As up-to-date as tomorrow's newspapers!

Those who read the Bible with any level of understanding will appreciate what used to be often claimed that, in its basic teachings, it is not a bundle of irrelevant ancient documents, but is, as the title of this post says, as up-to-date as tomorrow's newspapers!

This was, once again, brought home to me during my personal devotions this morning.  Having completed my time in Paul's letter to the disciples of Jesus in Galatia, I decided that I should return to the books of the Minor Prophets, in the Old Testament.  These are the closing books of the OT, starting at Hosea and going through to Malachi.  I should perhaps point out that they are referred to as the "minor" prophets, not because they are less important than the 'major' prophets, but merely because their writings are shorter!

It is always useful, I would contend, to familiarise oneself with the background to any Biblical text before attempting to read it, and learn from it.  Accordingly, I picked up a commentary by Warren Wiersbe - in my opinion, one of the finest Biblical commentators of this generation.  In his introduction to Hosea, I read the following: "Israel was enjoying great prosperity, but Hosea could see that the nation was rotten to the core; for honest government, pure religion, godly homes, and personal integrity had vanished from the land.  Judgment was inevitable."

The book was published in 1996.  Twenty years later, those words are, surely, even more true of most of the so-called "western" countries, than they were back then.  I read my daily (online) newspaper; I receive additional information through e-mails; I am inundated by Facebook messages that also inform me as to the state of the world in which we live.  Sadly, I see that "... honest government, pure religion, godly homes, and personal integrity ..." are in as short supply today as they were in Israel [the northern kingdom; the southern kingdom, at that time, was referred to as Judah] at the time of Hosea.   In the UK there is a Prime Minister who appears, to many, to be an inveterate, almost pathological, liar.  The major, traditional, Christian denominations are almost indistinguishable from the world to which they should be an example, and a prophetic voice (like Hosea!).  Godly homes are almost as rare as hen's teeth.  Personal integrity seems to have become little more than a phrase from antiquity.

Is it too much to suggest that judgement is inevitable?  Indeed, is it possible that we are, in the 'western' world, already tasting that judgement?   When child sacrifice, under the name of "abortion", is practiced on a scale that would horrify even those who practised it millennia ago in an attempt to appease the 'deities' they worshipped, but merely because a pregnancy, and the responsibility of a child, would be "inconvenient", what right have we to claim that we are the civilised ones? When deviant sexual relationships are accepted as being perfectly normal, even although they are incapable of producing children, what allows us to call our selves "progressive"?  When people are murdered, under the label of "euthanasia", because they have reached a certain age, and are no longer 'productive' members of society, how on earth may we call ourselves loving, caring, and compassionate?

All of the above - and there is so much more - is in total contradiction of the teachings of the Bible, and the will of the Creator God Who, through His servants, authored it (see II Tim.3:16).  However, Paul, writing to those Galatian believers in the letter that I have just finished reading again, warned them: "Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life." (Gal 6:7-8).  As a society, I fear that we are beginning to reap what we have sown - and it is not pleasant!

A mighty man of God named Moses, spoke to the Children of Israel shortly before his own physical death.  Listen to these words, spoken towards the end of that discourse: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life , that you and your descendants may live, loving YHWH your God, obeying His voice, and cleaving to Him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which YHWH swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deut 30:19-20).

Have you chosen life?  It's readily available to you, and in a measure greater than was offered to those people all of those millennia ago.  Because the life that is offered to you is the very life of Almighty God - eternal life, here and now.  It is something that you can never deserve; never purchase; never earn.  It is offered, as a free gift, to those who are willing to confront, and confess, their sins - and their total inability to do anything about them - but who come to the foot of the cross of Calvary, and accept, by faith, that God has done it all, in Jesus the Christ.  He has paid the penalty that you and I ought to pay, that we might know salvation, full and free.  When you take that step, you become His child, adopted into His family: "How we praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has blessed us with every blessing in heaven because we belong to Christ. Long ago, even before He made the world, God chose us to be His very own through what Christ would do for us; He decided then to make us holy in His eyes, without a single fault - we who stand before Him covered with his love.  His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into His own family by sending Jesus Christ to die for us. And He did this because He wanted to!" (Eph 1:3-5; TLB; emphasis added).

