Posted by: gcarkner | March 18, 2014

Who Stole Our Humanity?… 2

Towards Recovering Our Humanity: Wisdom … 2

It is our conviction that if we are to become more human, science must be more engaged with and tempered by wisdom. Philosophy, of which science is a part, by definition is the love of wisdom that prompts persons to use all the skills of reason in the quest for truth, goodness and beauty. Rationalism unfortunately pits truth against beauty and goodness and against theology; we question this kind of prideful wisdom. Intellectual Jacques Maritain cautions that ‘science without wisdom is blind’;  it is therefore dangerous as a form of raw power without the tempering effect of wisdom. How is its insight and knowledge to be used well, for the best, for the common good?

There is a significant revival of virtue ethics today in academia. Upon deeper reflection, genuine knowledge is the cultivation of the virtue of wisdom, which entails that all knowledge must have a relationship with both the intellectual and the moral virtues. Science within its appointed limits attends to matters of fact, quantity, cosmic order, matter and anti-matter, the physical forces and the realm of stars and galaxies (the what and how questions). Wisdom, however, has a large vested interest in the qualitative conditions of life and research (the why questions): relationships, meaning, purpose, value, idea, narrative, appropriate application of knowledge and other meta-issues.

Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, GCU Personality, Science Reflections, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | March 16, 2014

Review Of Al Gore’s The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change

A Review of Gore, A., 2013. The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change. Random House, New York. 558 pp.

Al Gore’s selection of the six key drivers of global change can be debated, but no one should underestimate the thought and vision that has gone into the writing of this book. If you are worried about investing in 558 pages of text I would strongly recommend that you read the final chapter (Conclusion) first. The range of recommendations is bound to impress and the evidence on which such recommendations are based should intrigue the reader to return to the opening chapter and stay the course. This is not another climate change peroration but a balanced warning in relation to the trajectory of the six major drivers of change, as perceived by Al Gore.

The six drivers are as follows:

  1. The emergence of a deeply interconnected global economy which is characterized by an expanding global wealth gap. Increasing speed of transactions, complexity, integration, capitalism in crisis and the changing nature of work.
  2. The realization of global electronic communication, a global brain, big data and the threat of “big brother”, a crisis in education and health care, the conundrum of the search for security and the loss of privacy.
  3. A new balance of political, economic and military power, the unpredictability of China, the growing influence of corporations,  the nation state in transition and the uncertain meaning of the decline in wars.
  4. Rapid unsustainable growth, exemplified by city growth, mass marketing, waste and pollution, continued population growth, family migration, refugees, soil erosion and dust storms.
  5. A revolution in genetics and materials science, ethical issues surrounding the genome, creation of new body parts, fertility control and GMOs.
  6. A new relation between the power of civilization and Earth’s ecological system, questions around mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, risks, fracking and species extinctions.

In his conclusion, Gore says that our decision about the way we choose to live will determine “whether the journey takes us or whether we take the journey”. He lays out his assumptions about human nature: intrinsic human nature does not change but aspects of human nature which we routinely express can and do change. Some genes are expressed while others remain inchoate and vestigial. Neuron trees grow dense and vibrant when they are used; others atrophy when they are not. Better education is essential but is not, in itself, enough. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, Grad Student Strategies, Science Reflections, Stewardship | Tags:

Posted by: gcarkner | March 16, 2014

Who Stole Our Humanity?

Scammed Out of Our Humanity?

There are forces and ideologies in society which rob us of our dignity and freedom, of our very humanity. Scientism is one of those forces or perspectives which depletes or blocks a higher humanism. We have to say that it  is not conducive to a holistic or healthy view of humans. Its reductive character has contributed to the devaluing of people through a number of ideologies in the twentieth century, many of which are still in play in the twenty-first century. Dehumanization of persons is the result of treating them in terms of their machineness or their biological being alone.  Scores of books have addressed this topic. In a very devastating sense, modern culture is deprived of some of the richest interpretation of the nature of humanity that history has available.[1]

Is this a wise way to go? E.F. Schumacher captures the problem of scientism for personhood in rather shocking terms.

