• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Briton wins landmark ruling on assisted suicide

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
Briton wins landmark ruling on assisted suicide

41724999-briton-wins-landmark-ruling-on-assisted-suicide.jpg

MS (Multiple Sclerosis) sufferer Debbie Purdy leaves the High Court in London, in 2008. Purdy won a "landmark victory" Thursday in her long-running legal battle to clarify the law on assisted suicides, her lawyers sai


AFP - Friday, July 31

LONDON (AFP) - - A British multiple sclerosis sufferer won a landmark victory in her long-running legal battle to clarify the law on assisted suicide.

"I feel like I have my life back," said Debbie Purdy, who uses an electric wheelchair and has lost the ability to perform many basic functions, after the ruling Thursday by the Law Lords, Britain's highest court.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) now says he will set to work clearing up the legal position and hopes to publish a new policy by the end of September.

Purdy, whose health is deteriorating, had feared that without legal clarification, she would have had to travel abroad earlier to commit suicide in a country like Switzerland where it is legal.

Otherwise, her husband, Cuban violinist Omar Puente, would risk jail for helping her.

"We can live our lives. We don't have to plan my death," the 46-year-old said outside the House of Lords, where the ruling was passed down.

The five Law Lords said in their decision that the DPP had to clarify the legal position on the issue and that a "custom-built policy statement" was needed.

"Everyone has the right to respect for their private life and the way that Ms Purdy determines to spend the closing moments of her life is part of the act of living," they said.

"Ms Purdy wishes to avoid an undignified and distressing end to her life. She is entitled to ask that this too must be respected."

DPP Keir Starmer said prosecutors would now set to work drawing up the required legal clarification.

"We will endeavour to produce an interim policy as quickly as possible which outlines the principal factors for and against prosecution," he said.

"To that end, I have already set up a team to work through the summer with a view to producing an interim policy for prosecutors by the end of September."

Starmer also announced there would be a consultation to gauge public views on the issue with the aim of publishing a new policy at the start of next year.

In February, the Court of Appeal had rejected Purdy's bid for clarification, ruling that she was not entitled to the guidance she was seeking, but the Law Lords overruled this.

"It's a fantastic victory and all the sweeter for the fact that it is a unanimous decision," her lawyer Saimo Chahal said.

"It is important that the DPP should now wake up to the need to publish an offence-specific policy in this area".

But Phyllis Bowman, executive officer of Right To Life, attacked the decision. She said the group would be consulting its lawyers about what action to take.

"Much as we sympathise with Ms Purdy, we are extremely concerned about the manner in which this will leave the vulnerable - that is the disabled, the sick, and the aged," Bowman said.

"We do not intend to leave the matter there. We will be consulting with our lawyers to see what possible action can be taken."

Under the 1961 Suicide Act in England and Wales, aiding and abetting suicide is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

More than 100 Britons, mostly terminally ill, have died at the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas near Zurich, but no one who has accompanied them has ever been prosecuted on their return to Britain.

The Purdy case was the final one to be heard by the Law Lords.

From October, the highest court in the land will be the new supreme court, introduced by the government to clarify a historic anomaly and clearly separate the legislature from judiciary.
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
British law and order is in shambles...

Police cases are piling up!

Many criminals cannot be convicted and are free to roam about committing more crimes.

Double jeopardy cases are rising because failure of conviction the first time.

You need a TV program to urge the police to arrest a previously acquitted criminal...nahbray...

Sibeh jialat man....no wonder society is breaking down.

A curse for faking an evidence to invade ME thereby shedding innocent civilian blood?

A curse for playing dirty during the British Empire's opium war against China?

A curse for hosting the 66 degree of Freemason?

A curse for the rest of the sins...

Damn, God works in mysterious ways.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
she met the nigger in singapore and marry him. he is younger and nigger gold digger working in singapore. brit gov do her a favor to let her die and enrich him to support his nigger family in africa. brit gov at least better than pap.
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
debbie_purdy_404_679151c.jpg


