New European group launched to halt ‘growing threat’ of state-sanctioned euthanasia

A new coalition was launched in Brussels on Wednesday 13 November 2013 to combat the growing threat of euthanasia across Europe.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Europe, (EPC-Europe) brings together organisations and individuals from across the continent to campaign against the erosion of laws that protect people from euthanasia.

This new campaign group will act as a powerful voice against attempts to change laws across Europe that protect people from euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Dr Kevin Fitzpatrick, OBE, Coordinator of EPC-Europe said: ‘The UK, France and Germany are currently considering legislation, but overwhelming evidence from jurisdictions where euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is legal, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, demonstrates beyond doubt, how quickly and easily euthanasia is extended to others, especially disabled people and elderly people. High-profile cases here have provoked international outrage leading commentators to think of Belgium as the new world leader in exploiting euthanasia against those with disabilities and mental health issues for example.’

The group will highlight cases of euthanasia in Belgium including those of Mark and Eddy Verbessem, the 45-year-old deaf identical twins, who were euthanised by the Belgian state, after their eyesight began to fail; and the case of Nathan/Nancy Verhelst, whose life was ended in front of TV cameras, after a series of botched sex-change operations. His mother said she hated girls, found her child ‘so ugly’ at birth and did not mourn his death. And the case of Ann G, who had anorexia and who opted to have her life ended after being sexually abused by the psychiatrist who was supposed to be treating her for the life-threatening condition.

Dr Fitzpatrick continued, ‘The lack of proper social care in Belgium as well as medical failures, mean non-terminally ill patients are left with no choice and suffer fatal consequences. Euthanasia has also begun in Belgium for organ donation, and for prisoners.’

EPC-Europe will also warn that Belgium is currently considering extending euthanasia to children. ‘We all know that euthanasia is already practised on children,’ said the head of the intensive care unit of Fabiola Hospital in Brussels.

In the Netherlands disabled new-born babies are euthanised under the Groningen Protocol, on grounds of ‘their perceived future suffering, or that of their parents’. This includes neonates with spina bifida.

As Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, of the British House of Lords said:‘If that had existed in the UK when I was born there is a possibility that I would not be alive now.  I would never have been allowed to experience life and my daughter might never have been born.’

The group will highlight changing attitudes to disabled and vulnerable people, saying that those with physical and mental disabilities, elderly and poor people must be given the same protections as non-disabled, wealthier people.

In the Netherlands the number of deaths by euthanasia has increased by 64% between 2005 and 2010. In comparison, the Dutch population grew by less than two percent over the same period. Yet the Dutch are now discussing the extension of euthanasia to people with dementia despite huge concerns about proper consent.

Dr Fitzpatrick concluded, ‘EPC-Europe brings people from a wide variety of backgrounds together to oppose the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide, promote the best care and support for vulnerable people and to help people to find meaning, purpose and hope in the face of suffering and despair.  We invite others who share our concerns to join us and work alongside us.’

Aims of EPC-Europe

1. We oppose the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide and will work to repeal existing laws allowing it
2. We promote the best care and support for vulnerable people who are sick, elderly, or disabled
3. We affirm life through helping people to find meaning, purpose and hope in the face of suffering and despair.

We will work throughout Europe, and with like-minded people and organisations across the world.

The violations of medical ethics at Guantanamo Bay are not dissimilar to those that led ultimately to Nuremberg

Bioedge has this week drawn attention to an independent report which has highlighted ongoing violations of medical ethics at Guantánamo Bay and called on the Department of Defense (DoD) and the medical community to conform to ethical principles.

The Task Force on Preserving Medical Professionalism in National Security Detention Centers claims that medical staff have been forced to act unethically.

The 269-page report, Ethics Abandoned: Medical Professionalism and Detainee Abuse in the ‘War on Terror’, follows two years of review of public records by 19 medical, military, ethics, public health, and legal experts.

It discusses how medical personnel established and participated in torture and also outlines how the DoD committed a number of ethical breaches, including improperly using health professionals during interrogations; implementing rules that permitted medical and psychological information obtained by health professionals to be used during interrogations; requiring medical staff to forgo independent medical judgment and force-feed competent detainees; and failing to adopt international standards for medical reporting of abuse against detainees.

The report also says that the CIA’s Office of Medical Services played a critical role in torture, including waterboarding.

