Ethical questions under analysis

Read how abandoning the Christian faith leads to a loss of human dignity. It is a return to a time before the birth of the Christian faith

This article discusses the value and dignity of human beings. It is something that the Bible also talks about a lot, although modern people do not take it into account. On the contrary, they think that the more people renounce God, the more they develop intellectually and morally. They consider the concept based on Christian theism to be old-fashioned and false, but when a single person is freed from the delusion of God, it takes society to a higher level in knowledge, justice and civilization. They do not believe that giving up from the Christian faith would reduce the value and dignity of a person.

HOW WAS IT IN THE PAST? When we start thinking about the value of people, a good starting point is the world of 2000 years ago, when Christianity began to have an impact. Today, many criticize the Christian faith, but the fact is that it had a positive effect on the status of many groups of people, such as women, children and the disabled. There were many grievances in the ancient world, but as the Christian faith spread, the position of these people improved. Let's look at the status of women first.

Status of women. First of all, it is good to pay attention to the position of women. When some extreme feminists have made an argument about the harmful effect of Christianity on the status of women, this argument does not stand up to historical scrutiny. On the contrary, in the ancient world, i.e. before the Christian faith, the position of women was weak in many ways, but the Christian faith brought about improvement. For example, Rodney Stark, professor of sociology and comparative religion, has studied the growth and success of Christianity and analyzed the importance of women in the spread of Christianity. According to Stark, the position of Christian women was good from the early stages of Christianity. Their situation was better than that of their Roman co-sisters, who were in a much better position than Greek women. It influenced the success and spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire.

One example from the ancient world was the abandonment of baby girls. In the Roman Empire, it was a common practice to practice family planning by abandoning newborns, which was especially the fate of girls. As a result, the ratio of men to women was distorted, and it is estimated that in Roman society there were about one hundred and thirty men for every one hundred women. When Christians forbade abortion and killing newborns, it improved the status of women and changed the ratio between men and women.

Another example is child marriages and early marriages. In ancient society, it was common for women to get married at or before puberty. The Greek Cassius Dio, who wrote the history of Rome, stated that a girl is ready to marry already at the age of 12: "A girl who is married before the age of 12 becomes a legal spouse when she turns 12." The Christian faith made it possible for women to get married at an older age and choose their own spouse.

A third example is female widows, whose position was poor in the ancient world (just like in modern India, where female widows have even been burned). They were one of the most helpless and disadvantaged groups, but the Christian faith brought repentance to their lives as well. The community was obliged to take care of widows like abandoned children. This influenced the spread of the Christian faith in the Roman Empire. The status of widows is discussed e.g. In the Acts of the Apostles and letters (Acts 6:1, 1 Tim 5:3-16, James 1:27)

Status of children.

Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion, nor again shalt thou kill it when it is born (Epistle of Barnabas, 19, 5)

You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born (Tertullian, Apologeticum,9,8:PL 1, 371-372)

Secondly, the Christian faith improved the human rights of children. It was already stated above how the abandonment of unwanted newborns was common in ancient society. It was common in all social classes and the general practice was that during the first week the father of the family decided whether the child would survive. If the child was a girl, disabled or unwanted, she might be abandoned. Some foundlings may later had been raised as prostitutes, slaves or beggars, indicating their low status.

Christian faith improved the status of children. As a result, the ways of social rejection began to be abandoned and children began to be seen as persons with full humanity and full human rights. Abandoned children were collected from the streets and given a new chance at life. Finally, the legislation also changed: in 374 during the reign of Emperor Valentinian, abandoning children became a crime.

Slavery. As the Christian faith improved the status of women and children, it also improved the status of slaves and ultimately contributed to the demise of this institution. In the Roman Empire, slavery was common and also in the Greek city-states, 15-30 percent of the members of society were slaves without civil rights, but the Christian faith brought a change to the situation. Many people today criticize the Middle Ages as the Dark Ages, but it was during that time that slavery disappeared from Europe except for a few peripheral areas.