<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading">Debbie Purdy</h1>
<div id="bodyContent">
<h3 id="siteSub">From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</h3>
<div id="contentSub"></div>
<div id="jump-to-nav">Jump to: <a href="#column-one">navigation</a>, <a href="#searchInput">search</a></div> <!-- start content -->
<p><b>Debbie Purdy</b> (born c.1963) is a British woman from <a href="/wiki/Bradford" title="Bradford">Bradford</a>, <a href="/wiki/West_Yorkshire" title="West Yorkshire">West Yorkshire</a> with <a href="/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis" title="Multiple sclerosis">multiple sclerosis</a>, notable for her challenge to the <a href="/wiki/English_law" title="English law">law</a> in <a href="/wiki/England_and_Wales" title="England and Wales">England and Wales</a> as relates to <a href="/wiki/Assisted_suicide" title="Assisted suicide">assisted suicide</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3098209/Popular-QC-appointed-to-House-of-Lords.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3098209/Popular-QC-appointed-to-House-of-Lords.html" rel="nofollow">[1]</a>.</p>
<table id="toc" class="toc" summary="Contents">
<tbody><tr>
<td>
<div id="toctitle">
<h2>Contents</h2>
<span class="toctoggle">[<a href="javascript:toggleToc()" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>]</span></div>
<ul>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Purdy.27s_case"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Purdy's case</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#Personal_life"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Personal life</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#See_also"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">See also</span></a></li>
<li class="toclevel-1"><a href="#References"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<script type="text/javascript">
//<![CDATA[
if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }
//]]>
</script>
<p><a name="Purdy.27s_case" id="Purdy.27s_case"></a></p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Debbie_Purdy&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1" title="Edit section: Purdy's case">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline">Purdy's case</span></h2>
<p>Debbie Purdy and her counsel <a href="/wiki/David_Pannick" title="David Pannick" class="mw-redirect">David Pannick</a> QC argued that the <a href="/wiki/Director_of_Public_Prosecutions" title="Director of Public Prosecutions" class="mw-redirect">Director of Public Prosecutions</a> (<a href="/wiki/Ken_Macdonald" title="Ken Macdonald">Ken Macdonald</a> QC) is infringing on her human rights by failing to clarify how the <a href="/wiki/Suicide_Act_1961" title="Suicide Act 1961">Suicide Act 1961</a> is enforced <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3098209/Popular-QC-appointed-to-House-of-Lords.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3098209/Popular-QC-appointed-to-House-of-Lords.html" rel="nofollow">[2]</a>.</p>
<p>The DPP counsel takes the position that the law does not require the DPP to make any further clarification of the Act, they argue that the Act and further information contained in the <a href="/w/index.php?title=Code_for_Crown_Prosecutors&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Code for Crown Prosecutors (page does not exist)">Code for Crown Prosecutors</a> provides sufficient information <a href="http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmvkGX_8g0tNJ0sNy4bP_CkxEByw" class="external autonumber" title="http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmvkGX_8g0tNJ0sNy4bP_CkxEByw" rel="nofollow">[3]</a>.</p>
<p>Purdy's particular concern was to discover what, if any, actions her husband (Omar Puente) takes in assisting her suicide would lead to his prosecution <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3098209/Popular-QC-appointed-to-House-of-Lords.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3098209/Popular-QC-appointed-to-House-of-Lords.html" rel="nofollow">[4]</a>. The penalty for those who “aid, abet, counsel or procure the suicide of another” is a maximum of 14 years <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dont-jail-my-husband-if-he-helps-me-to-die-pleads-ms-sufferer-927090.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dont-jail-my-husband-if-he-helps-me-to-die-pleads-ms-sufferer-927090.html" rel="nofollow">[5]</a>. No family member of the 92 Britons who have gone abroad for an assisted suicide has been prosecuted but some have been charged and have had to wait for months before hearing the charges have been dropped <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/13/death-assistedsuicide" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/13/death-assistedsuicide" rel="nofollow">[6]</a>. Purdy says that if her husband would be exposed to prosecution for helping her travel to <a href="/wiki/Switzerland" title="Switzerland">Switzerland</a> to a <a href="/wiki/Dignitas" title="Dignitas">Dignitas</a> clinic to die, she would make the journey sooner whilst she is able to travel unassisted <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2008/10/02/ms-sufferer-launches-assisted-suicide-case-115875-20766954/" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2008/10/02/ms-sufferer-launches-assisted-suicide-case-115875-20766954/" rel="nofollow">[7]</a>. This would save her husband from exposure to the law but also forces Purdy to make her decision on dying before she feels it is absolutely necessary <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2008/10/02/ms-sufferer-launches-assisted-suicide-case-115875-20766954/" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2008/10/02/ms-sufferer-launches-assisted-suicide-case-115875-20766954/" rel="nofollow">[8]</a>.</p>
<p>The hearing began on October 2 2008 and was complete soon after. The venue was the <a href="/wiki/High_Court_of_Justice" title="High Court of Justice">High Court of Justice</a>. It proceeded before <a href="/wiki/Lord_Justice" title="Lord Justice" class="mw-redirect">Lord Justice</a> <a href="/wiki/Scott_Baker_%28judge%29" title="Scott Baker (judge)">Scott Baker</a> and Mr <a href="/w/index.php?title=Justice_Aikens&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Justice Aikens (page does not exist)">Justice Aikens</a>.</p>
<p>In court the DPP said that Purdy could not be given any reassurance that her husband would not be prosecuted as the law was clear that assisting suicide is an offence.</p>
<p>On 10 December 2008 <a href="/wiki/Sky_TV" title="Sky TV">Sky TV</a> broadcast a programme on which a man with <a href="/wiki/Motor_neurone_disease" title="Motor neurone disease">motor neurone disease</a> was shown committing suicide with assistance <sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-0"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup>. There had also been the UK case of a Mr James who went to Switzerland with the aid of his parents after being paralysed whilst playing <a href="/wiki/Rugby_%28sport%29" title="Rugby (sport)" class="mw-redirect">rugby</a> and the Department of Public Prosecutions determined that to prosecute the parents would be against the public interest <sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup>. These two events led to the issue of assisted suicide making the first story on the <a href="/wiki/BBC" title="BBC">BBC</a>'s <a href="/wiki/Newsnight" title="Newsnight">Newsnight</a>. Purdy appeared to debate the issue and denied that it is society that makes disabled people wish to kill themselves and reasserted her belief that it is right to be able to seek assistance when one is physically incapable of committing suicide oneself <sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup>.</p>
<p><a name="Personal_life" id="Personal_life"></a></p>
<h2><span class="editsection">[<a href="/w/index.php?title=Debbie_Purdy&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2" title="Edit section: Personal life">edit</a>]</span> <span class="mw-headline">Personal life</span></h2>
<p>Purdy met her husband in Singapore when he was playing with a band <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dont-jail-my-husband-if-he-helps-me-to-die-pleads-ms-sufferer-927090.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dont-jail-my-husband-if-he-helps-me-to-die-pleads-ms-sufferer-927090.html" rel="nofollow">[9]</a>. They married in 1998 in Bradford.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup> She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis after she found her feet felt heavy when out dancing. Currently she uses a wheelchair for mobility and both her sight and hearing have begun to deteriorate <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3089249/Right-to-die-campaigner-Debbie-Purdy-vows-to-take-fight-to-House-of-Lords.html" class="external autonumber" title="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3089249/Right-to-die-campaigner-Debbie-Purdy-vows-to-take-fight-to-House-of-Lords.html" rel="nofollow">[10]</a><a href="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4836537.ece" class="external autonumber" title="http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article4836537.ece" rel="nofollow">[11]</a>.</p></div>
 

