Monthly Archives: June 2021

In 2020, more people than ever died due to euthanasia in the Netherlands.

According to statistics of the official Regional Euthanasia Review Committees (RTE in Dutch), a total number of 6,938 asked for euthanasia (which includes both termination of life on request and assisted suicide) and died through the medical procedure legalized two decades ago.

The figure is not only the highest since the law was passed in 2002, but also represents a sharp 9 per centincrease since 2019.

According to the RTE, around 5,000 of the patients who asked for euthanasia suffered of cancer and a vast majority were elderly people.

Speaking to Dutch newspaper Trouw, the president of RTE said, the figures fit in with a larger development More and more generations see euthanasia as a solution to unbearable suffering.In other words, the thought that euthanasia is an option in the case of hopeless suffering is very reassuring.

This shift in the thinking of the population is confirmed by the statistics. Euthanasia has been continually on the rise with the only exception of 2018. According to the last published annual report published on RTEs website, slightly more men than women (52 per centto 48 per cent) ask for euthanasia in the Netherlands, and - after cancer - neurological diseases and cardiovascular disorders are the second and third illnesses suffered by those who begin the euthanasia procedure. Mental disorders represent just over 1 per centof the cases.

According to the official statistics, people aged 70-79 represent one-third of the euthanasia requesters, followed by those aged 80-89 (one-fourth) and 60-69 (one-fifth). No minors aged 12-17 died by euthanasia in 2019.

In 2020, a total number of 162,000 people died in the Netherlands, 15,000 more than expected, mainly because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Euthanasia deaths represented 4.3 per centof the total number.

---

This story originally appeared at Evangelical Focus and is republished here with permission.

Follow this link:

Euthanasia represented 4% of deaths in the Netherlands last year - CHVN Radio

Dear Editor,

In his article ACT sidelined in the euthanasia debate (CW, 27/5), Gary Humphries seems conflicted. On the one hand he suggests there is a right kind of euthanasia by saying that there are serious dangers if the wrong kind of euthanasia is legislated. He then goes on to explain what some of those dangers are: extending the time at which euthanasia might be considered: e.g. in the Victorian legislation states candidates must have less than six months to live, while the Queensland legislation is looking at less than 12 months to live. This, he acknowledges, is a serious slippery slope. Then there is the not always benign influence of families on those who are considering euthanasia.

I would like to ask Gary what he considers a right kind of euthanasia? Experience in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and the US suggests there is no such thing. As far as euthanasia supporters are concerned, safeguards are just there to be got around. I suggest Gary and all your readers find and read Paul Kellys article State-sanctioned death exposes the Wests moral decay, published in The Weekend Australian of 29-30 May.

Read the original:

Letter to the editor: what is the right kind of euthanasia? - Canberra Weekly

BISHOP Timothy Harris continues to speak out publicly to persuade Queensland politicians supporting euthanasia they are making a grave mistake.

In a Letter to the Editor published by the Townsville Bulletin, the Bishop of Townsville pleaded with Queensland MPs supporting the move to legalise euthanasia to reconsider.

I say to members of parliament advocating for voluntary assisted suicide STOP and think again, Bishop Harris wrote.

Let us have a good long, hard look at ourselves before we go to where we have not gone before.

He said he continued to hold the strong view that no good whatsoever will come if these laws are passed.

Indeed, society will never be the same again, he said.

Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk introduced a bill to Parliament on May 25 to legalise euthanasia.

The Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill was referred to the Health and Safety Committee for a 12-week consultation.

In his letter to the Townsville Bulletin, Bishop Harris said he thought a civilised society was against suicide and wished to do everything possible to eradicate it.

But no, it seems we wish to offer people the option of taking their precious lives, he wrote.

We can do better than this race to the bottom.

We can create an environment of accompaniment from the beginning of a terminal illness to the end.

Society must not abandon anyone, especially the most vulnerable.

Palliative care creates an environment conducive to caring and compassionate actions that can lead to someone dying well.

Bishop Harris said some of the horror stories offered by euthanasia advocates about people dying in terrible pain were years old.

Palliative care has advanced in its effectiveness and will do so even more if adequate funding from governments can be achieved, he said.

People are frightened into supporting voluntary assisted dying because they are led to believe they have no other alternative.

Proponents of VAD should therefore hang their heads in shame and demand of their governments a standard of palliative care that mitigates against a rush to a regime that sanctions death.

Bishop Harris said legalising euthanasia would be a step too far.

No one needs to suffer unbearably, but a concerted effort to ease this suffering with a world-class palliative care system will at least challenge the view that VAD is the answer, he said.

Suicide is suicide and it is a tragic consequence of a society that has failed its people.

It leaves in its wake a kind of individual and community paralysis that seems to be placed in the too-hard basket.

How have we got to this stage?