A second Bioedge article highlights a thoughtful post on the blog of the American Journal of Bioethics  by Dr Craig Klugman, a bioethicist and medical anthropologist at DePaul University in Chicago. He believes that medical students need much more training in ethics and character training and calls for reform of medical education to allow for courses on moral courage in the face of bullying by authorities and peer pressure.

He could also have pointed them to historical precedent about the dangers of doctors abandoning traditional ethics and conscience.

In June 1947, in the wake of the Nuremberg trials, the BMA published a statement on ‘War Crimes and Medicine’ which it later submitted to the General Assembly of the World Medical Association in September1947.

The statement included the following (emphases mine):

‘The evidence given in the trials of medical war criminals has shocked the medical profession of the world. These trials have shown that the doctors who were guilty of these crimes against humanity lacked both the moral and professional conscience that is to be expected of members of this honourable profession. They departed from the traditional medical ethic which maintains the value and sanctity of every individual human being.’

‘The doctors who took part in these deeds did not become criminals in a moment. Their amoral methods were the result of training and conditioning to regard science as an instrument in the hands of the State to be applied in any way desired by its rulers. It is to be assumed that initially they did not realize that the ideas of those who held political power would lead to the denial of the fundamental values on which Medicine is based. Whatever the causes such crimes must never be allowed to recur. Research in medicine as well as its practice must never be separated from eternal moral values. Doctors must be quick to point out to their fellow members of society the likely consequences of policies that degrade or deny fundamental human rights.’ 

Once fundamental principles of medical ethics are rejected, things can escalate rapidly by a series of small steps.

Perhaps the American Department of Defense (DoD) and the medical community need to be reminded that it was precisely small steps of this kind that led ultimately to Nuremberg.

Abortion and conscientious objection - My letter to the General Medical Council and their reply

On 21 June this year I wrote to Mr Niall Dickson, Chief Executive of the General Medical Council, to point out that in the light of a recent court judgement, their guidance on doctors’ involvement in abortion was now out of step with the law.

I asked him if they intended to revise it.

After follow up letters and phone calls I eventually received a reply from Ms Sharon Burton, Head of Standards and Ethics Section, on 19 August.

She defended the current GMC guidance, arguing that the section I had queried was in the annex to the guidance and not the guidance itself; and that the court judgement I had referred to was the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court.

I have published both letters below without further comment.

Doctors wishing not to be involved in abortion on conscience grounds, and concerned about their standing with the GMC and under the law, should be aware of this correspondence and of the fact that the scope of the conscience clause in the Abortion Act 1967 is a matter of some controversy.

                                     

My letter to the GMC (21 June 2013)

Dear Mr Dickson,

I’m writing to enquire whether the General Medical Council intends to revise its guidance on ‘Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice’ in the light of the recent Glasgow appeal court ruling on participation in abortion and, if so, what the timescales for the revision are.

You will be aware that two Roman Catholic midwives won a landmark legal battle in April to avoid taking any part in abortion procedures.

Mary Doogan, 58, and Concepta Wood, 52, had lost a previous case against NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (GGC) when the court ruled that their human rights had not been violated as they were not directly involved in terminations.

However appeal judges ruled their right to conscientious objection means they can refuse to delegate, supervise or support staff involved in abortions.

The judgment is significant and has relevance also to doctors.

As you will know the Abortion Act 1967 gives healthcare professionals the right to conscientiously object to ‘participate’ in abortion but the scope of the word ‘participate’ has been the matter of some legal dispute.

But Lady Dorrian, who heard the recent challenge with Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord McEwan, said: ‘In our view the right of conscientious objection extends not only to the actual medical or surgical termination but to the whole process of treatment given for that purpose.’

She said the conscientious objection in the legislation is given ‘not because the acts in question were previously, or may have been, illegal’ but ‘because it is recognised that the process of abortion is felt by many people to be morally repugnant’.

She added: ‘It is in keeping with the reason for the exemption that the wide interpretation which we favour should be given to it. It is consistent with the reasoning which allowed such an objection in the first place that it should extend to any involvement in the process of treatment, the object of which is to terminate a pregnancy.’

In the earlier judgement Lady Smith had said that since the midwives were not covered by the conscience clause as ‘they (were) not being asked to play any direct role in bringing about terminations of pregnancy’.

