Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. 8 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments
Posted November 13, 2006 - 8:30 am
Please read the whole article. My eyes bugged out at the headline, but this is really much closer to the issues facing older/terminally ill people who refuse extreme medical measures to preserve what would be minimal life functions.
The huge moral problem is that newborns cannot speak for themselves. Parents normally take charge in such cases, but there are aggressive “medical boards” wanting in to judge, and their criteria are often questionable.
And “duty to die” does lurk in the shadows - “It is costing too much to keep your loved one alive. You have a duty to the public good allow death.”
But do read the article - there are complex and worthy questions in these matters and the headline and some of the coverage is sensationalistic.
It’s that “quality of life thing”. If a person costs too much, requires too much care, or is otherwise too much of an inconvenience, then they simply must be killed for the good of society. It is the logical next step for the “reproductive rights” movement. O Brave New World!
As someone who pours heart and soul into creating technology that lets the most severely disabled children do simple things such as tell their parents they love them, I am without words. It’s times like this I want to walk away from Anglicanism, and leave it to die the death it so often seems to deserve. I know I’m supposed to pray for Bishop Butler, but right now I’d much prefer that he rot in Hell. I guess it’ll be Monday all day.
Sensationalist and anti-church untruths that we’ve come to expect from the Mail. The report signed by +Butler states “that fetuses and newborns should only have treatment withheld or withdrawn if treatment is futile.” The full text is at
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/socialpublic/bioethics.html
I can see no real departure from a thoroughly orthodox Christian understanding of end-of-life ethics in this report.
There is a difference between “allowing to die” and actively killing a patient, especially if it is the patient’s rational choice. For the demented and non-responsible children there is the problem of who decides. Quality of life can be a euphamism for poor quality of life for those providing the care. Once the government gets in on the act there is no solution. The church has long since abandoned a prophetic ministry to guide in these complex problems. When the bill is sent to some one else to pay, don’t be surprised what happens. Like that old joke:"Pedro say, he no afraid to die.”
Ah, Matt: so it was the Church of England and not the Democratic National Committee!
I think we need to tread very lightly, here. The headline of this post was inflammatory. When reading the text it sounded more as though there are times when interfering with God’s will might not be the wisest course.
The problem is that the doctor makes the decision -- not the parents. It's the slippery slope.
Are there any Biblical instructions that the weak should be left to die?
This whole issue seems to be a social position taken by the church, not a Biblical one. One has to wonder what guides them as a church.