Like me, you may live in a world that appears to be "going to the dogs".  Like me, you may enter a new relationship; a new family; and have a new future.  The choice, always, is yours.  Make the right one!

The Ten Words (5)

Whilst it may be argued that each of the Ten Words (Commandments) impinges on our relationship with our Creator God, the first four are specifically so.  The remaining six serve as the standards of conduct in areas of human behaviour that generate the most far reaching consequences on individuals, families, groups and society.  In other words, the first four commandments have to do, primarily, with my relationship God-ward; the following six with my relationship man-ward.

Commandment number 5 deals with the most basic human relationship, and is the second that is framed in a positive fashion.  It reads: "Honour your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you." (Ex 20:12), and Paul points out that "... this is the first commandment with a promise." (Eph 6:2).

So what does this commandment mean?   In a world in which many who are able to do so spend small fortunes to keep themselves looking as young as possible while, at the same time, seeking (and, in some countries, succeeding) to legalise euthanasia/assisted dying/suicide, these words may sound strange.  Why should one be concerned about parents and, by extension, other elderly folk?  Such a question would not have occurred to the children of Israel.   Alan Cole writes: "This commandment is part of the general attitude of Israel to old age (as symbolising and, ideally, embodying the practical wisdom of life) commended throughout the Old Testament (Lev.19:32), and found in many other ancient peoples, notably the Chinese." (Tyndale O.T. Commentaries; in loc).

We should honour our parents as those responsible for our existence.  We should honour our parents for the care that they gave to us when we were unable to care for ourselves.  We should honour our parents for the good example that they provide for us.  Sadly, we live in a generation, and culture in which not everyone would recognise such reasons for honouring their parents.  There are, in my opinion, far too many who do not have any relationship with one/both of their biological parents.  It is quite tragic when that is the case because the child is an orphan.  It is even worse when the child has been, effectively abandoned by the parents.  Many parents, in our 'advanced', 'civilised', 'developed', western culture do not care adequately for even the youngest of children.  Indeed, there are millions of mothers who, every year, are responsible - with the willing assistance of others - for the deaths of their children by murder in the womb (aka abortion!).   One doesn't have to read too many news reports to discover that there are many parents whose only example to their children is negative. I wonder if this is why we are experiencing an unprecedented breakdown in, not only family life, but also society as a whole? 

So, how do we honour our parents?  May I suggest that we do so by showing them love, and care; by providing for them in their old age; by recognising their continuing contribution to society in general.  When I was sharing these commandments with secondary school pupils in their early teenage years, I would suggest that it might involve such simple act as keeping one's bedroom tidy; offering to wash up after a meal; volunteering to take the dog for a walk.

Of course, there are parents who are extremely difficult.  However, honouring even such should be our default position.  We may then claim the promise that "our days may be long".  For the children of Israel, this would have been understood in straightforward physical terms, and would have been applied to the land of Israel.  Today, I believe, we may rightly spiritualise the promise.  The honouring of parents is a Christian duty (Eph.6:1; cf I Tim.5:3-4, 8), and those who do so may anticipate, not simply length of days in this world, but the eternal day in the next!  It isn't the whole of the Christian life - but it is an important component part.  Jesus, Himself, affirmed the commandment.  "And He said to [the Pharisees and the scribes], 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!  For Moses said, 'Honour your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die'; but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, 'What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God) - then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on'." (Mark 7:9-13).

It is also worth remembering that the way in which we treat our own parents, and older folk whom we know, may well be the way in which, if we are spared to old age, we will be treated.  We really do "reap what we sow"!

The end of life.

Quite a number of recent posts have been on the topic of abortion - the deliberate killing of an unborn human being.  This evening, I want to go to the other end of the Journey of Life spectrum, and look at another emotive issue that is currently very topical - assisted dying (aka assisted suicide/euthanasia).

