To be or not to be...

This posting is actually long overdue... as per my standard operating procedures protocol. Haha. The wonders of procrastination eh? It gives you more things for you to do when you do not have the time for them and nothing to do when you have all the time to do them.

Anyway, this post is sort of a laying out of my thoughts onto a visible medium so that i can be clearer on what those thoughts are and the basis of forming, using, and standing by them.

The thoughts concerned came about when during a MSN conversation(if these things could be said conversations) with Michelle, she asked me if I would be attending a seminar on Christian Ethics. This is a month ago, in February. Basically, the seminar will address issues on euthanasia and what the Bible says about the practice, and how we Christians should respond to it. This is conjecture, as I did not attend the seminar.

When I saw her question on the screen, being the decisive(yea, right) person that I am, I declared that I have no reason to attend the seminar, because i already have my own stand on it. I did not mention what this stand is, of course; but anyway it put an end to that thread then.

However, after I had switched off the computer, that night, I had a nagging feeling in me that I had just dismissed the possibility to learn about something that is important. Oh, by the way, the stand which i thought i had was one of disagreement with the practice, as I thought it will simply go against the commandment of 'You shall not murder' of Deut 5:17. Why do i have a sickening feeling in my gut(or somewhere else; I can't pinpoint the location) that I am missing something then? Well, being the decisive person that I am, i did my brain cool-down exercises and went to bed.

Now, God is the best teacher there ever is, and He prompts you along to self-discovery rather than shovel truth into your mouth(though sometimes that is necessary). After my mind is initiated into a discussion of euthanasia, awareness of any thingto do with it soared.

It's amusing that the Eureka moment came from the drama serial, 'Love Blossoms' on Channel 8. It was the last episode. In this episode, there was a dilemma presented. One of the characters in the show had just gotten pregnant. This was usually a source of joy. The discovery coincided with a medical report for the would-be mother saying that she has a heart condition which would make it dangerous for her to give birth; she was advised to abort and have a heart operation first. A portion of the remaining minutes of the show was devoted to the decision-making of the couple as to the course of action to take.

The husband was decisive -'I will book an appointment with the gynaecologist tomorrow to have the abortion done.' For him, the decision was simple: a baby is yet unborn, yet the wife IS and shouldnt be endangered in trying to have a baby despite her medical condition.

The wife is not that quick to decide. Though she knows that her husband has decided on a course of action because he treasures her and does not want her to be in danger, she is of the mindset that a foetus once conceived is alive. There was a further complication in that the husband is infertile, therefore rendering future pregnancies unlikely.

The decision made finally was to keep the baby and go ahead with the risks. And of course, there was a happy ending. It's the last episode, duh.

So what am I doing here talking about abortion suddenly when what I started on was talking about euthanasia? Well, thinking about them, there's one major thing in common between them. They are both moral issues which fall on the greyer side of things. It's easy for an observer to arrive at an absolute stand on the subject(ala me), but it's much more complicated for the ones undergoing the decision-making themselves.

Let's go back to the scenario presented in the drama. Though fiction, it is not far-fetched from what could actually happen. Go for the abortion and the world risks not ever seeing one who would bring wonder to it in the future(politically correct version ); go ahead with the pregnancy and the world risks losing one in her prime. What was in the picture is that of possible personal sacrifice for a percieved greater good. A moral stalemate.

There could be many reasons calling for abortions. One could be that pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, as above. Another could be that the child might have genetic defects- nip a diseased branch in the bud so that there will be no complications later. There are also unwanted babies- born out of wedlock or the parents predicting that they will not be able to provide for the born child. And more reasons exist, which for the lack of creativity and experience I cannot list.

One central concern is the question of what constitutes life. Is the unborn baby alive? Or do we only call it alive when it has emerged out of the womb and is independently securing its breaths of air? This is a question that is not easily answered even though there have been countless arguments for and against it in the past. I, for now, will also not take a stand as yet.