kensington

Alfrescian
Loyal
When the quality of her life deteriorates, she makes her right decision.

Her life, her choice...unlike certain people who refuses to die.
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
From The Times
July 31, 2009
DPP must clarify policy on assisted suicide

House of Lords

Published July 31, 2009

Regina (Purdy) v Director of Public Prosecutions; Society for the Protection of Unborn Children intervening

Before Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Speeches July 30, 2009

The Director of Public Prosecutions should be required to promulgate a policy identifying the facts and circumstances that he would take into account in considering whether to prosecute persons such as the claimant’s husband for aiding and abetting an assisted suicide abroad.

The House of Lords allowed an appeal by Ms Debbie Purdy from the Court of Appeal (Lord Judge, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Ward and Lord Justice Lloyd) (The Times February 24, 2009) who had dismissed her appeal from the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justice Aikens) (The Times November 17, 2008; (2008) BMLR 231) who had dismissed her claim for judicial review of a decision of the DPP dated January 14, 2008.

Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 provides:

“(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another ... shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a terms not exceeding 14 years.

“(4) No proceedings shall be instituted for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides: “1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life...

“2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as in accordance with the law...”

Lord Pannick, QC and Mr Paul Bowen for Ms Purdy; Miss Dinah Rose, QC and Mr Jeremy Johnson for the DPP; Mr Charles Foster and Mr Benjamin Bradley for the intervener.

LORD HOPE said that Ms Purdy suffered from primary progressive multiple sclerosis for which there was no known cure. She expected that there would come a time when her continuing existence would become unbearable.

When that happened she would want to end her life while still physically able to do so. But by that stage she would be unable to do so without assistance. So she would want to travel to a country where assisted suicide was lawful, probably Switzerland. Her husband was willing to help her make the journey.

In his article “Suicide in Switzerland: Complicity in England?” (\[2009\] Crim LR 335) Professor Michael Hirst had suggested that it was not an offence for a person to do acts in England and Wales that aided and or abetted a suicide that subsequently took place in a jurisdiction where suicide was lawful.

