THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DR. DEATH
by Diane Sabom, Ph.D.
What do Derek Humphry, an avowed atheist, and Dr. John Pridonoff, a
Christian theologian, have in common? Both have been exceedingly
dedicated to the mission of the Hemlock Society, cofounded by Humphry
in 1980 and led by Pridonoff, its executive director since October
1992. Headquartered in Eugene, Oregon, Hemlock is the first and most
powerful of all the contemporary "right-to-die" organizations. Its
main calling is to gain public acceptance of euthanasia, or as they
say euphemistically, physician aid-in-dying.
Hemlock spearheaded the November 1994 victory of Oregon's Measure 16.
This law, the first of its kind anywhere in the world, allows
physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to "qualified"
patients who desire to end their lives. Because of the radical nature
of this bill, a preliminary injunction against operationalizing the
measure has been issued, while the Oregon courts study its
constitutionality for a year. Hemlock is strategizing to bring
assisted suicide legislation to a vote in other states as well.
For Christians, one ethical question is especially relevant in light
of Hemlock's change in directorship and the recent success of Measure
16. Does a theologian at the helm, instead of an atheist, now signify
that Christians can "keep the faith" and, at the same time, follow
Hemlock in legalizing and in practicing euthanasia? After a brief
review of the history of Hemlock, I address this question by
examining aspects of several of Dr. Pridonoff's talks (including a
"first-ever" forum with Mrs. Rita Marker, executive director of the
International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force [I.A.E.T.F.]), his writings
and my interview with him, with special emphasis on certain of his
philosophical and theological statements. In the process this article
dramatizes the clash between post- modern and theistic truth which
shapes the culture war over euthanasia. Highlighted is the danger of
allowing post-modern truth and an ethic of self-determination to
forge public policy, especially in such crucial issues as that of
euthanasia.
THE HEMLOCK LEGACY
In 1980, under Derek Humphry's leadership, the Hemlock Society began
rather timidly by discussing living wills and the withholding of life
supports, but ended with great temerity by publishing drug tables and
practical tips for those who commit suicide in its journal, <Hemlock
Quarterly.> A letter to the editor entitled "Suicide at 88 Ends
Pointless Life" (April, 1991) even appeared to openly condone
assistance in the "self- deliverance" of the elderly who were bored,
depressed but otherwise not terminally ill. ("Wasn't my father
considerate to feel that he was going to become a burden?" quipped
the "assisting" daughter following her father's suicide described in
this letter.) Humphry's own assistance to his second wife, Ann, in
the double suicides of her elderly parents and his subsequent
legitimization of this act in Hemlock's <Double Exit>, appeared to
substantiate the radical turn taken by this organization.
In 1991, Hemlock published Humphry's best seller <Final Exit>, a how
to manual of suicide. Here Humphry clearly stated his atheistic
underpinnings in a first chapter instruction: "If you wish to
deliberately leave this world, then active euthanasia is your only
avenue. Read on, carefully. If you consider God the master of your
fate, then read no further." Later that same year, Humphry stepped
down as executive director of Hemlock and the search began for his
successor.
Of the three finalists vying to replace Humphry, two were
theologians. One of these two, Dr. John Pridonoff, a man of
apparently impeccable credentials, was selected. He holds a Ph.D. in
psychology and has been an ordained congregationalist minister for
thirty years, with most of his experience having taken place as a
pastoral counselor "in the trenches"; that is, at the actual bedsides
of terminally ill and dying patients. He is unmarried and, unlike
Humphry, no scandals of a personal nature taint his background.
(Humphry allegedly had smothered his first wife, Jean, while
assisting in her "self-deliverance" and reportedly had abandoned his
distraught second wife prior to her suicide.)
JOHN PRIDONOFF VERSUS RITA MARKER
I first met Dr. Pridonoff at a conference sponsored by the Physicians
Advisory Council (an arm of Focus on the Family) and attended by
generally skeptical, southern conservative Christian doctors and
their wives in Birmingham, Alabama in August, 1994. I found him to be
personable and well-spoken, with a kind, pleasant face; the kind of
face in fact that a sick person might welcome at his bedside. Sharing
the podium with Pridonoff for the first time ever was perhaps his
most formidable opponent, Mrs. Rita Marker. The dialogue among
Hemlock's new Christian leader, John Pridonoff; a Catholic
anti-euthanasia advocate, Rita Marker; and conservative Christian
physicians regarding issues relevant to euthanasia was both lively
and informative.