"What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet;" states Shakespeare's heroine figure in his play Romeo and Juliet.   So, whatever name is given, and has been given, over recent decades, the common denominator, in this situation, is the deliberate taking of a fully adult life, for whatever reason.  By the way, I do not propose going into a discussion on etymology, especially with regard to the strict definition of euthanasia (from the Greek!).

Yesterday, the UK House of Lords debated the Bill that has been brought forward by Lord Charlie Falconer.   This Bill seeks to “enable competent adults who are terminally ill to be provided at their request with specified assistance to end their own life”.   Of course, there have been a number of attempts to legislate in favour of the right to end one's own life in recent years - at least one previous one also being in the name of Charlie Falconer.   Thankfully, each one has been defeated, but the assisted suicide and/or euthanasia supporters keep coming back with the sort of determination that one often wishes was seen in other areas of politics!

Often, some recent high-profile case, in which there has been a lot of public sympathy for the person who wishes to end his/her own life, is used by the 'suicide lobby' (to use a convenient shorthand expression!).  One that may well have been raised in the House of Lords, yesterday, is that of Brittany Maynard, the young woman from the USoA who travelled from her home state of California, to the state of Oregon, in order to legally kill herself!   However, emotional cases do not lead to good legislation!   Thankfully, for every Brittany, there are hundreds of others who do not take the 'easy' way out!  There were many who shared their stories on social media, but I didn't notice their stories receiving the same publicity in the main-stream media!

However, away from the individual cases.  What about the general picture?  It is interesting that all of the professional medical bodies are opposed to the sort of legislation that Charlie Falconer and, in the Scottish Parliament, Patrick Harvie, wish to see enacted.   However, that is not really surprising! Do assisted suicide supporters really expect doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on their ethics or their empathy? Do they realise that this reduces the second patient’s will-to-live request to a mere personal whim—perhaps, ultimately, one that society will see as selfish and too costly? How does this serve optimal health care, let alone the integrity of doctors and nurses who have to face, and live with, the fact that they helped other human beings kill themselves?

Indeed, a report in The Telegraph, on Thursday, stated that "One in 10 British people believe elderly people should be offered a “reward” if they opt for assisted suicide, new polling suggests."  Now, apart from the fact that, if the 'reward' is only to be offered posthumously, it is going to be of little satisfaction to the recipient, why should anyone wish to be rewarded in this way?  By the way, the suggested 'reward'  was "a martini and a medal"!  I'm teetotal; and I would prefer to wear a medal on my own chest - while standing up!   The report continued: "Anti-euthanasia campaigners said the finding was “chilling” evidence of deep-seated prejudice towards older people from a small but significant minority of the population."   Chilling, indeed.

What is needed is more, and improved, palliative care.  The Hospice movement does a wonderful job - I know, I have visited enough of their establishments! - but it is limited in its scope because, as a charity, it depends on the donations of supporters.  As I type, I am thinking just how far the latest demand from the EU - £1.7 billion - would go to providing that desired level of care.  However, all that will happen is that it will be wasted on an already corrupt and bloated administration!

The debate, yesterday, went on for longer than was expected, and there was no formal division.  However, it is reported that the majority of those who spoke did so in opposition to the Bill.  For this, at this stage, many of us are truly thankful.

Euthanasia - gone berserk!

I have never tried to hide my total opposition to both abortion and euthanasia (aka assisted suicide/dying).  I have signed petitions; written to MPs and MSPs; published posts on this very blog; and written letters to various newspapers.   I thought that I was fully aware of most of the issues involved.  However, I have just read an extremely disturbing report on LifeNews.com   I have been unable to confirm the report but, if this is true, then the UK Justice system has, in my opinion, reached a new low.  I have edited the following for the sake of comparative brevity.

"Nancy Fitzmaurice, born blind with hydrocephalus, meningitis and septicaemia, could not walk, talk, eat or drink, the Mirror reported.  Her health was so poor she required 24-hour care and was fed, watered and medicated by tube at London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital. Her health deteriorated and, as she grew, she would scream in agony for hours despite being given morphine and ketamine.