The Universe is what it is; but he who … limits himself to its lowest sides—to his biological needs, his creature comforts or his accidental encounters—will inevitably ‘attract’ a miserable life. If he can recognize nothing but ‘struggle for survival’ and ‘will to power’ fortified by cunning, his ‘world’ will be one fitting Hobbe’s description of the life of man as ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’.[2]

Under the mythology of scientism, people are viewed as sophisticated cogs in the cosmic machinery, or simplified as the most intelligent animals (highest primates). All human characteristics, including mind or soul, are taken as explicable in terms of body (neuron networks, DNA makeup, biochemistry or physiology, or mere physics and chemistry). There is a philosophical reductionism at work, i.e. the higher is explained in terms of the lower, mind in terms of brain, human social behaviour in terms of physics and chemistry, or ant colonies (E.O. Wilson). Humans are appreciated mainly for their instrumental value: earning capacity, socio-political usefulness and their excellencies of giftedness. We saw this mentality lived out in the old Soviet Union, but often it exhibits itself in how people are treated in the West as well.

We briefly note here the distinct lack of wisdom in viewing humans as mere animals. This is the kind of reductionism that leads to alienation, human rights abuse, cynicism, even nihilism, as we see in the oppression by malevolent elites or dictators, or abusive employers of immigrants. The movie The Way Back depicts such brutish conditions of Stalin’s Siberian labour camps–the Gulags about which Solzhenitsyn wrote.[3] Scientism is easily exploited by a political ideology that is disconnected from the moral good; it carries the potential to be used in the most destructive ways on humans and the rest of creation, promoting a nihilistic anti-humanism.[4] Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, Science Reflections, Stewardship | Tags:

Posted by: gcarkner | March 9, 2014

Iain Provan Examines Two Cultural Mythologies

A Critical Examination of Two Myths that Drive Culture:

the Axial Age and Dark Green Religion

Dr. Iain Provan, Marshall Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies, 

Regent College

Wednesday, March 12 @ 4:00 p.m.        Woodward (IRC) Room 6, UBC

Abstract

The contemporary world has been shaped in part by two important and potent myths.  Karl Jaspers’ construct of the “axial age” envisions the common past (800–200 BC), the time when Western society was born and world religions spontaneously and independently appeared out of a seemingly shared value set. Conversely, the myth of the “dark green golden age” as narrated by David Suzuki and others asserts that the axial age, and the otherworldliness that accompanied the emergence of organized religion, ripped society from a previously deep communion with nature. Both myths contend that to maintain balance we must return to the idealized past. In this lecture, Iain Provan will engage critically with both myths, explaining why we should not embrace them and why it matters if we do.

Biography 

With his doctorate from Cambridge University, Dr. Iain Provan has been the Marshall Sheppard Professor of Biblical Studies at Regent College since 1997. He was born and educated in the UK and retains strong family, academic, and church connections with his homeland. He received his MA at Glasgow University in Mediaeval History and Archaeology, his BA from London Bible College in Theology, and his PhD from Cambridge, where his thesis focused on the books of Kings, and was subsequently published as Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. Iain Provan’s academic teaching career took him to King’s College London, the University of Wales, and the University of Edinburgh, where he was a senior lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament Studies. He has written numerous essays and articles, and several books including commentaries on Lamentations, 1 and 2 Kings, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, and co-authored with Phil Long and Tremper Longman A Biblical History of Israel. Most recently he released Convenient Myths: The Axial Age, Dark Green Religion, and the World that Never Was., the concern of this talk. Iain is an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland; a Life Member of Clare Hall, Cambridge; and the recipient of an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellowship. He and his wife, Lynette, have four children and he holds full credentials as a soccer coach in BC. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, GCU Events, Public Lectures, Seeker Corner, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | March 4, 2014

Who Gave us Scientism?