Marker spoke first. Despite her petite size and soft-spoken warmth,
she aimed with deadly precision to unmask, to demystify, and to
expose the seemingly innocuous and harmless ideas in the strategy of
her opposition. Her solemn warnings of the nuts and bolts
consequences of passing euthanasia into law resonated harmonically
with the forebodings of her audience. Quoting professor of moral
theology William B. Smith, Marker emphasized that "Social engineering
is preceded by verbal engineering...." She warned, "The right to die,
death with dignity, and physician's aid-in-dying are really about the
right to kill." Charging to what she regarded as the heart of the
matter, she added, "Euthanasia is not about plumping someone's
pillow. It means <making> people die, <doing something> to make them
die. This is a debate about whether doctors are to be given the right
<to kill> another group of people." Furthermore, "We are talking
about drafting into law a medical procedure that would soothingly,
painlessly, guiltlessly and eternally end the life of a qualified
patient." She paused ever so slightly after each word to allow the
gravity to sink in.
Following Mrs. Marker to the podium, Dr. Pridonoffs voice evoked the
tension of the moment, as he spoke of "a humorous note" that fell
flat. No one laughed as he remarked that on that same day 2000 years
ago, Cleopatra killed herself with an asp. He then began what Marker
had identified as verbal engineering: "First of all, the right to die
is not about the issue of killing people. Killing is really a
misnomer. It is an inappropriate word to use. We're not talking about
euphemisms here but of what words mean in the understanding of the
general public but also in the law." Pridonoff implied that the
consensually agreed to killing that occurs with acts of euthanasia
lacks the imposition of one's will upon another. He pointed to the
biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as denoting in the Hebrew
that "Thou shalt not <murder.>" The killing accomplished by one's
euthanizing is not murder�the taking of one's life against his
will�according to Pridonoff's logic.
He reported on the findings of various polls that appeared to confirm
that a majority of Americans approves of physician assisted suicide
and then disarmingly offered the following disclaimer: "Am I saying
therefore [that] what this is telling us is that these laws should be
passed and that everybody is saying this is a wonderful idea? I'm
saying 'No'. What this is telling us is that there's a lot of
dialogue going on and people want more information." He argued right
out of Hemlock's mission statement that "[People] should be able to
have dignity, integrity, self respect, whether it be in living or
dying or death." No one could object to more "dialogue", "dignity,
integrity, and self respect".
One of Pridonoffs consistent arguments was that back alley euthanasia
goes on behind closed doors and that laws need to be passed to allow
euthanasia to be practiced without secrecy, shame, and the fear of
persecution and prosecution. These laws would make safeguards
enforceable, according to him. Marker countered, however, that while
Hemlock and other Right to Die advocates tout the protective
safeguards as being practically ironclad in trying to sell their
various state initiatives, they are really like the emperors new
clothes. These "safeguards" simply are not there! Or they easily can
be sidestepped. For instance, Oregon residency can be established for
Measure 16 with a voter's registration, which requires no proof of
residency. Similarly, the family need not be contacted until the
person's actual death occurs. While three requests must be made by
the person desiring to die, the doctor's word is all that is
necessary to "verify" the two oral requests and the witnessed written
request. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of the Oregon measure is
that listing "physician assisted suicide" as a cause of death on the
death certificate is not required. Built into the initiative is a
rule that none of the information regarding such suicide cases shall
"be [open to] the public" [sec. 3.111. In other words, a mechanism
for <inadequate> monitoring is built into the legislation.
Marker stressed the example of the Netherlands where abuse of
euthanasia has reportedly become the norm. She invoked the hard data
of the Remmelink report, an official study of the Dutch government
published in September, 1991 which granted anonymity to doctors in an
attempt to establish the true state of the practice of euthanasia in
Holland. Remmelink actually showed that doctors have largely taken
over end of life decisions.
According to its data for the year of 1990, physicians intentionally
ended the lives of 11,840 patients in one year by lethal injections
or prescriptions (9.1% of the total deaths of the country that year).
<The overwhelming majority of these deaths were without the patient's
consent.> Only 2300 had requested to die, and only 400 of these self
administered their own ends. In 45% of the hospitalized cases
involuntarily euthanized, patients' families were unaware of their
cause of death. These figures did not include instances of passive
euthanasia (that is, the withdrawal of life sustaining treatment),
newborns, children, and psychiatric patients. (I.A.E.T.F. "Fact
Sheet" on "Euthanasia Practice in Holland", March 1994.)
To Marker, the Dutch experience with euthanasia teaches that, however
much patient autonomy and choice figure in the establishing of the
practice of mercy killing, a significant number of persons wind up
having no choice. Moreover, euthanasia will not remain a "right" only
for the terminally ill. Others will inevitably, according to this
logic, have the same claim to end their suffering "even if they do
not or cannot voluntarily request death." Dr. Cor Spreeuwenberg,
editor of the journal of the Royal Dutch Medical Association, makes
this claim on behalf of newborns by stating:
[While some liberals think only voluntary euthanasia is acceptable,]
I concur that autonomy ought to be the point of departure in
euthanasia decisions, but it should not be the only principle
considered. Because newborns cannot exercise autonomy does not mean
that they should be denied beneficence.
