Death, Where Is Thy Sting?

I have long had an interest in ethical issues in medicine. One such issue that has continued to generate controversy is the answer to the question, "When does death occur?"

There have been high profile cases, especially in the United States - think Terri Schiavo - that made it to high level legal encounters and other cases that no one outside the family knew about. There have cases where intense religious arguments were involved and others where only secular arguments were made. There have been cases centering on legal definitions and others dealing only with medical criteria.

Regardless of the specifics of a particular case, one thing became clear to me. The medical technology to continue the functioning of the body far outpaced our thinking about the question of when did death take place.

As a pastor, I have stood with a family next to a bed and watched the last breaths of their loved one. There were always certain signs, but no one death precisely imitated any of the others.

In today's Toronto Star is a story about a young Canadian girl that has re-invigorated the debate over life and death issues in that country. A 2 year old girl was removed from a ventilator, after the family was told that she could not live without a respirator, in order to remove her heart which was to be transplanted into another child. After the respirator was removed, however, the little girl continued to breathe. Quoting from Stuart Laidlaw's story,
"This little girl just wasn't ready to die," says Moira McQueen, director of the Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute. McQueen worries about a blurring of the line between dying and dead, saying we sometimes treat people as already dead once they are deemed terminal – a notion Kaylee challenged with her survival."

The issues are many and varied. Should death be defined: by the cessation of breathing, by the heart stopping, or by the end of brain activity? Or should some other criterion be used? If you pick one specific standard, what do you do when there is a machine that can continue that function when the body can't or won't? Should any machines be used to help prolong life, however it is defined? Should a family refuse the use of any machines or any procedure that might prolong the life of their loved one?

How do you decide? And, what should you decide?

Does religious dogma always prevail? Should it?

For the April 19 edition of the Boston Globe Ideas, James Carroll wrote a piece entitled, The American Heresy: When should religious dogma bow to experience?. Carroll begins the piece by telling the story of a Roman Catholic Priest, Father Feeney, who, in the 1950's, preached that only those who were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church would be saved. That was not a new idea. It went back at least to 1302 in the Papal Bull, Unam Sanctam, and was summarized in the phrase "there is no salvation outside the church".

According to Carroll, Father Feeney took great delight in singling out the Jews as the recipients of God's wrath. At the time, the sister of Richard Cushing, the archbishop of Boston, was married to a Jewish man. Cushing ordered Feeney to stop his preaching. Feeney repeatedly refused. Cushing finally excommunicated him, even though Father Feeney was preaching in strict accord with church doctrine. The priest appealed the ruling to Rome and, surprise of all surprise, Rome backed Cushing and not Feeney.

That leads Carroll to speculate about the on-going battle in all religions between the accepted teaching and the personal experience of the believers. He wrote,
Every religion has its version of the contest between dogma and experience. Jews must test ancient assumptions about the Land as seal of the covenant against the here-and-now challenge of war between Israelis and Palestinians. The worldwide Anglican communion divides between those who give primacy to doctrinaire notions of marriage and those who see cruel exclusion of homosexuals as an affront to everything Jesus meant. Islam hears the voices of women demanding to have their experience weighed equally in the scales with tradition. Fundamentalist Christians say no to any experience, any evidence, that contradicts the dogma of biblical "inerrancy."

This battle has been especially strong in our country with our adherence to the enlightenment ideals of truths that are self-evident and the religious ideals of the Protestant Reformation, especially in non-creedal churches, emphasizing the right of private conscience and personal interpretation of scripture.

How do you feel? Do you hold to a view that is not supported by the 'official' or 'unofficial' teaching of your church? If so, how do you justify going against the 'orthodoxy' of your faith tradition? If not, can you think of a circumstance that might cause you to question the official teaching of your church?

Ministers and the Environment

My friend Bob sent me a link to a piece about research done by Lifeway, which is self-described as "an entity of the Southern Baptist Convention, is one of the world’s largest providers of Christian products and services, including Bibles, church literature, books, music, audio and video recordings, church supplies, and Internet services through LifeWay.com."

In October 2008, they conducted a telephone survey of Protestant Ministers asking about what these ministers believe about global warming. The survey can be found at: http://www.opposingviews.com/users/lifeway.

Here is a quotation from their reporting of their results:
Asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, "I believe global warming is real and man-made," pastors split down the middle: 47 percent agree either strongly or somewhat, while 47 percent disagree either strongly or somewhat. The remainder indicate "don’t know."

The differences of opinion, however, are seen more sharply when analyzed in relation to a pastor’s denominational affiliation and geographic location. Fully 75 percent of pastors in mainline denominations agree global warming is real and man-made, but only 32 percent of pastors in evangelical denominations agree. Pastors in rural areas are less convinced than large-city pastors. Forty-three percent of rural pastors and 55 percent of large-city pastors agree. Pastors in the Eastern and Western United States are more persuaded, 60 percent and 53 percent respectively, than pastors in the South (45 percent) and Midwest (40 percent).

When the pastors’ personal beliefs are factored in, the differences grow even more pronounced. Among pastors who consider their political ideology liberal or very liberal, 93 percent agree that global warming is real and man-made, and 79 percent of self-perceived moderates agree. Among those who identify themselves as conservative or very conservative politically, however, agreement is only 37 percent and 16 percent respectively.

As I told Bob, there was little in this survey that surprised me. It seemed very similar to results from surveys that investigated ministers views of the evolution versus Intelligent Design debates. That said, I went on, I do not consider this survey as being of any significance in the debate. Most ministers I know, and many church folks, are not scientifically informed enough to discuss the scientific data. With that, however, I can see this survey being used by some group or another as some kind of proof for something.

Do you care what ministers think about global warming? Does it have an impact on your views?

Twain said it, not me.

One of my favorite pastimes is browsing through bookstores. Last week, I came across a book of essays written by the renowned American humorist, Mark Twain.

As I glanced through the book, I was struck by how many of Twain's comments could have been made last week, instead of a century or more ago. I think that is a comment both on Twain's genius and the reality of how there is nothing new under the sun regarding human behavior.

In an essay from 1871 entitled "The Revised Catechism," Twain wrote,
First class in modern Moral Philosophy stand up and recite:
What is the chief end of man?
A. To get rich.
In what way?
A. Dishonestly if we can; honestly if we must.
Who is God, the one only and true?
A. Money is God. Gold and greenbacks and stock - father, son, and the ghost of the same - three persons in one, these are the true and only God, mighty and supreme, and William Tweed is his prophet.

Does this remind you of anything or anyone that has been in the news lately? Do you think Twain was right then - writing in the midst of the political and economic scandals of the 19th century? Do you think his comments still have validity?