Quote from Forum Archives on April 3, 2005, 3:15 pm

Posted by: dr_writer <dr_writer@...>

I have to agree with Joe, and I'd like to thank him for presenting the arguments so succinctly and clearly. I would also submit that the question of using "artificial" means to extend the longevity of one's life (though, as Joe pointed out, this was certainly not the case with Terry) has more to do with us than with the patients actually receiving the care. We're the ones who have to make these tough decisions when one of our loved ones is left incapacitated by some tragic intervention of mortality, either internal or external--and it's us who God will be watching, to see how we choose to handle the situation.

This notion that by interceding with medical technology to keep someone alive, no matter how badly injured or physically/mentally incapable, we're somehow knocking God's plan for them askew, is neither new nor credible. The Pharisees (and their ilk through the centuries) made a similar argument themselves, saying that someone saddled with a severe condition--either physically, mentally, or financially--had been rendered thus by God, and if they were to interfere by offering aid or even compassion they might somehow upset the natural order of a victim's penance. They would actually be doing the victim more harm than good, risking the delicate balance of their eternal soul by giving them food or money or medicine. So let the lepers rot--better they pay their dues now and reap rewards in heaven, right?

This, I think, is the danger in the unwarranted fear of using technology to help the weak. God's message was not specific to scientific advances, but then it didn't have to be; he just told us to help others, by any means available to us. Sure, ten or twenty years ago Terry wouldn't have had the same means to help keep her alive....but then, a hundred years ago, it would've been a thousand times harder to get food and medicine (what medicine there was) to the starving nations of the earth. Should that stop us from sending them aid now? What exactly is the statute of limitations on efficient technical advances being used to help others? Is an airplane considered an invasive bit of technology if it's used to bring food to the starving?

And, of course, none of that brings into it the possibility of God's miracles. I've heard so many stories over the past couple of weeks from people whose relatives, or who they themselves, emerged and recovered from conditions not too dissimilar from Terry's. Some of them survived for years that way--thanks to outside help and the boon of technology. Again, God's judgement in these cases (for better or worse) wasn't directed at the patients; it was directed at those who made the decision to keep their loved ones alive.

And that's where his judgement will be directed for those concerned in this case, and in all that follow. Jesus made it clear that God had plenty of mercy to spare for the widows and children; what he wanted to know was, do WE have any mercy to spare for them? We should always be doing everything in our means to give what help we can to those in need--and without splitting hairs about their "quality of life," which all sounds suspiciously like trying to hone in on the exact moment a fetus becomes a living being (are we going to be hearing similar arguments about the "quality of morality" soon?). Use what gifts, worldly and spiritual, God gives you in order to lift others up and further his kingdom. What else are we here for, anyway?

- Scott

___________________________________________________________________
Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
Now includes pop-up blocker!
Only $14.95/month -visit www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!