Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 1981 · 54th Convention › Page 403

LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 1981, Page 403

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS

Report on Euthanasia
with Guiding Principles

INTRODUCTION

Our culture lives in the stormcenter of a biomedical revolution whose
consequences defy description. The cumulative results of countless discover-
ies and innovations in medical technology have made it possible for us to
extend life beyond what were once considered to be its natural limits
Conversely, modern medical wizardry finds itself in a position that provides
the know-how to curtail life abruptly and almost painlessly at will and within
the context of the discipline itself.

In light of such awesome potentials there is talk about “dying with dignity,”
“the right to die," “merciful release” and ‘a good death."’ Out of this way of
speaking has developed a rather extensive use of the word “‘euthanasia,"* with
the innumerable spiritual and ethical problems attending the possibility of its
more general practice. That “easeful death” of which the poet John Keats
once wrote in “mused rhyme’’ is today being advocated for persons in great
pain with terminal illnesses, for mentally retarded patients and for children
with untreatable brain damage.

Under such circumstances the church would be remiss in her mission if she
failed to seize the opportunity to help inform public opinion by dealing with
the problems confronting individuals and society in the wake of massive
advances in technology designed to deal with issues involving nothing less
than life and death. For in the most profound sense the issue of euthanasia.
like abortion, serves as a crucible to test the spiritual sensitivities and ethical
fiber of contemporary life. The church, therefore, must attempt to offer some
general guidelines especially for those who have an interest in conforming to
God's will as it applies to this area of concern. In point of fact, by the very
nature of its responsibilities the church is expected to let itself be heard in
terms of God's law as this has been entrusted to His people for discussion.
evaluation, teaching, preaching and proper application. Firm conviction and
strong action have become particularly crucial at a time when a growing

1. SOME ESSENTIAL DEFINITIONS

segment of humanity clamors ever more loudly for legalizing the practice of
mercy killing.

Over a decade ago The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, acting on a
plea for ‘guidance to Christian people as they face. . . new dilemmas.”
requested the Commission on Theology and Church Relations to initiate a
comprehensive study of euthanasia (1967 Resolution 2-28). In response to
this assignment the CTCR submits the following report as prepared by its
Social Concerns Committee. It presents first of all a series of essential defini-
tions. This report then takes up a consideration of the major aspects of the
issues of life and death as seen in the light of God's will and work as Creator,
Redeemer and Sanctifier. It concludes with a statement of some basic princi-
ples which may prove helpful in reaching spiritual and moral decisions that
bear the stamp of validity in terms of God's Word.

1. SOME ESSENTIAL DEFINITIONS

1. Euthanasia

The ethical questions raised by the issue of euthanasia are rendered more
complex and confusing by various adjectives applied to the word itself. The
medical profession uses the word ‘euthanasia’ with considerable hesitation
and only in the sense of deliberately shortening life. But persons and groups
devoted primarily to ‘social engineering” have popularized this term and
have devised such euphemistic definitions for it as ‘‘death with dignity,” “‘as-
sisting nature” and ‘“‘choosing the moment.”

Within a context of this kind it is necessary to set forth some basic definitions
of the term “euthanasia” as well as the modifications of the word created by
the addition of the adjectives “‘active,” “passive,” “‘direct’’, ‘‘indirect,”’ “‘pos-
itive,” “negative,” “voluntary,” “involuntary” and ‘‘cormpulsory,”” and also
to review its legal status.

a. Definition of ‘Euthanasia’

The word “euthanasia” literally means ‘‘beautiful death."’ As its derivation
from two Greek words would suggest, such a concept of dying developed
quite logically in a culture that looked upon death in terms of being a “friend,”
as in the case of Socrates committing suicide by drinking hemlock. In the
Judaeo-Christian tradition, however, dying was and is generally seen to be
inimical to man’s destiny. since the Scriptures make it very clear that man was
created for life. As a result of this influence from the biblical past at work in our
culture, euthanasia is understood in medical circles as an att of killing a human
being and is often taken to be akin to murder. While Dorland’s Medica!
Dictionary speaks of euthanasia as ‘‘an easy and painless death,” its second
statement calls it ‘putting to death a person suffering from an incurable
disease."’ The 1975 edition of The American Henttage Dictionary speaks of it
as “the act of inducing the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to
be merciful.”

The issue becomes confused when a distinction is made between “‘active™”
or “‘positive’’ and ‘‘passive’’ or ‘‘negative’’ euthanasia. The former is defined
as taking direct steps to end the life of persons who are not necessarily dying
but who, in the opinion of some, are better off dead. It is also described as the
deliberate easing into death of a patient suffering from a painful and fatal
disease. The terms ‘passive’ or ‘‘negative” euthanasia, on the other hand,
are sometimes used—incorrectly—to refer to the discontinuance or avoid-
ance of extraordinary means of preserving life when there is no prospect of
Tecovery. This practice does not, in a proper medical sense, signify euthana-
sia. Instead, it normally belongs to the responsible care that medica] personnel

403