Optional page text here. The Beast's Lair: Right To Die Taking A New Form

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Right To Die Taking A New Form

I recently read an article and commentary that defines in no uncertain terms the moral, ethical and spiritual tendencies of the current mainstream worldview. The article dealt with euthanasia, assisted suicide and mercy killing. I have heard the endless and ageless arguments for euthanasia, usually centered about a belief that a person has the "right to die."

Not particularly wanting to get into the debate over euthanasia, what has sparked my interest is the new reasoning supporting the act. On a television show called "Don't Get Me Started," Jenni Murray, an apparent controversial host on the BBC in London, has been quoted as saying that assisted suicide is illegal in Great Britain only because a "religious minority" demands it and that this minority grasps to outdated views of the value of human life and that children in some way have a moral obligation to care for their elderly parents.

The evidence of what happens when a worldview or culture loses the standard of a God of love is beginning to literally create a mindset that is losing any touch with what it really means to be human. Too much value on human life? No obligation for our parents?

So, with that in mind, the idea now is that due to the high medical costs that go into keeping the elderly alive, fed, comfortable, etc and the fact that elderly parents should not want to make their children take care of them, they not only have just a right, but an obligation to die.

This is sick. Can you imagine the elderly, most of which have probably contributed more in terms of work, labor and sweat than any of us will, being faced with this kind of philosophy that will inevitably bring about feelings of guilt that perhaps they need to die instead of making someone else, especially a child, be inconvenienced for a while? Once again, we are face to face with a worldview that has only one thing at the forefront of life - self. Most of life's questions these days are asked in reference to how much better our own lives can be served, how much more can we get out of something? Even in the church, the first thing we want to know is, what will I receive from this church? How will I be fed?

My problem is that I don't see much Biblical support for this kind of attitude. I see quite a bit about others. I see quite a bit about love. I see quite a bit about serving. Not too much about how we can rack up the personal pleasure and comfort. Thankfully, we serve a God who recognizes those who show concern for others. He recognizes those who love unselfishly. He recognizes those who serve. And in His recognition, we are provided, in God's timing and providence, with joy and satisfaction that could never be obtained through our own selfish efforts, even if our pesky elderly parents would just die and be gone.

5 Comments:

Blogger Barry said...

Sounds like someone over there needs to watch "Logan's Run"...

But seriously, how does this satisfy "Honor Thy Father and Mother"?

August 23, 2006 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Agag said...

Why even have children? That way we can keep them from experiencing any pain or suffering or obligations.

August 23, 2006 6:13 PM  
Anonymous rexwilder said...

As often happens, however, don't let a ridiculous, extreme viewpoint (Murray's) totally obliterate what can be a more legitimate question that comes up in the so-called "right to die" issue--what is the goverment's obligation/requirement. Your post recognizes the importance of God, "human values", etc.(all extremely important) but doesn't really address what I think is the basic issue for non-nuts on this subject, which is, when can/should the government trump what an individual believes is best for themselves. Barry's Logan's Run argument actually supports the point...do we want a gov't saying at 90 (Logan's Run was 18 if I remember right) you are no longer useful and have to die even though you think you should live? I assume! you will say no; so what is the rational for changing your position when we slightly change the question to do we want a gov't saying at 90 you have to live even though you think you should die? The gov't intervention in each case in the same, but your belief in what gov't should do in each instance is different. Why. Because of what you think is right. So, by having a gov't do what you think is right, what are you doing to someone who doesn't agree with you? You have now forced what you think is right onto those people (because of the force of the gov't). I am not a big "right to die" proponent and that is not the point of this comment; however, I don't want it to be too easy for you to dismiss the issue because some idiot put forward a ridiculous justification for the issue, when in my opinion the issue itself runs deep to the heart of deciding how and when we want our gov't to act, realizing that any time the gov't does act in this manner it is oppressing someone (which can be "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad," but it is happening).

August 23, 2006 7:35 PM  
Blogger The Beast said...

Rex,

Your comment makes perfect sense, but, with all due respect, is not relevant to my post. Although I do have an interest in the government's requirements on us with any issue, my point here is the current mindset of the secular worldview in individuals (in contrast of course to a Christian worldview), not government. My disgust with this issue has nothing to do with the government's take on euthanasia and everything to do with a continuing developing attitude of "self" that would say parents should pull the plug before their children would have to take care of them.

Besides, when moving to this "obligation to die," the person is no longing acting out of what they "believe is best for themselves." They are acting on what they believe society, or their childeren, might want, which is not to be inconvenienced.

Finallly, the philosophies that have caused this lady to agree with the idea of "obligation to die" (it is certainly not her concept)are anything but ridiculous and extreme. They are pervasive in most areas of life, even the church as I mentioned.

August 23, 2006 8:49 PM  
Anonymous rexwilder said...

I hear you. And my only point was, one shouldn't destroy an issue on all sides (in one's thinking and analyzing of an issue) due to a perfectly valid destruction of an issue on one side (or a supposed "justification" of an issue)(which was not necessarily addressed to you specifically). In my opinion, that is the kind of bootstraping too many people do.

August 23, 2006 9:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home