Evangelicals are unconditionally opposed to active euthanasia. Indirect euthanasia is seen as simply belonging to the risks inherent in any medical intervention. Passive euthanasia is accepted if used in order to save the dignity of the dying and is seen as merely ceasing to interfere with an irreversible dying process. The basis of evangelical ethics is the Bible supplemented by science and experience as a kind of natural law. Even though natural law comes under Biblicial revelation, its acceptance is the (...) reason for the similarity of the Evangelical and the Roman-Catholic position of Evangelicals. Evangelicals stress the necessity of a better counseling and investment for the deadly ill patient. (shrink)

In response to the articles by Eibach and Groenhut in this issue, I argue that there is a general connection between sickness and the entrance of sin into the world. There are times when there is a causal link between more specific sin and sickness, though often the patient is the one who has been sinned against. Illness can also expose sin in a patient's life. Integrating the reality of illness into the life history of a patient is a significant (...) pastoral care issue and can be done with humility and sensitivity if done in accordance with the teaching of Job and Ecclesiastes. These books argue that “under the sun” or this side of eternity, human beings can't grasp the coherence of life, including the “why” of illness. Rather, God provides His loving presence, through His people as a comfort to those suffering from illness. (shrink)

This article examines Leon Kass's contention that a choice for physician-assisted suicide is “undignified.” Although Kass is Jewish rather than Christian, he argues for positions that most Christians share, and he argues for these positions without presupposing the truth of specific religious claims. I argue that although Kass has some important intuitions, he too readily assumes that these intuitions will be shared by his audience, and that this assumption diminishes the force of his argument. An examination of the limitations of (...) Kass's argument is helpful insofar as it illustrates the real challenge faced by religious believers who wish to defend their beliefs in the “public forum.” For it illustrates that what needs to be made “accessible” is the Judeo-Christian understanding of man and his place in the world. While I do not wish to claim that this task is impossible, I do think that it is far more difficult than most realize. Like all important tasks, however, unless we wrestle with the difficulties it raises, our arguments will strike many as unconvincing. (shrink)

Public bioethics focuses on deliberating about, recommending, or establishing social policies or practices concerning health care and biotechnology. A brace of premises underlies much of the work of public bioethics. First, there is the view that, if one approaches reality and human life as if both were without ultimate significance, one will find that one shares a common public bioethics. That is, if one abstains not only from any religious concerns, but even from philosophical reflections on the circumstance that life (...) might have ultimate meaning, one will be able to articulate a common neutral moral perspective that all persons can share and that can be the basis of a common public bioethics. The second premise is that the controversies in bioethics arise from the presence of religious belief, especially Christian belief, which supports a set of moral commitments that generate controversies that make the framing of public policy difficult. The view is that there is significant disagreement among persons who hold religious positions, particularly Christians, and that in public bioethics we should strive to eliminate these controversies by relying on a neutral moral framework. This paper documents and challenges these premises. It demonstrates that Christian bioethics finds itself already embedded in the field of secular moral controversy before it adds the perspectives it brings. (shrink)

Peter Dabrock argues that western Christian roots have shaped the western European mindset, that of believers and secular thinkers alike, such that (1) western Europeans hold the concept of human dignity as a central moral category and believe that respect for human dignity should frame social and political decisions and respect for human dignity is the foundation of bioethics, (2) Christians and secular thinkers can engage each other on secular terms using the shared language and focus on human dignity, and (...) (3) such engagement using a common moral focus/lens facilitates dialogue and convergence on issues in bioethics. Dabrock's analysis and conclusions raise a number of important points for discussion. This essay examines three elements of his analysis that are particularly important for assessing his overall claim about a common Christian and secular morality in western Europe and for understanding the relationship between such a vision and Christian bioethics. (shrink)