However, there was a substantial risk that the acts that Ms Purdy wished her husband to perform would give rise to a prosecution. It was the risk that the DPP would consent to his prosecution that deterred her from taking that course.

It was no part of the House’s function to change the law to decriminalise assisted suicide. Changes were a matter for Parliament.

No one who had listened to the recent debate in the House of Lords on Lord Falconer of Thoroton’s amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill, in which he had sought to define in law acts that were not capable of encouraging or assisting suicide, or had read the report of the debate (Hansard (HL Debates) July 7, 2009, cols 595-634), could be in any doubt as to the strength of feeling on either side or the difficulties that such a change in the law might give rise to.

The House’s function as judges was to say what the law was and, if it was uncertain, to do what it could to clarify it.

Lord Pannick submitted that the prohibition in section 2(1) of the 1961 Act constituted an interference to Ms Purdy’s right to respect for her private life under article 8.1 of the Human Rights Convention and that that interference was not “in accordance with the law” as required by article 8.2 in the absence of an offence-specific policy by the DPP setting out the factors that would be taken into account by him and crown prosecutors in deciding under section 2(4) whether it was in the public interest to bring a prosecution.

A number of other people had already gone to countries where assisted suicide was lawful, and those who had assisted them had not been prosecuted. The House had been told that by the time of the hearing there had been 115 such cases. Of those, only eight had been referred to the DPP for a decision on prosecution.

In 2008 he had decided not to prosecute the parents and a family friend of Daniel James (“Decision on Prosecution — The Death by Suicide of Daniel James”, December 9, 2008). He had taken that decision personally, he had given his reasons in writing and he had made those reasons available to the public. That had been an exception. The public had not been told what the reasons had been in the other cases so far referred to him.

Ms Purdy did not seek a guarantee of immunity from prosecution. She wanted to be able to make an informed decision as to whether to ask for her husband’s assistance. But the DPP had declined to say what factors he would take into consideration in deciding whether it was in the public interest to prosecute those who assisted in such cases.

That presented her with a dilemma. If the risk of prosecution was sufficiently low she could wait until the last moment before making the journey. If it was too high she would have to make the journey unaided to end her life before she would otherwise wish to do so.

His Lordship considered Pretty v UK (Application No 2346/02) ((2002) 35 EHRR 1) and R (Pretty) v DPP (The Times December 5, 2002; \[2002\] 1 AC 800) and said that he would depart from the decision in the latter case and hold that the right to respect for private life in article 8.1 was engaged in the present case.

As to article 8.2, the Convention principle of legality required the court to address three questions:

First, whether there was a legal basis in domestic law for the restriction.

Second, whether the law or rule in question was sufficiently accessible to the individual affected by the restriction and sufficiently precise to enable him to understand its scope and foresee the consequences of his actions so that he could regulate his conduct without breaking the law.

Third, whether, assuming that the first two requirements were satisfied, the restriction was being applied in a way that was arbitrary because, for example, it was not proportionate.

The issue that Ms Purdy raised was directed to the way in which the DPP could be expected to exercise his discretion under section 2(4) of the 1961 Act.

That was where the requirement that the law should be formulated with sufficient precision to enable the individual, if need be with appropriate advice, to regulate his conduct was brought into focus in the present case.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors was to be regarded, for the purposes of article 8.2 of the Convention, as forming part of the law in accordance with which an interference with the right to respect for private life might be held to be justified, but in a case such as the present it offered almost no guidance.

Ms Purdy now had the guidance that could be obtained from the DPP’s decision in the Daniel James case, and the DPP had created a Special Crimes Division for the supervision of prosecutions of exceptional sensitivity or difficulty. But those developments fell short of what was needed to satisfy the Convention tests of accessibility and foreseeability.

The cases referred to the DPP would undoubtedly grow in number. Decisions were likely to be highly sensitive to the facts of each case and to be controversial, but his Lordship would not regard those as reasons for excusing the DPP from the obligation to clarify his position as to the factors that he regarded as relevant for and against prosecution.

He would allow the appeal and require the DPP to promulgate an offence-specific policy identifying the facts and circumstances that he would take into account.

Lord Phillips, Lady Hale, Lord Brown and Lord Neuberger delivered concurring opinions.

Solicitors: Bindmans LLP; Treasury Solicitor; Penningtons
 

jacobsgoh

Alfrescian
Loyal
Her life, her choice...unlike certain people who refuses to die.[/QUOTE]

That certain person is having it very easy, with money coming in unimpeded and a kin as his proxy, given these conditions sure don't want to die.
 