Her mother, Charlotte Fitzmaurice Wise, knew the pain her daughter was suffering was too much for the 12-year-old to bear. She deserved to be at peace and had the right to die, knew her heartbroken mother, who had given up work as a nurse to be with her. (emphases added).   …“The light from her eyes is now gone and is replaced with fear and a longing to be at peace. “Today I am appealing to you for Nancy as I truly believe she has endured enough. For me to say that breaks my heart.  …Her application was granted immediately, setting a precedent. It is the first time a child breathing on her own, not on life support and not suffering a terminal illness has been allowed to die in the UK. (emphasis in the original).

The judge praised Wise for her “love and devotion” towards her daughter… which was shown by her fight to kill Nancy. The judge ruled that she had no quality of life anymore, and therefore, she should be killed by refusing to give her any food or water until she died. It took her 14 days to die. Wise claimed that she wanted to end her daughter’s suffering and give her death with dignity, but she chose to do that by making her daughter suffer a slow, agonizing, painful death. How does that make any sense? (emphasis added).

Dehydration and starvation is horrible for a person to endure. The body is about 60 percent water, and under normal conditions, an average person will lose about a quart of water each day by sweating and breathing and another one to three quarts by urinating. In the heat, and under more difficult physical conditions, that amount increases.  If it’s not replaced over time and dehydration becomes severe, cells throughout the body will begin to shrink as water moves out of them and into the blood stream, part of the body’s efforts to keep the organs perfused in fluid. “All the cells will shrink,” said Jeffrey Berns, president-elect of the USoA National Kidney Foundation and a nephrologist at the University of Pennsylvania, “but the ones that count are the brain cells. They don’t operate normally when they’re shrinking.” Changes in mental status will follow, including confusion and ultimately coma, he said. As the brain becomes smaller, it takes up less room in the skull and blood vessels connecting it to the inside of the cranium can pull away and rupture. … Victims’ kidneys may shut down first, as they continue to lack access to both water and salt. The kidneys cleanse the blood of waste products which, under normal conditions, are excreted in urine. Without water, blood volume will decline and all the organs will start to fail. Kidney failure will soon lead to disastrous consequences and ultimately death as blood volume continues to fall and waste products that should be eliminated from the body remain.  In addition to all of those, of course, there are the natural pangs of hunger, and the total lack of nutrition.

So to end a person’s supposed suffering — a person who is not terminally ill, is not on any life support, and can breathe on their own — we must make them suffer a slow, painful, horrific death. But only if they’re disabled, apparently.  ... because this girl, a child, is severely disabled, it’s considered acceptable. Putting a bullet in her head would have been kinder, because it at least would have been immediate. But then we can’t tap dance around the fact that what this mother did is murder.

Wise assumes, as many people do, that a person wouldn’t want to live in such a way. But no one knows how her daughter felt about her quality of life and whether or not she wanted to live. No one knows how her daughter felt in those 14 days that she was being starved and dehydrated. And no one cares. Nancy Fitzmaurice was disabled and could not speak, so she was brutally, cruelly murdered, with the permission of her government. And notice that the suffering Wise spoke of repeatedly was her own, not her daughter’s. She couldn’t bear seeing her daughter like that. She was going through “torture” watching her daughter in pain. So she petitioned the court to get permission to force her daughter to die a slow, painful death instead of seeking palliative care.

It’s become appropriate in the United Kingdom to kill a person now because it’s too much of a hassle to keep them alive. It’s legal for parents to murder their children because they’re disabled, because they can’t speak for themselves, because the parent has decided that their lives are not worth living anymore. And we call it death with dignity."

Is it too much to suggest that this tragic situation is the result of abortion being so accepted as a mother's choice.  Now, we have slipped into the idea that a mother can have her child killed - her choice, not that of the child. Last century, there was an organization that not only advocated the "mercy killing" of the disabled, but also carried it out. They were known as Nazis. 