When the Europeans later introduced slavery in the new world and when this institution was at its greatest during the so-called Enlightenment, especially Quakers and Methodists influenced the fact that slavery was banned in England and other countries. It improved human rights:

Slavery continued to exist and became more widespread throughout the whole Age of Enlightenment during the four last decades of the 18^th century. It was only at the very end of the century that the first legal initiatives to abolish the slave trade were made in the large colonial states. The abolitionist movement was born in England from the initiative of two Christian sects, the Quakers and the Methodists. In their declarations and decisions, slavery was condemned as a special sin and not so much as a violation of human rights. (1)

RETURN TO THE PAST. It was stated above how little the value of man was in the ancient world a good 2,000 years ago. For example, the abandonment of children was common. Unwanted children, usually girls, could be left to die. As a result, the ratio of men and women was distorted. Likewise, the status of women, the disabled and slaves was weak in Roman society. Only the Christian faith gradually brought a positive change to the lives of these groups of people.

The last century was also an indication of how little the value of a person was. An extreme example of this was, of course, Nazi Germany, where a person's worth was determined based on characteristics, not existence. People were classified as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability, or other characteristic. This view, called Social Darwinism, was common in the early 20th century. It was believed in many countries. It all started when the Nazis accepted the idea that not all life is worth living and equally valuable:

It all started when doctors accepted the basic idea of the euthanasia movement that some people's lives are not worth living. In the beginning, this was how the seriously and chronically ill were treated. Gradually, socially unproductive and ideologically and racially unwanted people also started to be included - - But it is important to understand that the extremely small springboard from which this whole idea got its driving force was the attitude towards terminally ill people. (2)

Now, when the Christian faith is being abandoned in Western countries, we are increasingly returning to a culture where the value of human beings is low. The direction of development is reflected in statements and practical actions. At risk are especially the beginning and end of a person's life and if the person is not perfectly healthy. We will highlight a few examples.

ABORTION. If we go back in time, traditional medical ethics have always included protecting life. For example, in the Hippocratic Oath, which has been considered the basic model of medical ethics, this important principle of life protection comes to the fore. It assures: "I will not give anyone any deadly poison - - likewise I will not give a woman any substances that destroy the fetus."

The World Medical Association issued a similar statement in Geneva in 1948, when the unethical activities of Nazi doctors had been revealed. In this statement, it was stated that human life begins at conception, and that it should be valued from that moment on: "I hold human life in the highest esteem since conception, and I do not use my medical skills against the laws of humanity, even under threat."

However, a major change occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, when radical feminists renounced the right to life of the unborn child. They began to demand free abortion, considering it a human right, but at the same time rejecting the human rights of children and their own femininity. They began to regard the unborn child as their enemy. J. Budziszewski describes the development in the feminist movement. A good thing can turn bad, even if it is defended with arguments such as human rights and equality.

Even a movement fighting for good becomes evil when it makes peace with some fundamental evil. Consider the fate of feminism. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of 19th-century feminist philosophy, feminism was then essentially what it claimed to be: an effort to protect women from mistreatment, and to secure for them a greater realm of opportunities. It never sought to distinguish the interest of the mother from that of the child, and it recognized that there is nothing in the woman's interest about killing the child in the womb. Susan B. Anthony called abortion “child murder” and wrote about it like this: “Guilty? Yes. A woman who commits this act is terribly guilty, regardless of whether the motive for the act is the love of an easy life or the desire to protect an unborn innocent child from suffering. It burdens her conscience while she lives, and it burdens her soul when she dies. But oh! Thrice guilty is the one who drove her to the despair that led her to her crime." ⁽³⁾

But feminism was doomed from the day it embraced this spine-chilling malevolence. All its good intentions were reversed, and the real purpose of the movement soon became the denigration of all that is special about womanhood, especially the destruction of the relationship between mother and child. (4)

So why is abortion accepted? Why is it that many reject the killing of children and other people, but accept abortion? However, there is a simple reason for this: They deny that the fetus in the womb is morally equivalent to a child. Although the fetus has exactly the same body parts; legs, arms, eyes, mouth, nose, etc., they claim that the fetus in the mother's womb is not the same as the child to be born. If they conceded that a developing fetus is equivalent to a child, then they would also concede that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide:

If it is so that a developing fetus is morally equivalent to a child, then abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. Only a few think that the government should let parents decide on their own, whether they want to be responsible for killing their child… Those, who are willing to defend women’s right to abortion, should make a statement on the argument that a developing fetus is equivalent to a human being, and then try to demonstrate, why the argument is wrong. It is not enough to say that the law should be neutral when it comes to moral and religious questions. Defending the right to abortion is equally as unneutral as demanding to ban it. Both parties await for an answer for this moral and religious dispute, which lies in the background. (5)

Some may also justify abortion by saying that the fetus does not feel pain and is just some kind of lump of tissue in the mother's womb.