Lee Hsien Tau

Alfrescian
Loyal
Home > Breaking News > World > Story

Aug 4, 2009
Suicide rules will apply in UK & Out

ln-world-suicide.jpg

Debbie Purdy (left), who has multiple sclerosis, went to court to clarify whether her husband would be prosecuted if he helped her travel abroad to end her life. Last week the Law Lords, Britain's top court, backed her by ruling that prosecutors must spell out the rules. -- PHOTO: AP


LONDON - RULES on assisted suicide must apply whether the death takes place in Britain or in countries where the practice is allowed, Britain's chief prosecutor was quoted on Tuesday as saying.

Helping someone die is a crime in Britain, but prosecutions are rare. Dozens of Britons have killed themselves at Swiss clinics run by the group Dignitas in the last decade, and no one has been charged for helping them travel there.

Last week, Britain's top court ordered the government to draw up rules for when it will - and won't - prosecute assisted suicide.

Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer told Tuesday's edition of the Daily Telegraph newspaper that the guidelines would cover all assisted suicides, whether in Britain or abroad.

'The same broad principles will apply,' he was quoted as saying. 'They've got to apply to all acts, in the jurisdiction or out of it. We won't have separate rules for Dignitas.'

In Britain, those who 'aid, abet, counsel or procure' suicide can get up to 14 years in jail. But the law is rarely enforced, and a series of high-profile cases have spurred calls for a legal change.

Debbie Purdy, a British woman who has multiple sclerosis, went to court to clarify whether her husband would be prosecuted if he helped her travel abroad to end her life. Last week the Law Lords, Britain's top court, backed her by ruling that prosecutors must spell out the rules.

Starmer has said he will produce an interim policy next month, and full guidelines next year. But he said he can't change the law to make assisted suicide legal. Only Parliament can do that.

'Not everyone has the means to go abroad to commit suicide, and a political decision has to be made on whether some assisted suicide is legal,' Starmer said. 'That decision needs to be made by Parliament.'

That is unlikely to happen soon. Despite evidence of changing attitudes, recent parliamentary efforts to change the rules have been defeated, and politicians have little appetite for reopening the contentious issue. Starmer said politicians were divided, and 'there's nothing much I can do to nudge them along.' -- AP

Latest comments
....an extract of a Christian's perspective on euthanasia......................


Question: "What does the Bible say about euthanasia and/or having a living will?"

Answer: Euthanasia can be a very difficult issue. There are two sides that are difficult to balance. On one end, we do not want to take a person’s life into our own hands and end it prematurely. On the other end, at what point do we simply allow a person to die and take no further action to preserve life?

The overriding truth that drives the conclusion that God is opposed to euthanasia is His sovereignty. We know that physical death is inevitable (Psalm 89:48; Hebrews 9:27). However, God alone is sovereign over when and how a person's death occurs. Job testifies in Job 30:23, “I know you will bring me down to death, to the place appointed for all the living.” Ecclesiastes 8:8a declares, “No man has power over the wind to contain it; so no one has power over the day of his death.” God has the final say over death (see also 1 Corinthians 15:26, 54-56; Hebrews 2:9, 14-15; Revelation 21:4). Euthanasia is man's way of trying to usurp that authority from God.

Death is a natural occurrence. Sometimes God allows a person to suffer for a long time before death occurs; other times, the person's suffering is cut short. No one enjoys suffering, but that does not make it right to determine that a person is ready to die. Often God's purposes are made known through a person's suffering. “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other…” (Ecclesiastes 7:14). Romans 5:3 teaches that tribulations bring about perseverance. God cares about those who are crying out for death to end their suffering. God gives purpose to life even to the end. Only God knows what is best, and His timing, even in the matter of one's death, is perfect.

At the same time, the Bible does not command us to do everything we can to keep a person alive. If a person is being kept alive only by machines, it is not immoral to turn off the machines and allow the person to die. If a person has been in a persistent vegetative state for a prolonged period of time, it would not be an offense to God to remove whatever tubes/machines that are keeping the person’s body alive. Should God desire to keep a person alive, He is perfectly capable of doing so without the help of feeding tubes and/or machines.

Making a decision like this one is very difficult and painful. It is never easy to tell a doctor to end the life support of a loved one. We should never seek to prematurely end a life, but at the same time, neither do we have to go to extraordinary means to preserve a life. The best advice to anyone facing this decision is to pray to God for wisdom (James 1:5).

Recommended Resource: In His Image by Brand & Yancey.
Posted by: dan2429E at Tue Aug 04 23:16:04 SGT 2009
 
Top