a rational form of medical practice. It's
not an appropriate thing for a doctor to do. And
and I think more generally, I think people need to
bear that in mind, that in a lot of ways,
this is like an experimental therapy where we perform the
act on the patient and then have no way of
knowing what the outcome is. So I think that from
(18:17):
that point of view brings great, um, uh, should should
prompt great caution, no matter what point of view you're
coming from that we need to take seriously the fact
that we don't actually know the outcomes here.
S4 (18:28):
Yeah.
S3 (18:29):
From a medical point of view.
S1 (18:31):
Let's go to Lisa next from Lutz. Hey, Lisa. Welcome.
What's your question?
S7 (18:35):
Always with her.
S1 (18:37):
Hi, Lisa. Are you with us? Here?
S7 (18:39):
This is me?
S1 (18:40):
Yes. What's your question? Sounds like Lisa. Yeah. She may
have had her the volume up on her radio. Yeah.
You chatted with her?
S2 (18:51):
Yeah, I did. And Lisa was saying how they. She
watched her mom die in hospice with the with morphine.
And she felt, did we do the right thing by
giving her morphine, or would it have been better for
her to just. Did she know she was going home
to Jesus? She's not sure what she knew at that point.
S3 (19:12):
Yeah. I always try to reassure people about this because, um,
when we use drugs like morphine to control pain and
shortness of breath, we're not doing it to try to
cause the patient's death or to hasten it. We're really
working very hard to ensure that somebody suffers as little
as possible. And, um, that's really consistent with Christian ethos
(19:36):
and the long Christian tradition of how to care for
the dying. Um, and some people sometimes worry that when you,
when you start the drip or you start those medicines
that it could hasten death. And there's a long tradition
of Christian reflection on this issue that says that as
long as you're not trying to cause the patient's death.
As long as you're trying to relieve their suffering, and
(19:57):
as long as you're as careful as you possibly can
be to avoid unwanted harms, even if the drug were
to somehow hasten death a little bit, that's not actually
a moral concern, because that's not the goal or intention
of the action. And in fact, the best available medical
evidence suggests that really good palliative care and control of
(20:20):
pain and symptoms actually prolongs life. So I always try
to reassure people about this, because I don't think we
want to respond to the issue of euthanasia and assisted
death by, you know, having people suffering unnecessarily. So that's
an important issue that Lisa raised.
S2 (20:38):
Thanks for listening to Curt and Kate Morning's podcast. Please
take a minute to follow, subscribe and review us. And
no matter where in the world you are, you can
listen to us live from 6 to 9 a.m. weekdays
on the Moody Radio app.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.