However, this is not true. Even a small fetus can feel pain and retreat to the back of the uterus if it senses danger facing it. This has been observed to happen in abortion situations when a metal instrument approaches the child. The child senses the danger that threatens him and tries to back away from it.

It is also clearly known that aborted fetuses have exactly the same body parts as newborns. They have hands, feet, eyes and a mouth, so they are just like normal children. Only their size is smaller. We are deceiving ourselves if we try to claim that the unborn child is not a real person.

At the hospital, I had a doctor colleague with whom we discussed abortion. She defended abortion as a woman's right, while I opposed it as a violation of a child's life. Once in the middle of the work day I met her pale leaning against the wall and asked if she was sick. She said that she had just performed an abortion when a tiny leg detached from the thigh had dropped from the suction machine. She had begun to feel sick and sighed: "This is the work of a hangman." (6)

Prenatal screening. Always the reason for an abortion is not only that you don't want a child, but that you don't want a certain kind of child, like girls. This is common especially in eastern cultures, where male children are valued but girls are killed in their mothers' wombs. It is estimated that the world is missing about one hundred million women as a result. The following newspaper article tells about the situation in India:

More girls are now aborted in India than in past decades

STT-AFP: According to recent population statistics, the number of women in relation to the number of men has reached a record low rate in India. The relative number of women in the country has never been so low since 1947: there are 914 women per 1,000 men in India.

Abortions based on the gender of the foetus are illegal in India but many mothers still abort their unborn girls. Indian families rely on boys to support them better than girls. Some families consider girls to be a financial burden.

Gender imbalance is a major problem in many Asian countries. According to the UN, millions of girls are missing from the population of the Asian countries.

The census shows that there are now 1.21 billion inhabitants in India, compared to 1.02 billion a decade ago. 2.5 million local authorities participated in the census that took a little less than a year. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 1 April 2011)

What about the situation in Western countries? Here, prenatal screenings, which utilizes medical technology in screening abnormalities in the fetus, have become even more common. The screenings attempt to determine whether the fetus has any kind of impairment, like Down syndrome, which could interfere with life. If an abnormality is found, it can often be regarded as a sort of victory, but for the majority of mothers, prenatal screenings have increased anxiety. Most mothers may be soothed by the idea that their pregnancy is being monitored and that any possible issues are being handled – because they only want the best for their child – but increased knowledge can also increase anxiety. Before, pregnancy was a positive thing for most women and parents, as they could be happy about the coming baby, but now technology has changed parents’ experiences with pregnancy:

So how have women's perceptions of pregnancy changed as a result of the widespread availability of prenatal screening? Not surprisingly, by far the biggest consequence has been an increase in anxiety. For many women, pregnancy has changed from a joyful expectation to a time full of worries. According to one study, screening tests made 79 percent of expectant women feel anxious, with 20 percent describing themselves as very worried or upset. Anxiety often continues even after the test results have been reassuring, which several studies have confirmed... Social scientist B.K. Rothman, author of The Tentative Pregnancy, says wait-time tests encourage women to view children as commodities that can be discarded if found to be substandard. Due to the influence of fetal screening, many mothers do not form an emotional connection with the fetus until their child has been found healthy in the tests. They primarily want to protect themselves from the pain they would feel if they had to abort the child they have learned to love. Another reason is that they feel that the fetus might not be perfect. The pregnancy is uncertain; some women don't tell anyone they're pregnant until tests show everything is fine, sometimes as late as 20 weeks or later.

Technology therefore has the contradictory effect of encouraging mothers to distance themselves from the children they are carrying. Pregnancy is no longer a unified feeling of affection that begins at an early stage and grows over nine months... (7)

What are some other ethical issues with prenatal screening? The following aspects should be taken into account when discussing the matter:

• Although prenatal screenings can reveal some abnormalities, there are only a few treatment options to fix them. The only option might be abortion, which really is just killing the patient, not helping them. In such cases, when something alarming is detected, rarely much can be done to help the child. Instead, the parents might be forced to choose, as if they were in a store making decisions, whether they take the child or not. They cannot be happy about the child beforehand and will only commit to parenthood after knowing the child is perfectly healthy.