If anyone can provide confirmation of this report or, indeed, evidence to refute it, please let me know by e-mailing me at the address at the top of the page.  Thank you.

Rites of Passage.

In my teaching career, one of the units taught to S1 pupils concerned Rites of Passage.  This refers to the four major events in a person's life that are celebrated, in some way, by every culture known to mankind.  These are Birth, Coming of Age, Marriage, and Death.

These are also areas that, in recent decades, in some of the more 'civilised' nations in the world, have become increasingly under attack from a secular, atheistic, humanism that would have us all made in its own image - rather than in the image of the Creator God Who is responsible for our very existence.

Birth.  It was in 1967 that abortion became legal within the UK.  Since then, around 10 million babies have been callously murdered in the very place in which they ought to have been best protected - their mothers' wombs.  And that is in England, Scotland, and Wales alone!  By the way, if you missed my brief series on abortion - "Womb - or tomb?" - you can scroll down to the Blog Archive; click on "August", and then scroll down to Tuesday, 19th for the first article.  Birth, in far too many cases, is not being celebrated - it is being prevented!

Coming of age.  It is the case, as I type, that it is when one reaches the age of 18 years that, in the UK, one is considered to have 'come of age'.  Of course, as my pupils were quick to point out, the age varies for different activities - from joining the Armed Forces, to purchasing alcohol, to acquiring a mortgage.  However, for at least two - maybe three - generations, we seem to have been encouraging our children to 'grow up' far too quickly.  Beauty Pageants, at least in the USoA, for toddlers - dressed up by their mothers in 'sexy' outfits (must be some sort of paedophile 'heaven'!), to Clubs and bars being frequented by children who have barely left puberty, to 'under-age' sexual activity.  And much of this with the knowledge, and tacit approval, of parents/guardians!

Marriage.  In the UK, with the honourable exception of N.Ireland, marriage has been redefined as being the union of any two persons, regardless of gender.  This has been, effectively, a response by politicians to a sustained lobbying exercise by those representing (according to recent National Office of Statistics report) a mere 1.6% of the population.  A massive petition opposing the move, in both Westminster and Holyrood, was ignored.  Of course, it is arguable, given revelations since, that the reason for that is that the percentage of those who practise deviant sexual relations, is much higher in government circles than in the population at large!  Now, I read that an OFSTED inspection in a Jewish school resulted in pupils feeling bullied, and traumatised, by the questions asked - questions such as "Do you know that it is acceptable for two men to be married to one another?"  Marriage, instead of being a relationship in which a man and a woman fulfil God's plan for them, and produce a family (something that no two people of the same gender can ever do, on their own!), has become a declaration of deviance that is sanctioned by the state.

Death.  There was a time when death came to most people before they reached 80 years of age.  Today, in the western world, more and more people are living to be centenarians.  At least, that is what we would like to think.  However, the constant push by some for the legalisation of euthanasia, and assisted dying/suicide, shows that death is becoming a marketable commodity - think Dignitas in Switzerland, or the whole situation in the Netherlands!   The tragedy of such a situation was shown by a newspaper report just a few days ago: 

"An elderly husband and wife have announced their plans to die in the world's first 'couple' euthanasia - despite neither of them being terminally ill.

Instead the pair fear loneliness if the other one dies first from natural causes.

Identified only by their first names, Francis, 89, and Anne, 86, they have the support of their three adult children who say they would be unable to care for either parent if they became widowed.

The children have even gone so far as to find a practitioner willing to carry out the double killings on the grounds that the couple's mental anguish constituted the unbearable suffering needed to legally justify euthanasia.

… The couple's daughter has remarked that her parents are talking about their deaths as eagerly as if they were planning a holiday.

John Paul [their son] said the double euthanasia of his parents was the 'best solution'.  'If one of them should die, who would remain would be so sad and totally dependent on us,' he said. 'It would be impossible for us to come here every day, to take care of our father or our mother.'"