The Historical and Philosophical Roots of Scientism

The scientific revolution in the seventeenth century owes much to the new techniques of empirical science: important advances in mathematics and the telescope are just two impressive examples. Radical empiricism, on the other hand, derives from John Locke and David Hume of Britain in the eighteenth century. This is the origin of sentiments towards scientism. Hume claimed that an idea was meaningless unless it had empirical grounds. He attempted to reduce all knowledge to scientific knowledge and even suggested the burning of all books that contained no quantities or matters of fact. The irony here is that Hume was also the first skeptic of scientific induction.

Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, GCU Events, GCU Personality, Grad Student Strategies, Public Lectures, Science Reflections

Posted by: gcarkner | February 27, 2014

Denis Alexander on Science & Religion

Dr. Denis Alexander is a big advocate for the dialogue between science and religion, science and the Christian faith. He has made a substantial contribution in this field through speaking, writing and co-ordinating sessions at the Faraday Institute for Dialogue on Science and Religion at Cambridge University. His Test of Faith DVD series has helped people around the globe to think more robustly about the various issues of cosmology, neuroscience, genetics and origins. He has hosted an international lighthouse for this discourse. Denis has been a visiting lecturer for the UBC Graduate & Faculty Christian Forum. He is the author of impressive tome Rebuilding the Matrix:  Science and Faith in the 21st Century (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 2001). We think he represents the academic image of a scholar/scientist and a gentleman at its best.

Download Lectures from Faraday @  http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.php, Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, Grad Student Strategies, Science Reflections | Tags:

Posted by: gcarkner | February 23, 2014

Self-Identity within Modernity

Modernity, Identity and the Self 

The ideology of Scientism assumes a certain kind of anthropology, one full of optimism about the possibility for both knowing and organizing the world. Homo autonomous is an independent, self-reliant, self-centering, self-integrating rational subject. This includes a heroic understanding of human subjectivity. One can trace how this was achieved during the Renaissance by means of a radical transformation or re-interpretation of the biblical story of Adam in light of the Greek myth of Prometheus–the self of heroic individualism. Included in this identity was a bedrock faith in the ability of the self to discover universal, binding truths of science, politics and morality. The belief in universal reason is coupled with individual autonomy–the ability of every human being to come to the right conclusions.

The modern self of Scientism has a tendency to be optimistic, often to an illusory degree. It draws confidence from the mood of the Enlightenment where science seemed to open up new possibilities for the self as active agent to carve out and control its own destiny. There was a strong belief in progress to the point of becoming a grand narrative or cultural mythology. One could leave behind the ties of authority, religion and medieval hierarchy. Modernity’s positive self-image is of a civilization founded on scientific knowledge of the world and rationl knowledge of value, placing the highest value on human life and freedom. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, Science Reflections | Tags: ,

Posted by: gcarkner | February 18, 2014

Higher Education: Truth & Power

Can Truth Speak to Power?

French poststructuralist philosopher Michel Foucault’s (College de France) middle work is centered on power-knowledge or power/knowledge, and nowhere is power and knowledge more intertwined than in today’s university. As many readers know, Foucault is still one of the most quoted intellectuals in academia, especially in Europe. His thought and critique of culture continues to have an incredible influence across a huge spectrum of fields.

Knowledge to some degree is always implicated by, entwined with, power but that is not always a bad thing. Power is a condition of knowledge and therefore knowledge must take account of its involvement with power. Who gets to say such and such a proposition/declaration/claim is true, weighty, the way to go, or credible? In fact, it is often the person or persons who have earned their way up in the echelons of power—the ‘expert’, those who edit the journals, or lead a school of thought. We look for the most credible sources to make our case in our thesis proposal or dissertation. We locate our discourse or discussion among those who have earned their stripes the hard way, or whose ideas have met the test of time and application. Their opinion, even if we disagree with it, counts in the larger debates, many of which have been raging for centuries. It is a complex and fascinating relationship. Read More…