Researchers have introduced a new term into the medical vocabulary: experimental pregnancy. It means that the expectant mother cannot be happy about the pregnancy that has begun until she decides, by following the development of the fetus, whether it can even be born. It is no longer absolute parenting, but rather we are in a "house of choice" thinking about what kind of product to take or what is suitable. (8)

• Setting perfect health as a measure of human dignity and viability as a condition of viability is a poor indicator. This can be done in fetal screenings, but even in ordinary everyday life, any of us can become seriously ill, contract an infectious disease or become disabled in a car crash. One might become dependent on others, hence suffering and dependence can strike anyone at any point in our lives. Suffering and flaws should be accepted as part of living in this world. The coming kingdom of God does not have sin, illness, or flaws according to the Bible, but those things exist here. Some might be cured, but it does not happen for everybody. We should learn to appreciate people regardless of their capabilities. Valuing only healthy and successful people is wrong. Jacob warned us about such behavior (James 2:1): ”My brothers, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.”

What do prenatal screenings have to do with this? In short, they send a message that disabled children are worthless and unwanted. Only healthy individuals are considered worthy of living. It is the same kind of breeding selection as was done in the Nazi Germany, where the value of people was determined based on their characteristics, and not their existence.

It is also characteristic of the situation that disability is seen as a bigger problem than it really is. E.g. Down syndrome, which is the main cause of health-based abortions, is not a very difficult problem in terms of living. Children with Down syndrome are usually very cheerful. Heikki Seppälä, Research Director at the Finnish Federation of People with Intellectual Disabilities, who has been involved with adults with Down syndrome, has pointed out that "there are an awful lot of worse fates in the world than being born with an extra chromosome. The expected life of a Down-child can be extremely rewarding.” (HS 30/1/2011).

People with intellectual disabilities have taken a stand on the matter themselves. When in Finland amendments were planned on the abortion law, handicapped people spoke out in favor of life and began their statement by saying:

“We have a right to live. If we could have decided, we would have wanted to be born.”

• In today's society, we often talk about love, but what is love? Is it that the child must be perfect before and after birth or is it that the child is valued despite the flaws? If a person is even a little bit honest with his inner instinct and conscience, he will surely know the latter option to be true. A child should always be valued and loved regardless of his shortcomings, whether before or after birth. Fetal screenings can send a message that this should not be the case for all children.

This is a good place to move on to parenting. Good parenting is not represented by those parents who do not commit to their children, but those who commit to the role of parent regardless of the children's characteristics. Our selfishness can be an obstacle to good parenting:

Alastair MacIntyre is one of the most famous moral philosophers of our time. He emphasizes that parents should commit to their children regardless of what characteristics the children carry (MacIntyre 1999,130). In this sense, the parents of a severely disabled child are examples of good mothers and fathers. MacIntyre emphasizes that society should take for granted a person's disability and dependence on other people, because every person experiences a disability at some point in their life. Even biology sets limits for humans in the sense that life ends at some point and everyone has to face the limitations related to the degeneration of their own body. If fulfilling people's needs becomes the interest of the whole society, meeting weak and vulnerable people is included in the concept of the general and common good and that suffering, trouble and dependence unite every person. The restrictions are therefore not only related to people with physical disabilities. (Vehmas 2005,194.) A healthy person in his youth can get serious cancer later in life or be injured in a car crash. (9)

• It is still worth paying attention to the ethics of abortion. When fetal screenings may result in an abortion, it is always a case of murder, even if many argue otherwise. Murderers will not inherit the kingdom of God:

- (Rev 22:14,15) Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and fornicators, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoever loves and makes a lie.

On the other hand, once abortion is accepted, the next step is to kill the newborns, which is a return to the past. It has started to be defended in public debate in some countries. Similarly, newborns with some kind of disability may have already been killed or left to die without food - something that resembles the racial breeding of Nazi Germany. Such people have lost the difference between right and wrong. They can even defend their actions in the name of love, just as the Nazis did propaganda for their euthanasia program.

When comparing the present time with the idolatry of Canaan, there is much in common. Now children are killed inside or outside the mother's womb. Instead, in Canaanite religion, children were sacrificed to Moloch and Baal by burning them in fire. Is there much difference in these functions? Hardly.