There are many less important decisions we make in their behalf, why
should they be denied perhaps the most caring choice of all?" (<First
Things>, April 1994, p. 64).
How Mrs. Marker would pummel Spreeuwenberg for calling the calculated
murder of infants "caring choice" and "beneficence", one can only
imagine.
Marker's message challenged her audience to think about how the
doctor/patient relationship would be changed once physicians are
given the power to kill. Medical schools would require training in
the area of administering lethal medications. Specialists would
likely develop to whom doctors would then refer patients. Suicide
would have to be presented to patients as a medical or treatment
option. Some patients would no doubt feel pressure to accept that
option, if presented with the stamp of medical authority. Marker
dramatically and effectively held up a green card now being carried
by some Dutch patients to notify their doctors that they do not want
to be euthanized.
Pridonoff did not focus on the experience of euthanasia in Holland,
nor bring it up as a glowing example of liberation, as do many
proponents of aid-in-dying. He spoke as if he would deplore a
situation in which the statistics are as Marker represented them.
Yet, he later admitted to me that he had not specifically been to
Holland for the purpose of investigating the reality of the abuses as
they were reported. One who does know first hand the spectre of the
abuse of euthanasia is Dr. Pieter Admiraal, a Dutch anesthesiologist
who has arguably euthanized more persons than anyone else on earth.
According to Patrick Cooke, contributing editor of the medical
journal <Hippocrates>. the following quotation applies to Admiraal:
I know a doctor who is very dedicated to euthanasia and one of his
fears is that if there are no young people to care for the elderly in
the next generation, they will decide to kill a person because he is
demented. And do you know the name of that famous doctor I am
speaking of? It is Admiraal (p. 58, Sept./Oct.).
From Admiraal's vast experience in Holland, he apparently questions
his own safety from being euthanized against his will in old age. If
this is an anxiety for him, how much more so for others. This
supposition is only underscored by the green card carried to
hospitals by frightened Dutch.
Pridonoff acknowledged the importance of the question "Are we playing
God" in determining a person's attitude toward euthanasia. "If one
believes that this is God's life to give and to take away; then, such
a person would be uncomfortable with what Hemlock advocates. That
would violate God as they understand him to be." (This last statement
is exceedingly close in character and meaning to Humphry's words from
<Final Exit> to the effect that if one believes that God is the
master of his fate, then active euthanasia is not an option for him.)
Pridonoff proceeded, "Where we [at Hemlock] become concerned is when
someone takes their [sic] particular view and imposes it on others."
Continuing noncommittally, "Others believe God has given mankind a
brain to be able to make decisions to hopefully improve the nature
and quality of life for the human race."
Though Pridonoff raised theological issues in his talk, he
categorically refused to answer doctrinal questions. One physician,
for example, theorized that physician assisted suicide presupposed
that the patient would be better off and would suffer less once he
were dead. Therefore, he deduced, was it not necessary to consider
what is going to happen to the patient after he dies? The doctrinal
question he was asking Dr. Pridonoff was whether or not he believed
in an afterlife and what its nature might be. Pridonoff answered, "I
would be very concerned if physicians or other health care
professionals were using, as part of their process of making a
decision, what's going to happen to the patient after they [sic] die.
That would be bringing in theology or at the least, some degree of
spirituality."
PRIDONOFF AND THEOLOGY
Following Pridonoff's and Marker's talks, I interviewed Dr. Pridonoff
and examined several articles concerning his statements regarding God
and the nature of truth. Also present during this interview was my
husband Michael Sabom. In my interview, I was not allowed to
penetrate his personal belief system head-on. I made multiple
attempts to elicit answers to such questions as "do you believe in
the Trinity or hell or judgment," but was met each time with a
facsimile of the following reply: viz., "I <really> do not want to
get into theological doctrine; because as the director of the Hemlock
Society, that's not why I'm here."
Despite Pridonoffs reluctance "to get into theological doctrine" in
his talk and in my interview, he clearly abrogates this stance with
his Hemlock readers in an article entitled "How 'Right' Is the
Religious Right?" in the April 1993 issue of the <Hemlock Quarterly>.