There are broadly two types of euthanasia; voluntary and involuntary. The first has the intended recipient ask for it, the second is requested on behalf by close family members.Voluntary euthanasia may be decided close to intended action or distant; being spontaneous or taking the form of a Living Will dictating health care professionals the wishes of a person if that person enters into a state which he does not wish to be in. Involuntary euthanasia usually takes place when the person is in no state to make a decision(coma etc).

Voluntary euthanasia is usually decided in intense suffering- terminally ill patients in the late stages of disease, or incapacitated patients who have lost their bodily and motor functions are are just 'staying alive'. Thus they ask for a quick end to it- for the first case, 'since they are dying soon anyway.' and for the second, there is the philosophical debate between being alive and living. Still others seek to be removed from medical care because of the costs on their families. Of note is that alot of times, such patients do not have access to their own means to suicide, thus a turning towards euthanasia(attempted suicide).

So, in other words, how you would react to suicide would most probably affect how you react to voluntary euthanasia. Suicide is wrong. Though one may sympathise with the reasons for suicide, one ultimately knows that suicide is akin to murder. Some may argue about the right for self-autonomy; the right to do what one wants with his/her life. But that right may actually be born out of ideology(humanism) rather than truth.

Of course, telling these patients to 'shut up, bear with the pain' is plain cold. But the truth is, suffering is a good thing. Not in the sense that we should aim to suffer because it is good(an aim), but that suffering is a prime catalyst to bring out the best in a person. God has told us in 1 Cor 10:13 that he will not give us temptation beyond what we can bear. What temptation? Well, in this case, that will be the temptation of giving up, of seeking the easy way out.

In some ways, I think that one of God's programme for us on this world is to scour every little scrape of our dignity away. Sounds controversial? Well, I meant to be. The sad thing is, in this ambiguous world, pride has often been confused with dignity. Patients on life support are disgusted at themselves for having to rely on others for their needs. They feel like a baby perhaps, with prevailing social conventions present in their mind. The right of privacy may factor in. But, essentially isn't pride present here? There is a looking back towards the past when one is self-reliant and failing to recognise one's present conditions(the need to rely on people).

If the question of life is that which confounds the practice of abortion, then the question of what death is, is the counterpart in the practice of euthanasia. In this case, is brain death considered death? I am not a doctor, or a medical student. The only info i have at my disposal is Google, or Wikipedia. I just would like to ask a question: if the brain-dead person is left on his own, will he live? The answer is no. This is not to say that he will die from secondary effects such as starvation , but that a brain-dead person no longer has an independently beating heart and is not breathing. So, does 'pulling the plug' on a brain-dead patient constitutes euthanasia? I really do not think so.

What about coma? Unconsiousness and delirium are usually the reason why involuntary euthanasia has to be practised. I am perplexed it is still called euthanasia. If its involuntary, how can it be suicide? And if it's not suicide, it's murder then?

Scripture, like it or not, is very vague on suicide. What stand we may derive from scripture is a synthesis of different laws and principles in the Bible. In the case of abortion and euthanasia, I think every case should be treated individually. There can be a general stand guiding us(me), but that does not mean that the stand/principle is greater than people(abortion and euthanasia deals with people). This is why I do not have a stand on abortion though in principle I am against it. For euthanasia, well, I am more decidedly against it except brain-death, which I think is more than a moral issue.

Does this mean that the Bible do not have absolute authority because it fails to provide an absolute viewpoint then? I believe no. It is a question of law and love. If, like that night, I had just taken a observer and legalistic approach, it is so simple to have a stand. But a stand is often sweeping, and I believe God tells us to go into details. God's law can be interpretated differently, for those who persist in doing so. But love is absolutely the basis where decisions are made. I believe it is love which makes both life and death palatable, and if sincerely pursued, enjoyable. Moral judgement comes from the heart, but love derives from the soul.