But this has now been overturned.

The GMC guidance, which interestingly came into force earlier in the very week of the judgement, is at odds with this ruling. It currently reads:

‘In England, Wales and Scotland the right to refuse to participate in terminations of pregnancy (other than where the termination is necessary to save the life of, or prevent grave injury to, the pregnant woman), is protected by law under section 4(1) of the Act. This right is limited to refusal to participate in the procedure(s) itself and not to pre- or post-treatment care, advice or management, see the Janaway case: Janaway v Salford Area Health Authority [1989] 1AC 537′

In para 33 of the Judgment the court makes clear that professional guidelines can be legally wrong and cannot overrule statute, it says:

‘Great respect should be given to the advice provided hitherto by the professional bodies, but prior practice does not necessarily dictate interpretation. Moreover, when the subject of the advice concerns a matter of law, there is always the possibility that the advice from the professional body is incorrect’.

Because this Judgment is from a Scottish Court (and Scotland is a different jurisdiction to England and Wales) it is not strictly binding on an English Court. However it will nonetheless have significant persuasive force in England.

The Abortion Act 1967 applies in England, Wales and Scotland (but not in Northern Ireland) and when Scottish Courts have adjudicated on such ‘cross border’ legislation in the past their decisions have been taken very seriously in England and Wales and vice versa.

We have been concerned for some time that the GMC was over-interpreting the law in a grey area in issuing its guidance. But this latest judgement has clarified the law in a way that now makes that virtually certain.

Christian Medical Fellowship has over 4,000 doctors and 1,000 medical students as members and the vast majority would have a moral objection to participation in abortion. Many other doctors share these views.

I trust that the GMC will move swiftly to review and revise their guidance so that doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion are clear where they now stand.

As I said above I would most grateful for an indication of your plans for review along with timescales so that I can keep our members informed about this important development which has practical implications for many of them.

Yours sincerely 

Peter Saunders

CEO

Christian Medical Fellowship

Reply from Sharon Burton, Head of Standards and Ethics Section, GMC (21 August 2013)

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your letter about the decision of the court in the case of Doogan and Wood v. NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board [2013] CSIH 36.

We have, of course, been following this case with interest and have read the judgment with some care. We agree that the judgment gives a wider meaning to 'participate in terminations of pregnancy' than the determination in the Janaway case in 1989. However, we are not persuaded that this position is in conflict with the GMC's guidance in Personal Beliefs in Medical Practice (2013).

In that guidance we make clear that we do not wish to preclude doctors from practising in accordance with their values and beliefs, and we do not limit the exercise of conscientious objections, except where that would not be lawful; result in treating patients unfairly; deny patients access to treatment or cause them distress.

In our view, this guidance is consistent with the Doogan and Wood judgment - our guidance allows doctors to exercise a conscientious objection to any part of the procedure, where the objective is the termination of a pregnancy.

You refer to the brief reference to the Janaway judgment in the Legal Annex to our guidance. This section is not part of the guidance. As we state at the beginning of the Annex:

This annex is for reference only. It is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of the law or list of relevant legislation and case law, nor is it a substitute for up-to-date legal advice.

As we understand the current position, it is more than possible that Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board will appeal the decision of the Court of Session. In view of the terms of our guidance, and the caveats expressed in our legal annex, we do not think it is necessary to make any changes to our document at this stage.

Thank you for raising the issue with us. I hope this makes clear our position.

Yours sincerely

Sharon Burton

Head of Standards and Ethics Section

Divorcing love from morality - the New Liberalism infecting British Evangelicalism

The Old liberalism had its roots in the radical biblical criticism of the 19^th century. Old liberals doubted core Christian doctrines like the incarnation, Christ’s death and resurrection, his ascension and second coming, the authority of Scripture, justification by faith, the day of judgement, the sovereignty of God, and so on.

The New liberalism is actually orthodox on these things. New liberals will gladly tick the boxes of the church creeds and the doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Alliance and many of them know their Bibles well.

They are liberal not on what we might call the core beliefs of Christianity, but on ethics (for examples of the wide range of views on ethical issues amongst British evangelicals see here). They would argue that ethical issues are in the category of what Paul, in passages like 1 Corinthian 8 & 10 and Romans 14, called ‘disputable matters’.