Here, relying on his credentials "as an ordained Christian minister",
he accuses the "misguided zealots" of the "Roman Catholic Church and
the fundamentalist extreme right wing of the Protestant Church" of
"using 'God' and the 'Name of God' as their invocation and
justification" for "pontificat[ing] about the sins of [those favoring
right to die options]". His hostility toward such opposition is
readily apparent. He calls those same zealots who oppose euthanasia
in the name of God "the radical dimension of Christianity" (p. 4). An
analysis of some of his key statements provide important clues to his
theological beliefs.
In his <Hemlock> article, Pridonoff is no longer noncommittal to the
question of whether this is God's life or man's to do with as he sees
fit. Rather, he writes, "If God truly has given me a gift of life,
then it is mine to do with as I wish." He amplifies that a true gift
has no strings or attachments. The moral compass to help man captain
his ship, so to speak, Pridonoff describes as follows: "God gave us
each a <mind>. We have the ability to <think> and to <understand> the
relationship between cause and effect, action and reaction, freedom
and responsibility, choice and consequence. We have <feelings>...
that guide us in decision-making and help us establish parameters
within which to live" [emphasis in the original]. Where, then, does
scripture fit into this view? Pridonoff continues:
Recognizing that there are scores of translations and revisions of
the various texts and scriptures of the books of the Bible, if one
were to "quote" the Bible, one would also have to prove the version,
translation or revision used was the "authentic" one. Such proof has
been impossible throughout the hundreds of denominations within the
Christian Church � not to mention the varied approaches in the Jewish
faith.
In short, one's quoting of the Bible is problematic because of its
textual unreliability. Unreliable scripture lacks authority no
matter what it says. Naturally, then, man must use his own
interpretive apparatus�his mind, feelings, understandings, etc.�to
sift data without the plumb line of reliable scripture.
A misconception of the religious right, according to Pridonoff, is
that the Bible condemns suicide. In his own words, "The Bible does
not take any moral, religious or ethical stand on suicide. Some of
the writers of books of both the Old and New Testament have
acknowledged the existence of suicide (such as when Judas committed
suicide after betraying Jesus). Neither God nor Jesus make any
judgments on the taking of one's life."
Having taken the position that scripture is unreliable, is
noncommittal on suicide, and does not directly contravene the act of
euthanasia, it is no surprise that Pridonoff resists any notion that
physician aid-in-dying could be against "God's will". Furthermore,
the question underpinning the phrase "God's will", in his words, is
"which God? The God of the Jews? The Christians? The Moslems? The
Buddhists? The Hindus? What about the major religions of the World
that don't have a single God, but Multiple Gods." Here Pridonoff
invokes an obfuscating pluralism, as if to say that there is no way
of deciding between such conflicting ideas of God. Therefore, he
concludes that the place of religion is "in the hearts, minds and
lives of believers�where it should be."
He thus banishes religious truth from the public sphere of policy
making to the private realm where it cannot significantly influence
moral decisions for good or evil. Pridonoff would make
euthanasia�physician aid-in-dying�"a personal issue" between a person
and his physician. Emphatically, then, he writes, "What is 'right'
for me may not be 'right' for you. Each of us should be able to
determine what is appropriate for ourself" [sic]. The egregious sin
of the religious right is in believing in the reality of a God whose
truth is real beyond our own hearts and minds; and whose truth,
therefore, it is wise to consider. To Pridonoff, this is merely the
intolerance of taking one's own view and attempting to impose it on
others. In the name of Tolerance, religious truth should be silent.
In a January 1995 book review in <Timelines> (the renamed <Hemlock
Quarterly>), Pridonoff writes: "(T)he Catholic leadership fails to
remember that their power is derived from the people, not from their
robes, and that they are invested with that power predicated on the
foundation that they will maintain an active dialogue with the
general membership of the Church." While this viewpoint is attributed
to the author of the book under review (Dick Westley, <When It's
Right To Die>), Pridonoff endorses the statement as a "salient point
[made] in a most persuasive manner" and recommends the book to
"anyone who wants to effectively debate the Catholic opposition, or
to alleviate fear or guilt imposed by others." In so doing, he seeks
to undermine the spiritual authority of the Catholic Church and opens
the door even more widely for his views on truth, which have more in
common with secularism than theism.
TRUTH AND THE NATURE OF MAN
With Pridonoff, truth shifts on the sands of pluralism to acquire a
small "t". It, like God, is what our particular perspectives tell us
what it is. This view tends to reduce truth� especially as it
operates within the public policy arena�to the status of preferences
or opinions. For all practical purposes, this is nothing short of a
definition of <post- modern truth>; that is, truth from the
perspective of an individual without the binding force of external
authority with the power to direct morality.
When truth begins with a little "t", life begins with a little "l".
Pridonoff speaks about life as "sacred": "We believe that life is
sacred as is death and the dying process." Its sacredness, however,
is a subjective rather than an objective determination and hinges on
how a person defines "life" and at what point one's "quality of life"
ceases to be worth the pain and/or suffering of living, according to
that individual.
