At first, I would console my friend who is in the crossroads of a difficult decision concerning her
mother. I would encourage her with Philippians 4:6 (English Standard Version) that states, “Do
not be anxious for anything, but in everything be in prayer with supplication and thanksgiving let
your request be made known to God.”
Elderly cancer patient
Current situation
Her mother has become permanently unconscious and her only kidney is shutting down. Dialysis
is being offered as a temporary remedy and can sustain her mother for several months. In
addition, a novel medication is being presented in the market, but will only be available in
several months. In other words, to receive the new medication, my friend’s mother would have to
stay on dialysis until the medication becomes available (Clark & Rakestraw, 1996b).
Response (1 person)
st
My friend, I will give you my opinion on this matter, but the ultimate decision is up to
you and your family. I respect any decision that you make.
Unfortunately, your mother is in a persistent vegetative state or PVS. This means that her
body has suffered extensive damage to the upper portion of her brain, and she is permanently
unconscious. She is can breathe spontaneously, her heart can beat regularly, she can yawn and
sometimes exhibit chewing movements, but she is not aware of her surroundings, has no
memory, and no recollection of her personality. Fortunately, she is not in any pain or is suffering.
Now, if your family decides to keep her on dialysis and wait on the new cancer medication, her
body may be able to combat the cancer, but she will not regain consciousness because of the
extensive damage to her brain.
As Christians, we know that God’s Word is true. We know that God has created us in His
image and has knit us in our mother’s womb as stated in Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 139:13. We
also know that God has the power to give life and to take life (Deuteronomy 32:39, New
International Version). Your mother’s body must always be respected because she was, while on
earth, the image of God functioned as God's representative through the body. However, this PVS
condition is total and irreversible, and it is up to you (and your family) to determine, if her loss
of personhood is considered death, and if you should disconnect artificial feeding.
Personally, if it were my mother in the same situation, I would agree to feed my mother
by mouth after the feeding tube is pulled. This continuation of mouth feeding, for me, is an act of
warm, personal care to her. Similarly, I would be willing to treat any pressure sores or skin
lesions that ensued due to the awkward posture and lack of motion of my mother. Although she is
no longer conscious and is not suffering, this would ensure closure for me. However, if you
would like to keep your mother sustained by mechanical means, I respect your decision.
Continue praying to the Lord as you make this final decision. Also, consult your family
and your mother’s doctors.
Physically tenacious grandfather
Current situation
A friend from Sunday school just experienced the loss of her grandfather. He had suffered brain
deterioration and had become violent and irritable. Her grandfather was moved to a nursing
home. One day, he had a heart attack and was resuscitated to life. He moved back to the nursing
but refused to eat. His family asked the doctor to enter a do not resuscitate (DNR) order if the
man had another heart attack. Even then, he would not die. In that case, the family order to
remove is mechanically administered feeding and hydration, and the man died.
Background from readings
Removing food and hydration, as an to kill the grandfather, is passive euthanasia (Clark & intent
Rakestraw, 1996a) or unnatural passive euthanasia (Geisler, 2010b). Although (unnatural)
passive euthanasia is not illegal, it should be considered morally wrong. Why? Because it rejects
God’s sovereignty over life (Genesis 1:1, New International Version; Psalm 24:1, New
International Version); it is contrary to the sanctity of human life; it is a form of murder and is
condemned in scripture (Exodus 20:13, 21:12-13, Amplified Version; Judges 9:54, 56, Amplified
Version); it cheapens the value of life, and produces guilt in the family and society (as depicted
in this case study. We have a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Proverbs 31:8-
9, Common English Bible) exhorts, “Speak out on behalf of the voiceless, and the rights for all
those who are vulnerable. Speak out in order to judge with righteousness and to defend the needy
and the poor.” Removal of food and hydration should be based on the burden of the treatment,
not the burden of the person (Meilaender, 1996). Even then, the removal of food and hydration
requires demonstration during a trial period. The man is conscious, although demented, and
shouldn’t be deprived of two sources of life because of his burden to his family or staff.
Although the patient didn’t recognize his family, he is conscious and able to speak. I understand
that due to his mental status, he may not be able to adequately choose the best treatment for
himself, but he can state whether he would like to live or pass away.