‘Disputable matters’ are things on which Bible believing Christians can legitimately disagree whilst remaining in fellowship with one another. If you like they are in the same category as debates about the timing and amount of water to be used in baptism, the modus operandi of the Lord’s supper, the sequence of events around the return of Christ, forms of church government and the place of Israel.

I see this view as a revival of what in a previous generation was called ‘situation ethics’.

Situation ethics is a Christian ethical theory that was principally developed in the 1960s by the then Episcopal priest Joseph Fletcher (pictured).

Fletcher taught Christian Ethics at Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and at Harvard Divinity School from 1944 to 1970 and wrote ten books and hundreds of articles, book reviews, and translations.

Situation ethics basically states that other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served; as theologian Paul Tillich once put it: ‘Love is the ultimate law’.

The moral principles Fletcher was specifically referring to were the moral codes of Christianity and the type of love he is specifically referring to is ‘agape’ love.

Fletcher believed that in forming an ethical system based on love, he was best expressing the notion of ‘love thy neighbour’, which Jesus Christ taught in the Gospels.

He believed that there are no absolute laws other than the law of ‘agape’ love, meaning that all the other laws are only guidelines on how to achieve this love, and could be broken if an alternative course of action would result in more love.

In order to establish his thesis he employed a number of examples of ‘situations’ in which it might be justified to administer euthanasia, commit adultery, steal, tell a lie etc.

But in effectively divorcing ‘agape’ love from moral law Fletcher was steering a subtly different path from Jesus himself.

Jesus indeed said (Matthew 22:34-40) that the most important commands in the Old Testament Law were love of God and neighbour (Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). In fact he said these two commandments summed up the whole of Old Testament Law (Matthew 22:40 and Luke 10:25-28). Furthermore he criticised the Pharisees for obeying the less important parts of the law (tithing mint and cumin) whilst neglecting the ‘more important matters of… justice, mercy and faithfulness’.

But he also said that ‘anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5:19) and reproved the Pharisees by saying that they should have ‘practised the latter’ (important commandments) ‘without neglecting the former’ (lesser commandments).

Certainly there is no place in the Gospels where Jesus implies that those commandments which deal with the shedding of innocent blood and sexual immorality (numbers six and seven of the Ten Commandments) should be disobeyed.

By contrast he exhorts his disciples in the Sermon on the Mount to go beyond the mere legalities of ‘you shall not murder’ (6) and ‘you shall not commit adultery’ (7) to embody the very spirit of love which undergirds them. Not only no murder or adultery but no hate or lust either! (Matthew 5:21-30).

It is this more exacting moral standard that also underlies the ethical teaching in the epistles. Christians are exhorted to be imitators of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) and God (Ephesians 5:1&2), to walk as Christ walked (1 John 2:6) and to ‘abstain from sinful desires’ (1 Peter 1:11).

In short we are to live by the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21 and Galatians 6:2) and to love one another as he has loved us (John 13:34-35). And love of Jesus means obedience to Jesus (John 14:15,21 and 15:12). In fact Jesus famously answered one of the Devil’s temptations in the wilderness by quoting from Deuteronomy, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’. Note every word.

So whilst we may say that there are situations where choosing not to shed innocent blood or to carry out a sexually immoral act requires great grace, courage, restraint and self-sacrifice, there are no situations where one may choose to murder or to do something sexually immoral and claim to be acting in love.

If Christ had been directly tempted in such a way, and indeed he must have been if he was ‘tempted in every way, just as we are’ (Hebrews 4:15) as we are told he was, we can imagine him answering as he did in the wilderness, ‘It is written, “you shall not murder”, “you shall not commit adultery”’.

By my reading Situation Ethics is a distortion of biblical ethical teaching. It is, in short, heresy. But it is a heresy that appears to be very much alive and well amongst British evangelicals in the 21st century. No more clearly is it evidence than in the shifting views and lack of clarity amongst evangelicals about sexual morality and the shedding of innocent blood.

Interestingly, Fletcher later identified himself as an atheist and was active in the Euthanasia Society of America and the American Eugenics Society and was one of the signatories to the Humanist Manifesto. When he started out, his position was barely distinguishable from orthodoxy. But he finished up in a very different place altogether.

This is exactly what happens when we define ‘love’ in a different way from the way it is defined in the Bible. 

What does the Bible actually say about life before birth?

The Bible does not support the view that some human lives are worth less than others. All are made in the image of God and all are equally precious.