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, Grad Student Strategies, Stewardship

Posted by: gcarkner | February 7, 2014

Think Differently About Faith and Reason

Think Again about the Relation between Reason & Faith

The tendency towards a pure reason or pure faith are really impossible to actualize; there  are no pure domains of reason and faith. They are intertwined. One cannot get rationalism without the other extreme of fideism; both are forced categories; rationalism needs faith to be fideism for its very survival. Nietzsche claimed that there are only interpretations; positivists claim that there are only facts. What should we believe whatever our starting point or prejudgments? It is perhaps a life-long quest to understand the nuances of this relationship. Marquette intellectual D. Stephen Long helps our quest offering fresh insight and much to ponder in his profound book Speaking of God:  theology, language and truth. Stephen was a past guest speaker at UBC in the GFCF series. I have chosen some priceless quotes below. ~Gord Carkner

D. Stephen Long, Marquette University

The certainties which the church has received as a gift require its participation in humanity’s “commom struggle” to attain truth. The human search for truth, which is philosophy’s vocation, is not set in opposition to theology’s reception of truth as gift. What we struggle to understand by reason we also receive by faith. No dichotomy exists between the certainties of faith and the common struggle by human reason to attain truth. … the truths humanity seeks by common reason (philosophy) and the certainties of faith can be placed over against each other such that each illuminates the other and renders it intelligible until the two ultimately become one, which is of course what the incarnation does in reverse. The concretion of the one Person illumines the natures of both divinity and humanity. (p. 87)

Faith seeks reason and reason assists faith. They mutually enrich each other. (p. 88)

Philosophy should be the love of wisdom that prompts persons to use reason in the quest for truth, goodness and beauty…. Philosophy and theology have distinct tasks, but those tasks cannot be delineated solely in terms of nature and supernature or reason and faith. (pp. 83-4)

Faith not only seeks and presumes reason, it converts it. Every account of reason assumes something beyond it, some enabling condition that makes it possible but cannot be accounted for it within its own systematic aspirations… Likewise faith can never be pure; it will always assume and use reason even as it transfigures it. (p. 135)

Faith adds less a material content to geology, physics, mathematics, evolutionary science, economics, etc., than the form within which they can be properly understood so that they are never closed off from the mystery that makes all creaturely being possible. (p. 135)

Hubble Telescope

Creation, although significant, is not self-interpreting; its meaning, if it has any, resides beyond it…. Creation has no meaning; it is a brute fact, until we give it value… Metaphysics will continue to ask why is there something rather than nothing. The question points beyond the world trapped in it s own immanence.

Only on the basis of an ontology of love can gift be understood. Because love, and not pure reason, is the basic structure of being, the failure of human reason to achieve infinite desires is not negative but positive. Thus we do not need to negate reason in order to believe, but rather to supplement and intensify it. We receive knowledge as a gift. … Gift, another name for the Holy Spirit, is the fullness of being, the perfection that surrounds us with an inevitable desire for truth, goodness and beauty. It illumines our lives. (p. 159)

The science that allows us to see more than by the “natural light of the intellect” is sacred doctrine. It includes all things that have been divinely revealed. Revelation here, however, is not propositional knowledge but a ‘form’ of divine light that then illumines all other sciences by looking at them through the aspects of divinity. It is more a ‘way’ than a ‘what’. (p. 197)

There must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God….Theology comes as gift communicating God’s goodness to creatures for their own perfection, showing them their imperfection. (p. 207)

Philosophy has its limits, but it must be redeemed, and a place must be made for it within the gift we receive in sacred doctrine. Philosophy has its own integrity when it does not exceed its proper limits and seek to police the questions asked. The limits Wittgenstein placed on philosophy for the sake of a life worth living is similar to the limits Acquinas put on philosophy for the sake of the Christian life as a way of following Jesus into the truth of God. (p. 258)