Nowhere is this thinking more pervasive than in Pridonoff's response
to the death of Janet Adkins by Dr. Kevorkian and how this act fits
into Hemlock's view of euthanasia. In our interview, Dr. Pridonoff
told me unequivocally that "the only people who should be able to ask
for aid-in-dying should be mentally competent, <terminally ill>
adults who have fulfilled the safeguards that would be written into
legislation that would be passed" (emphasis mine). He stated that as
long as Hemlock has been incorporated (1980) that that is all that
they have ever advocated. Yet, the following dialogue betrays a more
ambiguous position in relation to Janet Adkins, the Altzheimers'
patient whom Dr. Kevorkian made the first victim of his suicide
machine in late 1989. (Now there have been 21.) Only recently
diagnosed, she had played a game of tennis that week and did not fit
the criterion of having only six months to live. The conversation
proceeded as follows:
Dr. Pridonoff: Okay, I think that Janet Adkins is a good example
where I think that [euthanasia] has to be up to the individual in
relation to themself [sic] and their God and how they perceive it.
Janet wanted to be able to have aid-in-dying while she still had
control of her mind.... It does get down to the individual and where
they stand theologically.
Interviewer: So, you and Hemlock don't really take a position on what
you consider to be "life"?
Dr. Pridonoff: We don't take the position of what life should be for
each individual. We feel that others, the individual has to be able
to define that. Hemlock is not a theological organization. It's an
educational organization.
What is probable is that Dr. Pridonoff is being disingenuous when he
says that he and Hemlock desire to limit those qualified to receive
aid-in-dying under the law to those who are terminally ill and have
only six months to live. In addition to extending the option of
aid-in-dying to Janet Adkins (and, presumably to those in similar
situations), Dr. Pridonoff has indicated an openness to an even
further extension in <World and I> (April 1994, p. 425): "I think we
should <start off with a conservative approach>" (emphasis mine).
His language indicates a preliminary position, to be followed by a
less conservative one. He goes on to add, "And if it's found that the
medical community and so forth have the maturity to handle it, then,
perhaps a somewhat more liberalized policy�such as <nonvoluntary
active euthanasia> �could be discussed." Although Dr. Pridonoff is
not here advocating the adoption of nonvoluntary active euthanasia
but rather is theorizing on the conditions of possibility for such a
discussion to take place, it must be pointed out that nonvoluntary
active euthanasia involves killing patients who have not requested to
die!
Killing the unconsenting generally has been recognized by ethicists
as the absolute bottom of the abyss of the slippery slope (cf. <First
Things>, April 1994, p. 64). The ground on which to broaden policy
would once again be the right of self determination. As Pridonoff has
said, "What is right for me may not be right for you. Each of us
should be able to determine what is appropriate for ourself' [sic.].
However, with nonvoluntary active euthanasia, the "self' in
"self-determination" has been removed.
The comment of one physician during the question and answer session
at Birmingham is appropriate. He asked Dr. Pridonoff, in effect, if
someone experiencing mental distress or maybe "just a bad hair day"
would be allowed to have help in committing suicide. Dr. Pridonoff
answered that persons who are suffering from depression should not be
allowed this option. But in Holland, the courts have rendered
depression an acceptable reason to receive aid-in-dying. Moreover, it
is well documented that physicians in general practice regularly miss
the diagnosis of depression in patients who are chronically ill
(Jennifer LaBarbera, "Efforts Underway to Aid Generalists in
Detecting, Treating Mental Illness" in <Physicians Financial News>,
Feb. 15, 1995, p. 1). Is each candidate for physician assisted
suicide, then, to be psychiatrically evaluated? This is not being
recommended in Oregon's new law; nor is it standard procedure in
Holland.
Even if each person contemplating euthanasia received a psychiatric
evaluation, Pridonoffs philosophy, which allows each person to define
"life" for himself, is dangerously flawed. In order for one to know
the mind of another thoroughly enough to be able to stamp a person as
"qualified" to end his own life, without such distortions, for
example, as depression or the pressure of family members having
entered into the decision, is, according to post-modern notions of
truth, impossible at the outset. An epiphenomenon of modernism and of
post-modernism has been to dissolve the self as a rational center
from which action can be categorized as generated entirely and only
from the person. The person is more akin to a sponge, absorbing
linguistic messages from a culture which is coextensive with him.