The Canaanites were given a long time to repent: “But in the fourth generation they shall come here again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." (Gen 15:16) However, they did not repent, and so Joshua later brought the Israelites from Egypt to their promised land. However, sacrificing of children, a heavy sin before God, also spread among the Israelites when they sacrificed their children to Baal, which led to God's punishment of the people:

- (Lev 18:21) And you shall not let any of your seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shall you profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

- (Deut 18:10-12) There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that uses divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

12 For all that do these things are an abomination to the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD your God does drive them out from before you.

- (Ps 106:37-39) Yes, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to devils,

38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

39 Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.

IN VITRO FERTILISATION AND OTHER FERTILISATION METHODS. Problems related to the beginning of life can cause great pain. One problem is the inability to have a child, i.e. infertility. Couples who wish to have children of their own may experience frustration and depression because their wishes do not come true. Adoption is not always a solution to the problem either, because it can be difficult to find adoptable children. For example, in England and Wales, the number of adoptions has decreased steadily since 1968, when abortion was legalized. On the other hand, the number of children taken into care has increased at the same time.

So how have efforts been made to get rid of infertility? One way to do this has been new technology in the form of in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination or uterus rental. However, there are difficult ethical problems with these methods. In particular, you should pay attention to the following points:

Extra embryos. If the pregnancy is through in vitro fertilization, the first problem is the extra embryos. Because in vitro fertilization, it is common for extra embryos to be born that do not develop into children.

The problem is that it is difficult or impossible to draw a line where true humanity begins. There is no stage in the development of the fetus where it can be interpreted that the fetus has changed from an animal-like to a human being. Fertilization is without a doubt the most important moment, because it is when the male and female gametes unite, and the fertilized ovum receives the genetic code and substance that enables life outside the womb later. No other clear time can be presented for the beginning of human life. This was also granted in Geneva in 1948, when the World Medical Association issued a statement after the unethical activities of Nazi doctors were revealed. In this statement, it was stated that human life begins at conception, and that it should be valued from that moment on: "I hold human life in the highest esteem since conception, and I do not use my medical skills against the laws of humanity, even under threat."

When is in vitro fertilization ethically justified? The best option is that it is a married couple and no extra embryos are produced. This is the most ethically unproblematic solution.

Identity problems. S Some TV programs have depicted a situation where a child is looking for his/her missing biological parent. If, for example, the divorce took place when the child was small, the child may have had to grow up completely without his/her other biological parent, and this may cause him/her to have a deep desire to meet the missing father or mother. The programs can have moving experiences of when a child finally finds his/her missing parent.

Similar identity problems arise when a child is acquired through artificial methods (uterus rental, sperm banks, donated eggs, in vitro fertilization), where the child is separated from at least one biological parent from the beginning of his life. For example, the problem with renting a womb is that the mother has to abandon the child she is carrying. It is set as a goal in uterine rental. She is expected to suppress her feelings for the child and is paid for it. She sells her rights to the child she may never see again. However, this may have been too much for the maternal instinct of many. That's why they wanted to cancel the womb rental contract. These women have realized that they love the child they are carrying, and it has changed their minds.

In addition, renting a womb is problematic for children. Because when the mother gives up her right to the child, the child may experience it as abandonment. Questions may arise for him/her, why his mother sold him/her for money and did not care. Among others, Alana Newman's website AnonymousUS.org tells about the experiences and feelings of such children.

Frank Litgvoet, who lives in a homosexual relationship, tells honestly about a similar case. He talks about his adopted children who missed their mother. It was difficult and painful for the children to understand why the mother left her children in the first place:

The situation of a “motherless” child in an open adoption is not as simple as it may appear, because it involves the birthing mother, who comes into the child’s life and then leaves. And when the mother is not physically present, she is still, as we know from the stories of many adopted children who have reached adulthood, present in dreams, images, longing, and worry. Mother's arrival in our children's lives is usually a wonderful experience. It is harder for children when a mother leaves, not only because it is sad to say goodbye to a beloved adult, but also because it raises the difficult and painful question of why the mother left her child in the first place. (10)

What about the ethics of sperm banks and fertilization treatments? They are based on the fact that men have voluntarily donated their sperm for insemination, so these men will certainly not have to suffer the same difficult feelings that can occur with uterus rental.