The political and ecclesial question before us is how to subordinate power to truth and goodness without unwittingly using truth and goodness as mere forms of self-assertion. (p. 262)

For Wittgenstein, truth is not a matter of detachment, but engagement, the kind of engagement that love entails and that requires judgments based on qualitative contrasts….Wittgenstein’s appeal to love depends on something more akin to ‘virtue epistemology’. Love is not opposed to truth; they are both necessary virtues for knowledge. You cannot know what you do not love; you cannot love what you do not know. (pp. 300-01)

If we recognize that truth is a ‘way’ rather than a set of propositions attached to a reality or cohering with other propositions, then we might privilege those voices that embody this way, the way found in Christ’s life—forgiveness, reconciliation, hospitality to strangers—as truth because it is the divine way and is universal. Because of Christianity’s dogma the virtues of liberality and generosity must be extended to all. The task of the church then is not to rule but to make the truth present in the world. (p. 302)

How do we recover Christian claims to truth from their subordination  to politics, especially when the political is understood as a field of pure power? (p. 305)

The purpose of the church is to recognize and acknowledge those conditions by which we can, like Mary, say yes to God and in so doing make Jesus present to the world. Those conditions are the way of holiness and that assume the transcendentals—truth, goodness and beauty. (p. 309)

Modern rationalism makes us choose truth against beauty and goodness. Only a permanent, living unity of the theoretical, ethical and aesthetic attitudes can convey a true knowledge of being.

Good philosophy, philosophy that does not seek to close us off from the world in some tight, immanent reality, will remain open to receiving this gift, a gift that can be found in language, but never identified with it. (p. 316)

Because language is never private, it serves to place some matter out in the open between interlocutors…to put things in public space. The constitutive dimension of language provides the medium through which some of our most important concerns, the characteristically human concerns, can impinge on us all. This makes possible judgments and standards. (p. 239)

Expressivist-Constitutive uses of language (Herder, Hamann, Humboldt)) recognize that metaphysics cannot be done by abstracting from language, but by turning to it. It recognizes the mystery that surrounds language. Truth does not look for the conditions by which language refers to reality; instead truth is manifest through music, art, facial expressions, liturgy, etc. Sentences are much too limiting to be the primary vehicles bearing the weight of truth. This tradition draws on a more Augustinian understanding of language. Everything is a sign. Charles Taylor places the later Wittgenstein in the expressivist-constitutive tradition, avoiding an instrumentalization of language as the basis for truth. (p.230) [also know as the hermeneutical approach.]

Designative uses of language (Hobbes to Locke to Condillac) traps the pursuit of wisdom within language and confines it to immanence, where language and its relationship to truth are reduced to pointing. Language primarily designates objects in the world. The object is observed but not participated in.  One assumes a use of language based on quantitative judgments that are non-subject dependant. This tradition contributes to a mechanistic universe leaving it disenchanted. It is committed to the primacy of epistemology (evidence and justified belief). It is not oriented to universals or essences. (p. 230)

The good characterizes a public, successful performance of truth; it refuses fideism….Truth is an activity, a judgment inextricably linked to the good, and therefore to moral transformation. When I am pursuing truth I am pursuing goodness…. This truth both an undying fidelity and love, and at the same time a generosity towards others. By refusing to subordinate itself to ‘power’, understood as willful self-assertion, it best serves the tradition of democracy. (pp. 320-1, 325)

Check out the blog posts on Paul Davies and the ones on Fine-Tuned Universe.

See also the following newish titles

David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: being, consciousness, bliss. (Yale, 2013). This book offers a devastating critique of materialistic naturalism.

Andy Crouch, Playing God: redeeming the gift of power. (IVP, 2013)

Charles Taylor, A Secular Age. (Harvard, 2007)

Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: science, religion and naturalism (2012)

W. Jay Wood, Epistemology: Becoming Intellectually Virtuous.

Alister McGrath, A Fine-Tuned Universe: the search for God in science and theology. (2009 Gifford Lectures)

Blog Post: Can We Make Peace Between Faith and Reason? 