Furthermore, the idea of a disinterested interpretation has been
thrown out of much contemporary knowledge. Under this scheme, there
is no such thing as an objective, valueless opinion from which to
determine the mind of another. "Safeguarding" the subliminal would
surely be an impossible task. In an economy that abjures even the
possibility of objective truth, it is a given that evaluating
motivation will at best achieve only an asymptotic approximation. Yet
the stakes of correctly perceiving mental states could hardly be
higher. Wisely, the Bible observes that only God can judge another's
heart. Measure 16 (and Pridonoff) would require doctors and others to
do just that!
When I asked Dr. Pridonoff if he believed that the nature of man is
basically good, his affirmative response conveyed an almost
reverential conviction. This deeply held idea, in conjunction with
his faith in the power of man's reason to control outcomes may well
contribute to his tendency to see physician assisted suicide in such
positive ways. He speculated, for instance, "Let's hypothesize for
one moment and let's say [legalization] turns out to be bad
legislation.... I believe that people will act. I believe that they
will correct it; they'll tighten it up; they'll make it appropriate."
Dostoevski recognized that the problem of truth and morality is more
complicated in his nineteenth century maxim from <The Brothers
Karanmzov> that "Without God, all things are lawful." Here he is
recognizing that the "why not" is missing. More recently, in
"Fashioning An Ethic for Life and Death in a Post-Modern Society"
bioethicist H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. has written that "In a
secular, pluralist society one will need to accept euthanasia by
default"; not because it is good, but "because one does not have the
authority coercively to stop individuals from acting together in such
ways." ("A Special Supplement" to the <Hastings Center Report>
[January-February], 1989, p. 9). In other words, punishment requires
a norm of the acceptable. If the standards of truth are so
individually and so subjectively determined that consensus is not
possible, then how can anyone judge when life ceases to have meaning
for another?
In Holland, for example, euthanasia is not being prosecuted because
the right to death is based, among other things, on an individually
defined criterion of "intolerable suffering". Post-modern society,
with its "subjectivized" truth cannot intervene with any compelling
justification. The "right" to suicide can easily run amok under such
criteria, as many claim is happening in Holland. Pridonoff implied
that we have protection in the U.S. in a stronger religious
tradition. But Pridonoffs theology without authority hardly
strengthens that tradition.
The German philosopher Nietzsche recognized more than a hundred years
ago that without God as an absolute foundation, all issues of truth
and morality become interpretations and questions of power: that is,
they become my (arbitrary) opinion vying against your (arbitrary)
opinion for the right of control. (See, for example, Friedrich
Nietzsche, <The Will to Power>, #481, and <Beyond Good and Evil>,
#13.) Pridonoff is attuned to this issue of power in relation to the
subject of euthanasia. In fact, he urges membership in the national
Hemlock Society "as a power weapon against hate, fear, guilt,
prejudice, and bigotry." He writes, "Doctors are looking to you to
give them permission to promote changes in the law. The general
public often has been intimidated by fear mongers who try to control
their minds and lives 'in the name of God"' (<HQ>, July 1993, p. 8).
Pridonoff would make of Hemlock the power weapon against those who
would invoke God's name or His will as a reason not to support
physician assisted suicide. Pridonoff's call is to galvanize power in
numbers among those who see truth as he does: that is, as a private,
personal matter. He invites that power into an adversarial
relationship with those whose truth is undergirded with the moral
force of God's interdiction: namely, the religious right.
THE NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE
Pridonoff's strict adherence to the notion of "self-determination" is
repeatedly emphasized in his talks and publications (<viz.> "Personal
beliefs, decisions and desires should be respected. What is 'right'
for me may not be 'right' for you.") What he does not address,
however, is whether or not there is a time during the act of
euthanasia when these "personal beliefs, decisions and desires" of
the dying should <no longer> be respected during the assisted
suicide. For example, in his recent article in <Timelines> (Nov./Dec.
1994), he emphasizes the "difficulty and danger" of using a plastic
bag:
If the patient is alone, he or she may instinctively respond with
flailing hands in a desperate attempt to rip the bag from the face �
even if unconscious... [I]f another person is in attendance, that
individual may be forced to physically restrain the patient�with a
<possible> benefit to the dying person but filled with traumatic
psychological consequences for the surviving loved one. (emphasis
mine)
Pridonoff's concerns at this point are with assuring the death of the
person and with the psychological well being of the survivors. He
takes for granted that the person's desire to end his life remains
constant. When the dying person is physically restrained from
aborting his own death, however, "self-determination" becomes
"other-determination." This is true <even if the person is deemed
"unconscious" at the time>.
Research into the experiences of dying persons (e.g. near death
experiences) has shown that powerful, life changing events frequently
occur in people while unconscious and near death (Michael Sabom,
<Recollections of Death: A Medical Investigation>, 1982). Moreover,
when a suicide attempt is accompanied by a near death experience, the
survivors of the suicide uniformly are left with the strong
conviction that the suicide was wrong and should not to be repeated.