However, the problem with fertility treatments is that they burden children with the burden of fatherlessness. Artificially produced children can have a really hard time with the fact that their mother has purposefully put them in a position where they cannot know their father. Tapio Puolimatka describes Yale University psychiatrist Kyle Pruett's research on the subject (Kyle Pruett: Fatherneed, New York, Broadway, 2000). It is difficult for children to live in a kind of intermediate state without a relationship with their biological father:

Yale University psychiatrist Kyle Pruett (2000: 207) concludes based on his research that children born as a result of artificial insemination and raised without a father have an insatiable "hunger for the permanent presence of their father". His research aligns with studies of divorce and single parenthood that highlight a similar lack of fatherhood. Pruett's research also highlights that children born as a result of artificial insemination, who have no information about their father, have deep and disturbing questions about their biological origins and the family from which they are biologically descended. These children do not know their father or their father's family, and it is repugnant to them to live in a kind of in-between state without a relationship with their biological father (Pruett 2000:204-208) (11)

Alana Newman continues on the same topic. She herself was born by artificial insemination, which used sperm from an anonymous donor. She strongly opposes the practice where a child is deprived of the opportunity to establish a relationship with her/his own biological parents and grow up in their care. As a result of her own experiences, she suffered from identity problems and hatred towards the opposite sex. In her written testimony to the California Legislature, she wrote on the subject:

I got my start from artificial insemination with sperm from an anonymous donor. Although my mother's intention was good and she loved me deeply, I strongly oppose such a practice. … Although it is benevolent to respect different families, such respect is sometimes in direct conflict with children's rights: the child has the right to establish a relationship with his own biological parents and grow up in their care. A child has the right not to be sold or trafficked or to be given away unless it is necessary. Every child born to a single person or a same-sex couple is, by definition, denied a relationship with at least one of their biological parents, and is therefore a violation of human rights…

… I suffered from identity issues that undermined my mental balance, mistrust and hatred towards the opposite sex, feelings of being objectified – as if I existed only as someone else's plaything. I felt as if I was a scientific experiment. (12)

EUTHANASIA. As stated, traditional medical ethics have always included protecting life. When creating an overview of the history of medicine in Western countries, it has been especially influenced by the Hippocratic Oath, the tradition built around it, and the ethical thinking emerging from the Christian image of man. They have contributed to the fact that human life has been respected from the moment of conception. The most important principles have been saving human lives and alleviating suffering as well as possible.

What about the current situation? One difficult ethical problem area that comes up every now and then is also the questions related to human suffering and death, especially the question of the legality of euthanasia. We should never be insensitive towards people who struggle with this issue and are affected by it, but what is the proper Christian response in this area? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

Fear of addiction and pain. If you ask the reasons why some people support euthanasia, one of the most important is the fear of addiction and loss of dignity. It is certainly something that cannot be overlooked. It can be difficult for us if we have to live on the help of others. Of course, everyone has experienced it as a child, but the same thing can seem insurmountable as a parent. We don't want to be a burden to others.

What is the answer of the Christian faith to this matter? It is that suffering cannot be completely avoided in this life, but we can bear the burdens of our fellowmen and help those in trouble; at least we are encouraged to do so. The same principle and ideal has prevailed in medicine throughout the decades, when efforts have been made to stick to the ethics indicated by Hippocrates.

- (Gal 6:2) Bear you one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

- (1 John 4:21) And this commandment have we from him, That he who loves God love his brother also.

A peculiar feature of this area is that, although many people, when they are healthy, may wish not to be revived to live after they have lost their ability to function, they may think the opposite when they become disabled. The following example of patients with quadriplegic paralysis suggests this. Most of them wanted to live. In general, diseases are not an obstacle to the will to live, but depression. Physically healthy people can also drift into it.