One commentator has responded like this:  "I wonder why no one considers the fact that the reason some elderly parents may experience “mental anguish” is that they have come to the sickening realisation that their grown children would rather find an executioner to dispatch them, than take on the responsibility of caring for their parents. Imagine the thoughts of a mother realising that the child she fed and rocked to sleep, played with and sang to, would rather have her killed than care for her; that their relationship really does have a price."

When I consider all of that, I confess to being glad that I am now out of the RME classroom.  My fear is that those who are in may be pushing the kind of agenda that is mirrored above!

To die, or not to die?

To die, or not to die?  That's a big question.  For most of us, the answer is that we wish to live for as long as possible.  However, it would appear that some of the world's legislators think differently!

At the moment, in the UK, two pro-euthanasia Bills are making their way through two different legislative bodies.  In the House of Lords, Lord Falconer's Assisted Dying Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords earlier this year, although it is yet to be scheduled for its second reading.  In the Scottish Parliament, Margo MacDonald, MSP, is making yet another attempt to legalise euthanasia by a different name, as she presents her second End of Life Assistance Bill.

When such legislation is being considered, the proponents place a lot of weight on the circumstances of a few high-profile cases that are judged to be capable of producing great sympathy for the individuals concerned.  What is not explained, by the supporters, are the additional ramifications - or, perhaps, they have not sufficiently thought the matter through!

It was in 2002 that both The Netherlands and Belgium legalised the taking of another person's life, at that person's request and with their permission (voluntary euthanasia), provided that the person is legally competent and "... in a medically futile condition of constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated, resulting from a serious and incurable disorder caused by illness or accident". (from the Belgian legislation).  Euthanasia is also allowed in certain of the United States of America, in Canada's Quebec Province, in Albania, and in Switzerland while, in some countries, it is not legal - but a 'blind eye' is turned to it.  Assisted suicide is slightly different, but the end result is the same!

Those who oppose the legalising of euthanasia/assisted suicide may cite perfectly valid religious reasons for their position.  However, there are many who also oppose it on the basis that it could be the thin end of a wedge.  Recent news would suggest that they are correct to have such fears!

It would appear that it is not uncommon for the mentally ill to be euthanised (involuntary euthanasia).  This is already happening in both The Netherlands and Belgium with, in the case of the latter, organs being harvested from the victims. In Switzerland, the Supreme Court declared it to be a constitutional right for the mentally ill to be offered assisted suicide; while Quebec's new euthanasia legislation apparently allows the (involuntary?!) euthanasia.

Those of an earlier generation may well be hearing alarm bells ringing.  This deliberate killing of the mentally ill - and those considered not to be of any 'use' - was a policy of Hitler's Nazi administration. Aktion T4 was the name used after World War II for the 'euthanasia programme' during which physicians murdered thousands of people who were "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination". The programme officially ran from September 1939 to August 1941, but continued, unofficially, until the end of the Nazi regime in 1945.

Could such a situation re-occur in the 21st century?  Sadly, it is not impossible.   Earlier this year, witnesses appeared in the upper house of the Belgian parliament to discuss a proposal allowing euthanasia for children.  Already, under the current law, there is an exception to allow children, of at least fifteen years of age, to be euthanised, if they are “legally emancipated” from their parents.  However, Socialist Party Senator Philippe Mahoux, one of the architects of the 2002 law, is now seeking to broaden the law to include all children of any age with a serious and incurable disease and a sound mind.

With all of the, understandable, emphasis on marriage over the past year, the euthanasia Bills have received little publicity.  However, it is at our peril that we ignore the attempts, by some, to 'play God'.  It was interesting that, when Prof Stephen Hawking - himself, previously, an opponent of euthanasia - recently declared a change of mind, British paralympic star Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson criticised him, saying that weakening the law would reinforce prejudices against disabled people.

To die, or not to die?  It's much too important a question for the answer to be left to mere mortals!

A tale of three lives.