The recidivism rate among these suicide attempters is nearly zero and
has been attributed to insights gleaned from the near death
experience per se (Bruce Greyson, <Am J Psychiatry>; 140:5, May 1983;
pp. 618- 620).
Of course, in order for us to know whether or not such a change of
heart has taken place in a person attempting suicide, assisted or
not, the person must survive. If survival is prevented (especially in
someone using "flailing hands in a desperate attempt to rip the bag
from the face"), then none will ever know if suicide was truly the
last wish of the deceased. With such uncertainty, Pridonoff's ideal
of "self- determination" is terrifyingly wanting.
"THE SILENT SHUNNED"
At the annual conference of the Hemlock Society in Kansas City on
October 22, 1994, I saw Dr. Pridonoff again. He spoke impassionately
to the audience about prejudice and pre judgment against "the silent
shunned"�those persons (including professionals and others�doctors,
social workers, chaplains, nurses, friends, family members or loved
ones) who assist others to kill themselves or who sit at the bedside
while the suicide is carried out. He noted their sense of trauma from
the visual impact of what they witness; their fear of rejection
and/or of prosecution that compels them to silence; their
internalizing of the event alone; and their being stigmatized and
"shunned" by close friends and relatives. They may even shun
themselves. To the director of the Hemlock Society, the silent
shunned are a major reason why attitudes and prejudices must be
changed.
Pridonoff was acknowledging that people have a hard time living with
their complicity in assisting in suicide: <viz.>, "They wonder
whether they've done something wrong." He did not emphasize, however,
the possibility that they are having their own pangs of conscience.
Rather, he blamed others for imputing wrongdoing. His implication was
that their consciences would not bother them, if only other people
would not point the finger.
There is some truth to Pridonoff's assessment. As Rita Marker pointed
out, "the law is a great teacher." In a pluralistic society what is
legal eventually becomes moral. In addition to changing the law,
Pridonoff and right-to-die advocates want acts of euthanasia to be
deemed acceptable. Consciences are less likely to be pricked, if
people avoid pricking them.
Consciences, however, will not altogether be silenced. For example,
ABC's "Primetime Live" on December 8, 1994 aired an actual physician
assisted suicide in the documentary film "Death on Request". Here,
Antoinette de Joode asks her physician for confirmation that they are
doing the right thing in killing her 63-year old husband who has Lou
Gehrig's disease (ALS). This question occurs within Dutch society
which lacks a strong religious tradition. Aware that euthanasia is
effectively condoned within her society, Mrs. de Joode is
nevertheless asking a question and not making a statement.
Presumably not religious, neither of the couple mentions religion in
discussing the imminent event of the husband's induced death. The
question of the morality of killing her husband in this manner
apparently wells up from within Mrs. de Joode.
PRIDONOFF AND CHRISTIANITY
To return to the question of whether or not a Christian can "keep the
faith" and follow Pridonoff in supporting and in practicing
euthanasia, it is important for Christians to know that Pridonoff
has, from all indications, adopted a man-centered rather than a God
centered theology. Believing in the basic goodness of man, Pridonoff
has, in effect, made this same man to be his own moral compass,
attributing to him the power to assess parameters and to make
decisions using his mind, understandings, and feelings. At the same
time, declaiming the near impossibility of deciphering authentic
scripture from the maze of texts, translations, and revisions,
Pridonoff implies that the "quoting" of the Bible is futile without
first establishing such authenticity. This position would contradict
wide agreement among traditional theologians that textual errors in
the Bible are not essential to its basic meaning. Seeing the Bible as
inherently unreliable would preclude from the outset its worth as a
plumb line against which to test reality.
Certainly, no orthodox interpretation of Scripture stresses anything
other than the fallen state of man. In this view man's reason and
feeling alone are inadequate indices for him to perceive and to do
what is right. According to the Bible, the human heart, above all
things, is deceitful; able to mislead and to be misled. It warns
against doing what seems right in one's own eyes, but wrong in God's.
Such conduct led to the collapse of society in the times of the
Judges in the biblical book by the same name. God's thoughts and
ways are not man's. We are to walk by faith (in His truths) and not
by sight (that is, by our own assessment of what appears to us to be
right and wrong). In the Genesis account, original sin begins when
the serpent deceived Eve into believing that she could be wise like
God in deciding this for herself.