In one study, healthy young people were asked whether they would want to be resuscitated by intensive care if they were to become permanently immobilized in an accident. Almost all answered that they would rather die. When 60 youngsters with quadriplegia, who had been suddenly disabled, were interviewed, only one of them said that he should not have been resuscitated. Two couldn't answer, but everyone else wanted to live. They had found a meaningful life even with paralysis.(13)

What about pain relief? Many people fear the pains associated with the end of life. However, in modern times there are many possibilities to eliminate the pain completely or alleviate it. This makes people feel much better. It is possible to help them to a considerable extent:

The modern hospice is not a gloomy place of death and shadows, but a place of hope and laughter as well as tears and pain; a place where people live before they die. And palliative care is increasingly moving into homes, mainstream hospitals and doctors' offices. It is rather a concept, a method of treatment, than an institution. Another pioneer of the movement, Robert Twycross, has written: “Palliative care was developed in response to the attitude: 'There's nothing we can do for you.' That is never true. Something can always be done.”

Can all pain be controlled? According to experts, in 95 percent of cases, the pain can be completely eliminated or significantly alleviated with the help of the right expertise. In a truly fatal illness, physical pain is rarely a very big problem for caregivers today. Problematic pain is spiritual, emotional or relational pain. (14)

One step leads to another. As stated, many philosophical circles want to scrap the good and safe tradition that has prevailed in medicine throughout the decades. The first step in this direction was to insist on abortion. It was not demanded by medical circles, but by supporters of self-centered pleasure culture. They thought that the child can be killed if he/she gets in the way of the parents' plans. Today, almost all abortions are performed for social reasons, not, for example, because the mother's life is in danger. In India and China, female children are killed through abortion, in Western countries representatives of both sexes.

In which direction is development going? It is likely that once the killing of a child in a mother's womb is accepted, it will lead to the same outside the womb. It is thought logically that if killing a child in the womb is justified, why should it be any different if it happens outside of it? There has already been discussion in some countries about killing disabled newborns, comatose patients or the severely disabled. The same arguments that are used to support termination of pregnancy are also used to defend euthanasia. As the debate progresses, it is possible that the boundaries of what constitutes a meaningful life will become increasingly narrow. Philosophical circles take development and discussion in a direction where the absolute value of human life loses its meaning more and more. The right to die may become the duty to die. For example, in the Netherlands, where the practice has been carried the longest, more than a tenth of the elderly said they were afraid that their doctors would kill them against their will [15]. Thousands carry a card in their pocket there, which states that they do not want to be killed against their will if they end up in the hospital. Albert Schweitzer has stated:

When a person loses respect for any form of life, he loses respect for life as a whole. (16)

The current development is not new or modern thinking, but a similar atmosphere prevailed in Germany even before the Nazis came to power. Hitler did not create this way of thinking, but it came from the table of philosophers. An important factor was especially the book published by psychiatrist Alfred Hoche and judge Karl Bilding in the early 1920s, which talked about worthless people and a life that is not worth living. That and Nazi propaganda paved the way for people to accept the idea of a life that is inferior. Everything started from a small beginning, which included a critical attitude towards terminally ill people:

It became clear for the people researching war crimes that this widespread killing started from slight changes in attitude. In the beginning the doctors’ approach underwent only a slight change. The notion of life not worth living was accepted. Initially this concerned only chronically ill people. Slowly, the scope of people, who were deemed killable, widened to socially unprofitable ones, those who had differnt ideologies, racially discriminated ones and eventually to all non-Germans. It is important to realize that this train of thought started from a small change of attitude towards the hopelessly ill, who were thought no longer to be rehabilitated. Such a minor change in the doctor's attitude is therefore worth examining. (17)

Ending futile treatment. When it comes to the care of the dying, it is important to distinguish between euthanasia (intentional mercy killing) and the termination of useless intensive care. Ending unnecessary treatment and ending life are two different things. Because sometimes a situation can arise when no intensive treatment helps anymore, but only causes strain and harm to the patient. The harms are greater than the benefits, and then it may be justified to stop a treatment that is not beneficial. Instead, even in these situations, care can be taken to ensure that the patient feels as comfortable as possible. Such a method of operation has been common and accepted throughout the decades, and we have to deal with it in hospice care of dying patients. The following quote is related to the same topic. Joni Eareckson Tada (18) talks about the choice situation her family found herself in when no treatments helped her father anymore:

My father’s death taught my family to look for wisdom. We wished to help our father to live until the end and to let him die, when the time comes. Providing food for the hungry and water for the thirsty ones are the fundamentals of humanity. Although it was clear that dad was close to death, we wanted to make him feel as comfortable as possible. God's wisdom includes compassion and pity. Taking care of neighbors is one of the absolute commands in the Bible.