Leave a Comment

Posted in Apologetics, Faith & Culture, GCU Personality, Science Reflections, Seeker Corner

Posted by: gcarkner | January 31, 2014

Lecture on Question of Assisted Suicide

Dying with Dignity? Negotiating the Moral Debate on Assisted Suicide

Wednesday, February 5 @ 4:00 p.m., Wodward (IRC), Room 6

Dr. Jeffrey Greenman, PhD Ethics University of Virginia,

Dean of Faculty Regent College

Abstract

A recent video by Dr. Donald Low, a Canadian physician who became famous during the 2003 SARS outbreak in Toronto, has sparked fresh moral and political debate about assisted suicide. In the video, which was made just eight days before he died of brain cancer, Low expressed his worries about how he would die. He asked for support for “dying with dignity” through assisted suicide, but because such measures are illegal in Canada, he was unable to die as he had wished. Addressing those who oppose assisted suicide, Low said, “I wish they could live in my body for 24 hours… Why make people suffer for no reason, when there is an alternative?” In this lecture, Dr. Greenman will explore the most important reasons given for and against assisted suicide, looking at the current debates from the standpoint of historic Christian convictions about suffering, death, and human dignity.  Greenman will offer a multi-faceted rationale for upholding the longstanding Christian opposition to assisted suicide, and provide reasons why Canadian public policy should resist calls for change on this issue.

Statement by Dr Donald Low on YouTube   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3jgSkxV1rw

Biography

Jeffrey P. Greenman (Ph.D. in religious ethics, University of Virginia) is Academic Dean and Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics at Regent College. He is the author of two books including Understanding Jacques Ellul, editor of seven volumes, and has written dozens of articles and book chapters on theology, ethics, education, and leadership.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Xy5i73240 Biola Lecture/Discussion on Assisted Suicide

Paul Chamberlain, Final Wishes: a cautionary tale on death, dignity and physician assisted suicide. IVP, 2000.

Edward J. Larson & Darrell Amundsen, A Different Death: euthanasia and the Christian tradition. IVP, 1998.

Arthur J Dyck, Life’s Worth: the case against assisted suicide.
Comments on the Lecture: lively and enlightening Q & A period
– there seems to be a tension between perceived autonomy and the innate sacredness (sanctity) of human life itself
-one palliative care doctor in the crowd raised the issue of public safety for patients
-another medical professional noted that the main issue is care and not the total elimination of suffering
-Stanley Hauerwas’ book Suffering Presence was mentioned as a resource.
-someone quoted Dworkin “Hard cases make bad laws”
-we all agree that we should make people as comfortable as possible and provide an environment with dignity
-in places like Belgium and Holland, where doctor assisted suicide happens, there is no protection of the conscience of doctors who do not agree with the practice.

Response by Dr. Bert Cameron, former head of Nephrology at UBC,

To: GFCF ‘Dying with Dignity’ Lecture-Discussion by Dr. Jeffrey Greenman, Regent College

 

Rejoinder: “I was asked to give this response by the GFCF committee. I realize that it is not a fully considered document and that I would appreciate input particularly from those experienced in current palliative care.” ~Bert

I thought Jeff did a good job. Using the video clip as a beginning focused attention well and gave him the opportunity to make a number of significant points. First, ethical problems are always difficult because they involve a conflict of principles such as personal autonomy vs. sanctity of life. Second, the use of terms such as “maturity” and “death with dignity” are slogans that  need better definition since we all want to be mature and respect the dignity of the human person.

I also thought that it was good to review the current legal grounding of Canadian laws (sanctity of life) and to point out the Hippocratic tradition and to give the Judeo–Christian basis for respect for human life, particularly the statement to Noah linking the prohibition to human murder with the image of God.