Pridonoff denies that the Bible condemns suicide and boldly states
that "Neither God nor Jesus make any judgment on the taking of one's
life." He adduces the example of Judas, of whom the Bible says only
that he hanged himself, as evidence of its neutrality. However, in
context and by direct inference, the Bible conveys that Judas' act of
suicide is one of great desperation and hopelessness, which its
teaching is meant to overcome (discussion with Rev. Stephen Jackson,
East Cobb Presbyterian Church, Marietta, Georgia, Nov. 1994). To
erect Judas' behavior as a model of neutrality, as does Pridonoff, is
a perversion of the biblical message. Judas' suicide betokens poetic
justice to a man who betrayed moral law to seek his own way.
Pridonoff professed concern about professionals who would invoke
their belief in an afterlife to steer patients to end-of-life
decisions one way or another. He, however, shared freely with Hemlock
supporters in Kansas City his unequivocal conviction that those who
choose to end their lives by an act of euthanasia are at peace after
death: "If the patient is successful in being able to have delivery
from this life, and its pain and suffering if they are terminally
ill; they're no longer in pain; they're no longer suffering; they're
no longer existing; they're at peace." This is nothing less than a
theological presupposition; one which is consistent with there being
a lack of conflict between suicide and one's ability to be at peace
beyond death.
But can one keep theology out of the debate over euthanasia
altogether and evaluate it on purely secular grounds, as suggested by
Pridonoff? As the executive director of Hemlock, certainly he has
attempted this non-theological stance when he claimed that "Hemlock
is not a theological organization. It's an educational organization";
and when he himself refused to address doctrinal questions of
theology. Using his credentials as a theologian and his own
theological arguments, he nonetheless vigorously derided the
"misguided zealots" of churches which oppose euthanasia. But, in
fact, suicide is often viewed as self-murder by an orthodox
interpretation, and as such, the person's "peaceful" afterlife
(Heaven?) is open to debate. This is a <theological>, and not an
educational issue, as Pridonoff would maintain. The act of euthanasia
begins in the physical realm of life, but ends in the theological
realm of what is beyond life (the afterlife?). Both are integral to a
discussion of its merits.
Why does the public so much fear legalizing euthanasia, asked
Pridonoff at the Kansas City meeting. He denied emphatically that the
fear of abuses were the true reason. Abuses, he argued, can too
easily be monitored. No, the real reason for people's fear was the
fear of accepting the increased responsibility for themselves that
such a change in the law would mean. In effect, they feared becoming
the captains of their own ships instead of being controlled by the
prevailing mindset of those who would make God the ultimate master of
their fate. His "autonomous self" navigating its course according to
its own standards (inevitably its own constructed truths) is pitted
against the self dependent upon the truths of a sovereign God.
Pridonoff is right about much of the public fearing more than abuses.
They fear that they and others cannot be trusted to do what is right
according to their own eyes: that is, specifically, to determine who
should and should not die, according to physician assisted suicide.
They are afraid of man's lack of intrinsic goodness, of his
selfishness and greed and are afraid of denying God as the ultimate
authority over man. They are afraid of finding that they are indeed
accountable for their actions in whatever is beyond life. They fear
finding out, for example, that God's meaning of "Thou shalt not kill"
may not agree with that of "verbal engineering". Pridonoff, on the
other hand, is himself not afraid because he believes that, since man
is good, he can be trusted to control his own life and to make good
laws. It stands to reason, furthermore, that if man is basically
good, he need not fear accountability in the beyond. In Pridonoff's
theology, then, one must question the role of Christ to reconcile
sinful man with a holy God. The need for Him quite simply collapses.
While on the surface there would appear to be a great gulf between an
atheist and a theologian, in reality Pridonoff offers Hemlock more
cosmetic refinement than practical difference. Both Humphry and
Pridonoff look to man for ultimate answers about reality. Pridonoff,
however, with his more credible integrity and knowledge of theology,
stands to be exceedingly more effective, and therefore more
dangerous, in (mis)leading Christians of a relative or of a confused
persuasion to follow him.
Though it is unfortunate that more compassion is not being shown
toward "the silent shunned" who no doubt have attempted to be
honorable toward the wishes of their patients, friends and family
members, Pridonoff is absolutely correct to focus on the public's
fear of those involved in acts of euthanasia as an indicator of the
utmost importance. He is likewise right to perceive the fear of the
silent shunned as the fear of man's absolute freedom over himself.
But when, by his verbal slight of hand, he calls the fear of God
"fear-mongering," he misses the point. The fear of God, we are told,
is the beginning of wisdom.
Dr. Diane Sabom is a writer from Atlanta, Georgia.
Taken from the June 1995 issue of "Fidelity" Magazine, 206 Marquette
Avenue, South Bend, IN 46617. Subscription price is $25.00 per year.
Letters to the editor may be sent by fax, 219-289-1461, or by
electronic mail ton CompuServe 71554,445.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Provided Courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