Also, the proper medication, such as pain and sedatives, can be implemented for the
comfort of the patient. Since the patient is not in a persistent vegetative state and deemed
permanently unconscious with no memory, personality, and social interactions, removal of food
and hydration (whether mechanically or physically) should not be utilized as a mechanism for his
death.
Response
Unfortunately, what happened to your grandfather is called passive euthanasia and is not
illegal. However, I do think it wasn’t a morally justified decision. As Christians, we know that
God’s Word is true. We know that God has created us in His image and has knit us in our
mother’s womb as stated in Genesis 1:27 and Psalm 139:13. We also know that God has the
power to give life and to take life (Deuteronomy 32:39, New International Version).
I do think the actions that were taken, by removing food and water, were to remove the
burden your grandfather had on the family and staff. If there was removal of food and hydration
it should’ve been demonstrated in a trial period.
But we know that God is a gracious and merciful God! Your guilt is not too much for
Him to handle and He loves you, nonetheless. He states in Matthew 11:28 (English Standard
Version), “Come all to me who are weary, and I will give you rest.” He also states in 1 Peter 5:7
(English Standard Version), “Cast all your anxiety on Him because he cares for you.” If you feel
like you have sinned and need forgiveness, 1 John 1:9 (English Standard Version) tells us, “If we
confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.”
References for all the readings:
Bailey, R. (2008). Ethical stem cell research does not depend on federal funding or oversight. In
V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. 79–84). GreenHaven Press.Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996a). Abortion. In Reading in christian ethics, vol 2:
Issues and applications (pp. 21–49). Baker Books.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996b). Euthanasia. In Reading in christian ethics, vol 2:
Issues and applications (pp. 95–102). Baker Books.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (1996c). Reproductive technologies and genetics. In Reading
in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (pp. 57–89). Baker Books.
Domestic Policy Council. (2008). Using alternative sources of stem cells does resolve ethical
issues. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. 57–62). Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
GreenHaven Press.
Geisler, N. (2010a). Abortion. In (2nd ed., pp. Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
131–160). Baker Academic.
Geisler, N. (2010b). Infanticide and euthanasia. In Christian ethics: Contemporary issues &
options (2nd ed., pp. 160–180). Baker Academic.
Kimmelman, J., Baylis, F., & Glass, K. (2008). Ethical stem cell research requires federal
funding and oversight. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. 71–Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
78). GreenHaven Press.
Lindsay, R. (2008). Embryonic stem cell research is ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing
viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 33–42). GreenHaven Press.
Macrina, F. (2014). Use of humans in biomedical research. In Scientific integrity: Text and cases
in responsible conduct of research (4th ed., pp. 135–140).
McConchie, D. (2008). Using alternative sources of stem cells does not resolve ethical issues. In
V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. 63–70). GreenHaven Press.Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
McDowell, J. (1996). Ethical implications of in vitro fertilization. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw
(Eds.), (8th ed., pp. 63–68). Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications
Baker Books.
Meilaender, G. (1996). On removing food and water. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw (Eds.),
Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (pp. 109–115). Baker Books.
Mollenkott, V. (1996). Reproductive choice: Basic to justice for women. In D. Clark & R.
Rakestraw (Eds.), (8th ed., pp. Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications
26–31). Baker Books.
National Institue of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2019). Anencephaly information page.
Rakestraw, R. (1996). The persistent vegetative state and the withdrawal of nutrition and
hydration. In D. Clark & R. Rakestraw (Eds.), Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and
applications (pp. 116–132). Baker Books.
Wagner, V. (Ed.). (2008). Is stem cell research ethical? In Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical
ethics (pp. 19–85). GreenHaven Press.
(Clark & Rakestraw, 1996b, 1996a, 1996c; Geisler, 2010b, 2010a; Macrina, 2014; Rakestraw,
1996; Wagner, 2008) (Meilaender, 1996)(Domestic Policy Council, 2008; Mollenkott, 1996)
(McConchie, 2008; National Institue of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2019)(McDowell,
1996)(Bailey, 2008)
(Lindsay, 2008)(Kimmelman, Baylis, & Glass, 2008)