Devaluing or discriminating against any group of human beings is therefore inconsistent with God’s justice. He does not show partiality.

The heart of Christian ethical teaching is that we must love as Christ himself loved (John 13:34), that the strong should make sacrifices for the weak and if necessary lay down their lives for the weak (Philippians 2:5-8, Romans 5:6-8). 

So to suggest that the weak might be sacrificed in the interests of the strong is simply not biblical morality.                                              

But what about human life before birth? Do these principles apply here too?

It is striking just how many references there are in Scripture to human life in the womb.

Perhaps the most famous of these is Psalm 139. The Psalmist, looking back to the beginning of his life declares:  

‘For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful...

My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place...

your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.’ (Psalms 139:13-16)

John Stott has argued that this passage affirms three important things about the human life before birth.

First, it affirms that the preborn baby is God’s creation. It is God who knitted him together. The Hebrew word used by the Psalmist for ‘knit’ (other versions translate it as ‘weaved’) is raqam, a comparatively rare word in the Old Testament, which is used almost exclusively in texts that describe the curtains and veils of Israel’s wilderness tabernacle and the garments of the high priest.  

To say that an unborn child is ‘roqem’ is therefore to say something about the cunning skill of the weaver and about the beauty of his fabric. The tabernacle was the place where the presence of God dwelt. The high priest acted as the mediator between God and man and was the only one able to enter the Holy Place. He also pointed forward to Christ, the true mediator and great High Priest to come who would deal with our sins once and for all (Hebrews 7:26-28).

With its allusions to the 'roqem work' of the tabernacle, the Psalm implies not only that God has made the infant in the womb, but also that the infant is being woven into a dwelling for God himself.

Next, God is in communion with the preborn baby. At this stage the baby in the womb can ‘know’ nothing and is in fact not even aware of its own existence. But this is not important. The key point is that God knows it. It is God’s love for the psalmist during his time in utero that gives him significance. We see echoes of John’s first epistle here, ‘This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins’ (1 John 4:10). God’s relationship with the baby is a relationship of grace to which the baby itself contributes nothing. It is not its own attributes that give it value. It is the fact that God knows and loves it.

Finally, the Psalmist affirms the continuity between life before and after birth. The baby in the womb is the Psalmist, the same person, not a different person and not a non-person.

These three themes of creation, communion and continuity are seen in many other Old and New Testament Scriptures.

God calls the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah before birth (Isaiah 49:1, Jeremiah 1:5) and  before they are capable even of hearing or understanding his call. He forms Job ‘in the womb’ as well as bringing him out of it (Job 10:8-9, 18-19).  

The Isaiah reference is particularly noteworthy because it comes from one of the so-called ‘Servant Songs’ and therefore speaks prophetically of Christ himself. Jesus was also called from the womb.

Many other references to life before birth in the Bible reinforce these principles (eg. Genesis 25:22-23, Psalm 22:9,10, 51:5, 71:6,  119:73,  Ecclesiastes 11:5,  Isaiah  44:2,24, 49:5, Hosea 12:3, Matthew 1:18, Luke  1:15,  41-44).  

In Genesis 25, Esau and Jacob wrestle in the womb, displaying the beginning of the competitive and combative behaviour that would later characterise their family life. In Psalm 51 David talks about being ‘sinful from the time my mother conceived me’ and says that God ‘desired faithfulness even in the womb’ and ‘taught me wisdom in that secret place’.

The Psalm 22 and the Genesis 25 references also look forward prophetically to Christ. Jesus’ suffering is clearly foretold in the Psalm and he actually quotes its words from the cross to emphasise that his death was to fulfil its prophecy. The Genesis passage reminds us that Jesus is the new Israel.

In addition there are over 60 references which mention the event of conception explicitly underlining its importance.

One of these is Matthew 1:20 in which an angel tells Joseph, referring to Mary the mother of Jesus, that ‘what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit’.

Particularly striking are the verses describing Jesus conception and inter-uterine development in Luke 1. Here we see Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, prophesying over Christ in his first month of gestation, and the baby John ‘leaping’ in her womb.

The timing is given in some detail. It was in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy that the angel visited Mary (Luke 1:26). She then went to visit Elizabeth who gave the prophecy accompanied by her baby leaping (Luke 1:41). As we have already noted, a baby’s movement cannot be felt until about 18 weeks but ‘in the sixth month’ means at very least 22 weeks gestation.