I thought the discussion was interesting, particularly the input from two doctors concerned deeply with euthanasia. They have been very vocal in the pro-life and euthanasia prevention movements. Clearly experience has shown them that when discussing this issue in society at large, the only argument likely to gain purchase is that of protection of the vulnerable in society.  For this reason, much of their attention is focused on the “bad outcomes” in jurisdictions where euthanasia is practiced in the US and Europe. This moves the discussion away from principles to anecdotes and social research.

However, I think it is important clarify our interpretation of the principles so that we are honest about them. Let me explain.

It is true that the Old Testament lays the foundation that man is in the image of God and therefore human life is to be respected. Murder is condemned. However, taking life is not condemned since death was the punishment for murder and a number of other  misdemeanors.  Therefore, the active taking of life was not prohibited in Jewish society. The death penalty was recommended for thirty or more circumstances, which included a variety of sexual, familial, religious and legal misdeeds, some of which would be considered quite trivial today. In fact, our society seems to have a higher view of the sanctity of life than is evidenced in the Old Testament such as banning the death penalty.

Therefore, though as a Christian, I believe in the respect for life based on being made in the image of God, I find it difficult to suggest that hastening the death of suffering person who will die shortly can be equated with murder from the Old Testament perspective.

Other than the general principle of respect for human life, I find little in the Old or New Testament that bears significantly on the issue of palliation as medicine is practiced today. The argument that God determines our death is applicable in a general way but not specifically in a society that prolongs life by artificial means.

The point about the Hippocratic Oath and Tradition also has to be taken with caution. The Hippocratic Oath was a pagan oath that applied to a small group of doctors in ancient Greece. They were, in essence, setting standards for themselves in order to attract patients. Since they had access to killing agents, it was a promise not to use them. Again, it has very little to do with the current discussion. The Oath was, however, taken up by the Medieval Church and “sanctified” and has been used largely because it was in line with Christian thinking and the prohibition against murder.

As far as Canadian law is concerned, it is of course under continual change. It is probable that some sort of euthanasia will be legalized in Canada because the law has increasingly been moving to support the principle of consent and autonomy over other considerations. For example, the law against treating Jehovah’s Witnesses with blood transfusions against consent even though lack of treatment will lead to death.

Further, there are a number of practical issues involved in this complex discussion. There is a wide range of individual and family response to dying. At the end of life, some want to die, some want to live at all costs. Families are also very diverse on this issue. What constitutes medical care or negligence? Is it mandatory to put an IV into an unconscious dying person? What limits are permissible to ease suffering? Every individual case is different and often not predictable. In my experience, after each case the questions often remain as to whether the best was done.

So where does this bring me?

First, I believe that modern medicine and care is rooted in the Christian tradition, beginning with the healing ministry of Christ. It is based on Jesus care for the physical ailments of humans. Subsequently Christians cared for the sick, built hospitals and universities that cared as well as producing medical advances.

Second, death is inevitable and in some cases, overzealous attempts to preserve human life should be avoided. Having said that, this is very much a judgment issue.  I have been forced, under legal threat, to keep brain dead people physically alive.

Third, within a palliative care context, wherever that is taking place, the health care team needs to be given latitude to deal with each case and family in a very individual and caring way. If this were understood and practiced, I think many situations like Dr. Lowe’s could be avoided.

Fourth, I like the phrase that Eric Stephenson mentioned to me; instead of using the term “Do Not Resuscitate” we should say “Allow Natural Death”.

Fifth, the Christian approach to the euthanasia debate should definitely focus on protection of the vulnerable. In our socialized society this can be a complex issue since we all pay for the extension of life through highly technological means.

Sixth, the question of having doctors responsible for euthanasia outside of the palliative care context is a very vexed question. I think medical societies should stand against it because it will reduce trust in physicians.

~Dr. Bert Cameron, former Head of Nephrology, UBC (professor emeritus)

Leave a Comment

Posted in Faith & Culture, GCU Events, Grad Student Strategies, Public Lectures, Seeker Corner, Stewardship | Tags:

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Categories