Category: Human Life

Posted on

Euthanasia and the Idol of Autonomy: What Does It Mean to Die Well?

As Christians, we often grapple with the question of why a good and loving God allows evil and suffering—a question known as the problem of evil. Orthodox Christianity offers a profound response rooted in God’s nature and His purposes for creation. At the heart of this answer lies freedom. God created humanity with free will, allowing us to choose between good and evil because love, in its truest form, cannot be coerced. He desires our love and relationship, not the programmed affection of robots. But God did not leave us alone in our brokenness. In His infinite love, He entered into our suffering through Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, who took on flesh, endured the cross, and defeated death for us. This sacrificial love assures us that God is not indifferent to our pain—He redeems it for His glory and our good.

As Christians, we recognize that death is a profound part of life—a moment of both physical frailty and spiritual significance. Leah Libresco Sargeant’s thoughtful article on euthanasia, An Idol of Autonomy—How the push for medical aid in dying distorts our understanding of life, raises an important question: What does it mean to die well in a culture obsessed with autonomy?

The Allure—and Danger—of Autonomy

At the heart of the euthanasia debate lies our culture’s idolization of autonomy. Independence, self-sufficiency, and control over our own bodies are treated as sacred. For many, the desire for “death with dignity” is rooted in a fear of becoming dependent or burdensome. But as Sargeant points out, this framing is deeply flawed. It not only misunderstands the human person but also risks turning our most vulnerable moments into opportunities for abandonment rather than care.

The reality is that autonomy has always been an illusion. From our first moments as helpless infants to our final days, dependence is a fundamental part of life. Our need for others isn’t a failure—it’s part of God’s design.

The Slippery Slope of Euthanasia

Sargeant’s shift on euthanasia began after reading a chilling account of Belgium’s increasingly permissive euthanasia laws. What started as a narrow allowance for terminally ill patients in extreme pain expanded to include children and individuals with non-terminal conditions like depression. Canada’s experience has been similarly troubling, with euthanasia becoming so common that one in 20 deaths in 2022 was medically assisted.

This slippery slope isn’t surprising. Once the state decides that some lives are not worth living, the boundaries inevitably blur. Vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor—are disproportionately affected. What begins as a choice becomes a subtle pressure, as people are made to feel that their dependence is a burden, their existence a problem to solve.

A Christian Understanding of Life and Death

The Christian view of life offers a radically different perspective. We are not our own; we are created beings, fearfully and wonderfully made. Our value is not tied to our productivity, independence, or strength. Instead, it is intrinsic, rooted in the image of God within us.

Sargeant highlights how this truth is often forgotten in modern euthanasia debates. Advocates focus on avoiding pain, but in practice, the driving forces are often fear, shame, and a misunderstanding of what it means to live with dignity. True dignity isn’t found in autonomy—it’s found in love, dependence, and trust. Jesus Himself modeled this perfectly, submitting to death on the cross and relying entirely on the Father’s will.

Caring for the Weak

So, how do we resist the tide of euthanasia? First, we care for the weak. We honor the elderly, support the disabled, and comfort the dying, reminding them that their lives are precious. We invest in palliative care that alleviates physical pain and provides spiritual and emotional support.

Second, we tell the truth about what it means to be human. Dependence is not shameful—it’s natural and even beautiful. It reminds us of our shared need for God and one another. In our vulnerability, we find opportunities for love and grace that reflect the very heart of the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

Euthanasia may promise control and dignity, but it ultimately offers despair. As Christians, we are called to a higher vision of life and death, one that celebrates the sacredness of every moment and every person. Instead of making an idol of autonomy, let’s reclaim the beauty of dependence and the hope of eternity. By doing so, we honor God’s Good Creation, even in its most fragile forms.

[Source: The Dispatch]

+++

Choose Life

Posted on

The Flaws in Defining Personhood: A Critique of Warren’s Five Traits

In the ongoing debate about abortion and personhood, the criteria for defining who counts as a person is crucial.