The Scriptures record that, ‘Mary stayed with Elizabeth for about three months and then returned home’ (Luke 1:51), and that Elizabeth gave birth after that (Luke 1:57). Given that pregnancy lasts nine months we can deduce from this that Mary must have left to see Elizabeth almost immediately after the angel’s visit and that Jesus must have therefore been in the very first few weeks, if not days, of pregnancy at the time of the prophecy.

Why is this relevant? It is important because Jesus’ humanity tells us something about our own humanity. We know that in order to act as our substitute on the cross, Jesus had to be ‘made like his brothers in every way’ (Hebrews 2:17). He had to be like us in his humanity so that he could take our place. So it follows that if Jesus was alive in the womb in the first month of pregnancy then so were we.

To deny the humanity of the human embryo is therefore to undermine not only the doctrine of creation, but also the doctrine of the atonement, Christ’s taking the punishment for sin on our behalf.

Although it does not state it explicitly, the Bible points very strongly to the conclusion that human life begins at conception, a process that we know from science begins with fertilisation, the point at which a new individual human life comes into being.

At very least then, should we not be giving the human embryo the benefit of any doubt?

The strong biblical testimony about life before birth points to the conclusion that human life, from the time of conception is, like other human life, made in the image of God and worthy of the utmost respect, wonder, protection and empathy.

Showing this degree of love respect to human beings before birth may in some circumstances be very costly for us personally. This brings us back again to the foot of the cross, and the willingness to walk in the steps of the master who gave himself fully for us and who calls us to love one another as he has loved us (John 13:34,35).

Jesus Christ was unashamedly speciesist

In 2011 British farmers slaughtered 26,000 cattle and introduced emergency measures to curb the spread of bovine tuberculosis, costing the taxpayer £90 million.

In response, government ministers approved the cull of up to 100,000 badgers thought to be responsible for harbouring the disease. 

The move provoked the largest animal rights protest since those over fox hunting in the 1990s. Dr Brian May, particle physicist and lead guitarist for the popular rock group Queen, set up an e-petition to ‘stop the badger cull’. When over 155,000 people signed it prompted a parliamentary debate.

It was Australian philosopher Peter Singer who popularised the term ‘speciesism’ in his 1975 book ‘Animal Liberation’ which many regard as giving the animal rights movement its intellectual basis.

In a landmark article titled ‘Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?’, published in the influential American Journal ‘Paediatics’ in 1983, he wrote:

'We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God...Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term 'human' has been stripped away, we may continue to see normal members of our species as possessing greater qualities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication and so on than members of any other species, but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of every member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be... If we can put aside the obsolete and erroneous notion of the sanctity of all human life, we may start to look at human life as it really is, at the quality of human life that each human being has or can achieve.'

To Singer and many influential thinkers like him, man is nothing but the product of matter, chance and time in a godless universe; merely a highly specialised animal. The value of an individual human being is determined by his or her level of rationality, self-consciousness, physical attributes or capacity for relationships.

This view has led him controversially to support human embryo research, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.

There is an element of truth in what Singer says. Humans are living beings with body plans and physiological functions that are very similar to many other living creatures. In fact we share over 98% of our DNA – our genetic programming – with chimpanzees.

But Jesus Christ taught that we are different from animals.

Human beings are made in God’s image. Animals are not. This does not mean that we don’t share some characteristics with animals. We do. Both animals and humans are made of flesh and blood out of inanimate matter, ‘from the dust of the ground’ (Genesis 2:7). We have body plans and organ systems (anatomy), functions (physiology) and complex cellular activity (biochemistry). But we are also unique in being made in God’s image.

Human beings are fundamentally different from all the other beings of God’s creation.

The Bible says that ‘the righteous care for the needs of their animals’ (Proverbs 12:10). This is what God himself does (Psalms 104:10-18). But Jesus also said that people were far more valuable than birds and sheep (Matthew 6:26, 12:12) and on one occasion he sent 2,000 pigs to their deaths in order to restore the sanity of one demon possessed man! (Mark 5:1-20)

Jesus was, in other words, unashamedly ‘speciesist’. The clue as to why he was can be found in a well-known encounter he had with some of his opponents.