Over the past few days, I have been struck by the stories of three men.  The first is simply known as martin (not his real name).  He is, according to both radio and newspaper reports, 46 years of age but, about three years ago, he suffered a massive brain-stem stroke and now lies on a hospital-style bed in the converted garage of his home.  His wife is reading a bk to him - a book written by a man who suffered the same kind of stroke and, like Martin, used his eyes to communicate (in Martin's case, using a computer).  But Martin has no such ambition.  He only wants to die and, as his wife is unwilling to assist him, is seeking legal assurances that professionals - such as his solicitor and his doctor - will not face either prosecution or disciplinary action if they provide that assistance.

It sounds like a perfect case to support the legalising of assisted suicide (aka euthanasia).  However, there is a second story.  This concerns a young man named Aaron Denham, who was left in a coma after a road accident in March of this year; was on a life-support machine; and showed no sign of independent life.  It was as the family of the 22-year-old stood at his bedside, trying to decide arrangements for his funeral service, that his mother noticed his hand moving.  The rest, as one might say, is history and Aaron appears to be making a complete recovery!  Hospital staff, as well as family members, are referring to that recovery as "miraculous"! And that story is, for me, one of the major arguments against the legalisation of euthanasia - by whatever name it may be called.

Of course, a lot depends on one's own attitude to life and death.  That's where the third story comes in.  It concerns the father of well-known Christian author, Max Lucado.  Max writes: "The last three years of his life were scarred by ALS (Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis - a form of motor neuron disease). The disease took him from a healthy mechanic to a bed-bound paralytic. He lost his voice and his muscles, but he never lost his faith. Visitors noticed. Not so much in what he said but more in what he didn’t say. Never outwardly angry or bitter, Jack Lucado suffered [with dignity].

His faith led one man to seek a like faith. After the funeral this man sought me out and told me. Because of my dad’s example, he became a Jesus follower.

Did God orchestrate my father’s illness for that very reason? Knowing the value he places on one soul, I wouldn’t be surprised. And imagining the splendour of heaven, I know my father’s not complaining."

Those of us who have the same faith in a loving, and caring, Father God that Jack Lucado had, are able to trust Him with our lives.  He knows when is the time for us to die - and we ought not to want to die a minute earlier.  He has a work for each of us to do and, as the old hymn put it, it's a work that only you, or I, can do!

So whatever your pain; whatever your problem; take it to Him, and ask Him to help you to use it to bring praise and glory to His Name.  And trust Him!  Another hymn-writer said: "My times are in Thy hand; my God, I wish them there."  They couldn't be in a better place!

Euthanasia - again!

I do hope that the proponents of euthanasia, or assisted dying, or mercy killing or whatever euphemism may be used for the deliberate taking of a human life (the word 'murder' does come to mind!) have taken full heed of the news, today, that a certain Dr Howard Martin has admitted to "hastening" the deaths (now there's a nice little euphemism to add to those already in vogue!) of dozens of his former patients - and not always with any consent from anyone!

This, of course, has long been one of the expressed concerns of those of us who are opposed to any attempt to legalise euthanasia. Regardless of how much those who support such a move may give assurances that it would only be in very strictly controlled situations that such an act would take place, the reality is that there would always be those who would take liberties that were never intended. It is interesting that the 2009 Netherlands' euthanasia statistics show a continuing increase in reported cases of euthanasia - some 45% since 2003! As far as I understand the Dutch situation, a doctor decides on whether or not to end a person's life on the objective basis of deciding the subjectivity of 'unbearable pain'!

Over the years, I have spent a fair bit of time, in a pastoral context, with those who were nearing the end of their physical lives. Some were at home; some were in hospital; some were in a hospice. In every case, I was impressed by the palliative care that they received - in not one, did I hear of a request to 'end it all now'!

It is, of course, a subject that will continue to be highly controversial, and that will give rise to emotive words from those on either side of the debate. However since, in the U.K., we consider ourselves to be civilised because we have abolished the death penalty for convicted murderers - even those whose conviction is unquestionably right - we should be careful not to rush into providing death to those who, in a particular moment, request it. As I have often stated before - it is an irreversible decision!