Mary Anne Warren’s1 Mary Anne Warren was an American philosopher and professor renowned for her work in moral philosophy, particularly in the field of bioethics. She earned her Ph.D. in Philosophy from Harvard University. ‘five traits of personhood’—consciousness, reasoning ability, self-motivated activity, communicative capacity, and self-awareness—provide a framework that some use to argue for the permissibility of abortion. However, Christopher Kaczor,2Christopher Kaczor is an American philosopher and professor specializing in ethics, philosophy of religion, and bioethics. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame and has held academic positions at various institutions, including Loyola Marymount University. in his book “The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice,” offers a compelling critique of this framework, exposing its significant moral and logical flaws.

1. Consciousness and Self-Awareness: Not All or Nothing

Warren’s first two traits, consciousness and self-awareness, suggest that only beings who are aware of their existence and can perceive their environment are persons. Kaczor points out that many human adults, such as those in a comatose state or suffering from severe cognitive impairments, would fail to meet this criterion. These individuals lack self-awareness and, at times, even basic consciousness. If we accept Warren’s criteria, we would be forced to conclude that these individuals are not persons, which is a morally untenable position.

2. Reasoning Ability: Excluding the Vulnerable

The requirement of reasoning ability further complicates the definition of personhood. Many adults with severe intellectual disabilities or those experiencing advanced dementia cannot engage in complex reasoning. According to Warren’s criteria, these individuals would also be excluded from personhood. Kaczor argues that this exclusion is ethically problematic as it devalues the lives of individuals based on their cognitive abilities, rather than their inherent human dignity.

3. Self-Motivated Activity and Communicative Capacity: Unrealistic Benchmarks

Self-motivated activity and communicative capacity are traits that not all humans possess at all times. For instance, infants, who are undeniably human, do not yet exhibit significant self-motivated activity or sophisticated communicative capacity. Similarly, individuals with severe neurological conditions may lose these capacities. Kaczor highlights that defining personhood based on these traits is flawed as it fails to account for the inherent value of these individuals’ lives.

4. The Arbitrary Nature of Birth as a Marker

Warren and others often argue that birth marks the beginning of personhood because it is the point at which a fetus gains independence from the mother. Kaczor critiques this view by noting that the transition from the womb to the outside world does not suddenly endow a fetus with new capacities that confer personhood. The developmental changes that occur at birth are gradual, not instantaneous, making birth an arbitrary and insufficient marker for personhood.

5. The Dangers of Functional Definitions

Kaczor’s central argument is that functional definitions of personhood, like those proposed by Warren, lead to morally arbitrary exclusions. By tying personhood to specific capabilities, we risk dehumanizing those who do not meet these standards. This approach has historically led to grave injustices, such as the exclusion of slaves and victims of the Holocaust from being considered full persons.

Conclusion: The Need for an Inclusive Definition

Kaczor advocates for an inclusive definition of personhood that values all human beings regardless of their functional abilities. He suggests that personhood should be inherent to all members of the human species from conception. This approach avoids the ethical pitfalls of excluding vulnerable groups and recognizes the intrinsic worth of every human life.

In conclusion, while Warren’s ‘five traits of personhood’ attempt to provide a clear framework for determining personhood, they fall short by excluding many individuals who undeniably possess inherent human dignity. Kaczor’s critique invites us to reconsider how we define personhood in a way that respects and includes all human beings, emphasizing the need for a more compassionate and just approach.

+++

Celebrate & Defend Life

Posted on

America’s Shift in Medical Ethics Threatens Religious Freedom

An article from the Christian Post discusses the significant shift in medical ethics in America, arguing that it poses a threat to religious freedom. It highlights a move from a focus on preserving life to justifying procedures that end life or alter bodies, under the guise of autonomy and compassion.

This shift encompasses issues like abortion, assisted suicide, and gender transition treatments. The piece calls for the protection of medical conscience rights for healthcare professionals who oppose these practices on religious grounds, emphasizing the importance of upholding America’s foundational freedoms.

For more details, you can read the full article here.

+++

Support Religious Freedom