When the Pharisees tried to trap him by asking whether it was right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar Jesus asked them to show him a coin. They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, ‘Whose image is this? And whose inscription?’

When they replied ‘Caesar’s’, he said, ‘So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’

When we read this familiar story we are drawn to focus on the coin, but Jesus’ comments uncover a much deeper question. If a denarius bears the image of Caesar, then what is it that bears the image of God? Because the thing that bears the image of God belongs to God and must be given to him.

The Bible begins with the four majestic words ‘In the beginning God…’.

At the end of the creation narrative in Genesis 1 God creates the animals:

‘God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.’ (Genesis 1:25)

But then in the next verse he reaches the crowning point in his whole creative process:

‘Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.’

It is human beings – both male and female – who are made in the image of God and who therefore belong to God and should be given to God. This was the point ironically lost on the Pharisees in Jesus’ encounter over the coin. They had refused to give themselves to God despite belonging to him.

Of course everything in the universe belongs to God (Psalms 24:1), even Caesar’s coins, but in all God’s creation only human beings are made in God’s image and have a special status that no other part of creation enjoys.

This has huge implications for the way we should treat human beings.

Euthanasia - what does the Bible say?

There are two instances of euthanasia in the Bible. In the first, Abimelech, believing himself to be fatally wounded (with a fractured skull after being hit on the head by a millstone), asks his armour-bearer to kill him to spare him the ‘indignity’ of being killed by a woman (Judges 9:52-55). In the second, an Amalekite despatches the mortally injured Saul, still alive after a failed attempt at suicide (2 Samuel 1:6-9).

These two cases demonstrate the two main arguments for euthanasia, autonomy (‘death with dignity’) and compassion (‘release from suffering’).

The Bible tells us that human beings are unique amongst God’s creatures in being made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) and it is on this basis, after the flood, that God introduces to all humankind the death penalty for murder (Genesis 9:6,7).

The prohibition against killing legally innocent people is later formalised in the sixth commandment, ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17). The Hebrew word for ‘murder’ is ratsach (Greek phoneuo) and its meaning is further defined in four main passages in the Pentateuch (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17-21; Numbers 35:16-31; Deuteronomy 19:4-13).

These passages resolve any ambiguity for us and give a precise definition of what is prohibited, namely the ‘intentional killing of an innocent human being’ (Exodus 23:7; 2 Kings 21:16; Psalms 106:37,38; Jeremiah 19:4). Euthanasia clearly falls within this biblical definition. There is no provision for compassionate killing, even at the person’s request and there is no recognition of a ‘right to die’ as all human life belongs to God (Psalms 24:1). Our lives are not actually our own. Suicide (and therefore assisted suicide) is therefore equally wrong.

Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that that we should go beyond the mere letter of the sixth commandment  to fulfil the very spirit of love on which it is based (Matthew 5:21,22) . We are called to walk in Jesus’ footsteps, to be imitators of God, to love as he himself loved (1 John 2:6; Ephesians 5:1,2; John 13:34, 35).

Sadly, however, many Christians today are confused about euthanasia and fall prey to emotive hard cases and false dichotomies.

It is often argued that we have only two equally undesirable alternatives to choose from - either ‘living hell’ or the euthanasia needle – both of which are imperfect and unloving solutions.

But there is a third way - the way of the cross. It calls us to give our whole selves to the love and service of others by expending our time, money and energy in finding compassionate solutions to human suffering (Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 8:34; Philippians 2:4-11; Galatians 6:2, 10). It has found practical shape historically in the hospice movement and in good palliative care - pioneered in large part by Christian doctors and nurses. When a person’s physical, social, psychological and spiritual needs are adequately tended to requests for euthanasia are very rare indeed.

But perhaps the most powerful Christian argument against euthanasia is that death is not the end. God’s intervention through Christ’s death and resurrection for our sins (Romans 5:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3) means that through the eyes of faith we can look forward to a new world after death with God where there is ‘no more death or mourning or crying or pain’ (Revelation 21:4). For those, however, who do not know God euthanasia is not a ‘merciful release’ at all. It may rather be propelling them towards a judgement for which they are unprepared.  It may be the worst thing we could ever do for them! (Hebrews 9:27; Revelation 20:15)

Euthanasia is wrong because God says it is wrong. Instead he points us to a better way, offering hope, love and compassionate care.