LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL REVIEW - Brock University

LTR IX (Academic Year 1996-97) 5-12
TO BE IN PAIN, OR NOT TO BE: THAT IS THE QUESTION
Gary Colwell
In October of 1992, I was privileged to give the Homeward-Spun
Philosophy Lectures at my alma mater, the University of New Brunswick.
Part of my assignment over the three-day visit was to lead a discussion on
the topic, “Mercy Killing: Right or Wrong” I chose not to discuss mercy
killing from an expressly biblical perspective, but sought instead a language
which my largely non-Christian audience would understand and engage. I
sought a way to bring an issue that is fraught with so much emotion for
Christians and touches the core of the Gospel into the public square. I
framed six questions which I hoped would take us to the heart of the mercy
killing debate and reveal what I believe are grave dangers that await us if we
continue to pursue the legalisation of voluntary active euthanasia. Since then
I have continued to ruminate on the subject and to participate in a wider
public debate. In what follows I present the six questions to readers of the
Lutheran Theological Review with the hope that this will both stimulate and
encourage other concerned Christians to move into the so-called naked
public square.
1. WHAT KIND OF KILLING IS MERCY KILLING
There are many kinds of killing: accidental killing, first degree murder,
killing an enemy in war, killing in self-defence, capital punishment,
abortion, suicide, euthanasia, etc. A moment’s reflection will tell you that
these are not all alike. Nor would it be reasonable to assume that one must
either condemn them all or else condone them all. It is even difficult to
apply a sweeping moral judgement to all the sub-categories of certain kinds
of killing; for example, euthanasia. We must try to be specific. (Please see
the diagram at the end of the article.)
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, may be voluntary or non-voluntary,
depending upon whether the patient decides that she wants to die or whether
she is unable to make the decision, most often because she is unconscious. 1
1 Not only is it possible for a person to be conscious yet unable to make a decision about
his/her future, but also possible for him/her to be able to make such a decision yet unable to
communicate it (e.g., unable to respond to his/her physician’s or family’s questions). For
simplicity’s sake, in the diagram I have used the typical case of unconsciousness as the
paradigm state of a patient’s being unable either to decide her future or to communicate her
decision.