Doctors, however, told my family that in some cases feeding and giving water to a patient, whether it was done via mouth or via tubes, is pointless and, on top of that, painful for the patient. Rita Marker from an international anti-euthanasia working committee says:

When a patient is very close to death, they can be in such a state that liquids increase their discomfort, because their body can no longer use them.

Food does not digest either, when the human body starts to “close” when the process of dying has begun. A moment comes, when it can be said that the human is really dying. (19)

HOW TO MEASURE HUMAN VALUE?

- (Matt 12:11,12) And he said to them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?

12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Why it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

Difficult ethical problems and human value have been discussed in this article. It has been established that the value of a person can be low if viewed through a materialistic worldview and evolutionary glasses. Through them, it is difficult to see that a single person is of greater importance.

And how is the value of a person determined according to the Bible? It differs from common thinking. For while in today's society great value is given to things like achievements, talents, beauty, athleticism and wealth, they are less valuable things from the Bible's point of view. The reason for that is simple: man is a being of eternity and the previous things are only temporary. They are good in themselves, but cannot give eternal life. We only get that when we turn to God and receive His love, which was manifested through His Son Jesus Christ. He, Jesus Christ, came into the world and bore our sins so that we could receive the gift of forgiveness and eternal life. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19) so that we might have these things. So don't reject God's love, but accept it.

- (John 3:16-18) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

The well-known Finnish preacher, Niilo Yli-Vainio, explained the value of man in his sermon on the track decades ago. Man is valuable because he is a being of eternity and he was created in connection with God. No amount of money equals the value of one human soul:

“For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?”

Here Jesus brings out how valuable one person is. How precious one single person is to God. How precious is the soul of a single person to God...One person is more precious to God than all the treasures of the world combined!!!

Oh, what an audience I have here tonight! Think that the whole world's gold reserves are not equal to this little boy who is sitting here... After all, Timo, it was this handsome boy... Thank God!!!

I am speaking to a distinguished crowd tonight. Think that all the goods in the world combined are not as valuable as you! As the only person in this spinning world! That is the value God gives to your soul. (20)

References:

1. Pekka Isaksson & Jouko Jokisalo: Kallonmittaajia ja skinejä, p. 77

2. Leo Alexander: New England Journal of Medicine (1949), 241:39-47

3. Susan B. Anthony: The Revolution 4:1 (8 July 1869), 4

4. J. Budziszewski: Tätä emme voi olla tietämättä (What We Can’t Not Know. Aguide), p. 267

5. Michael J. Sandel: Oikeudenmukaisuus (Justice. What’s the Right Thing to Do?), p. 283,284

6. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään (?), p. 146

7. John Wyatt: Elämän & kuoleman kysymyksiä (Matters of Life and Death), p. 118

8. K. Honkanen: Kasvun vuodet – isyyspäiväkirja, p. 246

9. Mia Puolimatka: Minkä arvoinen on ihminen, p. 249,250

10. Frank Litgvoet: “The Misnomer of Motherless Parenting”, New York Times 07/2013

11. Tapio Puolimatka: Lapsen ihmisoikeus, oikeus isään ja äitiin, p. 43,44

12. Alana Newman: Testimony of Alana S. Newman. Opposition to AB460. To the California Assembly Committee on Health, April 30, 2013.

www.ccgaction.org/uploaded-files/Testimony%%20of%Alana%20S.%20Newman.pdf

13. Päivi Räsänen: Kutsuttu elämään, p. 106

14. John Wyatt: Elämän & kuoleman kysymyksiä (Matters of Life and Death), p. 241

15. Richard Miniter, ”The Dutch Way of Death”, Opinion Journal (huhtikuu 28, 2001)

16. Marja Rantanen, Olavi Ronkainen: Äänetön huuto, p. 7

17. Pekka Reinikainen, Päivi Räsänen, Reino Pöyhiä: Eutanasia – vastaus kärsimyksen ongelmaan? p. 38,39

18. Joni Eareckson Tada: Oikeus elää, oikeus kuolla (When is it Right to Die?), p. 151,152

19. Rita L. Marker: New Covenant, tammikuu 1991

20. Mauno Saari: Saarnaaja, Niilo Yli-Vainion taistelu, testamentti ja päiväkirjat, p. 176,180