Follow this link:

'Society will never be the same' Queensland bishop warns against abandoning vulnerable people to euthanasia - Catholic Leader

Sarah Wootton, CEO of Dignity in Dying, on the right, in this 2017 picture with Noel Conway, who unsuccessful sought the right to an assisted death.PA/Alamy

According to Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, formerly known as the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, the current law on assisted dying does not work, and it is time for the UK to grasp this nettle. Notably, since 2014 there have been several attempts to grasp the nettle none of which have managed to uproot it: two bills, various parliamentary debates, and a number of court cases all have failed to change the law. Woottons comment refers to two new challenges to the existing situation in the UK: the Jersey Assisted Dying Citizens Jury meeting in March 2021 and the private bill put forward in the House of Lords in May 2021 by Baroness Meacher, chair of Dignity in Dying. Grasping the nettle may be an encouragement to be bold and do something difficult. But often stinging nettles are best left alone, especially when pulling them up causes harm.

In English law the Suicide Act 1961 decriminalised suicide. However, assisting suicide is still a crime and the discretion to prosecute lies with the Crown Prosecution Service, with added guidance issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2010. Jersey does not have a law against assisting suicide and so the situation in Jersey appears ambiguous, hence the recent independent panel set up to discuss the issue. To be clear, in English law suicide has been decriminalised: in 1961 it was recognised that survivors of suicide attempts needed help not potential imprisonment. This does not make suicide legal, still less a right.

Challenges to English law have been further fuelled by examples of countries which have already enacted assisted dying and euthanasia legislation. However, before we go grasping nettles it may be useful to see what we can glean from some of the experiences in these countries. Giving evidence to the Jersey Jury meeting, Robert Prestons data from Oregon showed that 94 per cent of requests gave being less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable as the reason for seeking assisted dying.

In evidence on Canadas Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), Trudo Lemmens, professor of law at Toronto University cited data pointing to the sense of being a burden, loneliness, inadequate palliative care, and lack of disability support as major factors in 82 per cent of requests for assisted dying. Moreover, in Canada where assisted dying was initially available only to the terminally ill, the rights rhetoric had encouraged the expansion of assisted dying provision outside of an end-of-life context such that people with disabilities may be fast tracked for death.

Michael Talibard and Tom Binet, representatives of the pro-assisted dying group End of Life Choices, argued that assisted dying should not be tied to a prognosis of six months to live because this was difficult to predict and anyway the choice for assisted dying depended on patients who find their lives unbearable.

Presenting evidence at a different forum, to the Quebec committee on the evolution of the Canadian legislation, Irene Tuffrey-Wijne, professor of Intellectual Disability and Palliative Care at Londons Kinston and St Georges University, detailed cases in the Netherlands where clinicians decided that certain patients were suffering unbearably and there was no prospect of improvement in their condition, thus making them eligible for euthanasia. Clinicians described the normal patterns of autism and learning disability as intolerable suffering. Certainly, in these cases people had asked for euthanasia yet the criteria applied for eligibility was not related to illness, terminal or otherwise, and persistent requests were interpreted as capacity rather than being challenged as possibly inability to appreciate the significance of the information or to weigh up the alternatives. Instead, their condition was regarded as untreatable because the person would not be able to cope with treatment; suffering and difficulties in coping were put down to the intellectual disability so that, in effect, having a learning disability was enough to warrant euthanasia or assisted dying. Moreover, countries such as Belgium accept that polypathology, a collection of minor medical problems, satisfies the criteria for terminal illness.

We already know about the blights on the lives of people with learning disabilities: an increased sense of loneliness, lack of support, stigma, discrimination, hate and mate crime, inequalities in all areas of life, being treated as unproductive and a burden, valued less than other people, subject to inappropriate and negative value-laden decisions by some healthcare professionals. We already know that even before the pandemic, inequalities in healthcare have led to high levels of premature deaths and preventable comorbid health conditions. Covid-19 has put a spotlight onto some of these inequalities as the NHS has identified some factors that make admitting people with learning disabilities and autism to hospital for treatment problematic and so less desirable, and it remains unclear how the NHS will prioritise in its growing waiting list for treatment for non-covid related illnesses.

The current law against assisted suicide tries to protect vulnerable people and in doing so it witnesses to the dignity of people with disabilities who, like all human beings, are deserving of societys care, attention, and protection. The proposed assisted dying legislation, even with its apparent restrictions, normalises suicide as a solution to feeling unproductive or a burden or dependent or in need of care. When urging people to grasp nettles, think about who you will sting.

Dr Pia Matthews is a Senior Lecturer St Marys University.

The rest is here:

Grasping the nettle of assisted dying will sting people with disabilities - The Tablet

Present-day society has developed a disturbing ambivalence to suicide on the one hand, abhorring it as a tragedy and calling for preventative measures; on the other, promoting it by the legalisation of euthanasia. Gary Furnell, whose work for a funeral director has exposed him to the frequency of suicides, especially of young men, looks to G.K. Chestertons wisdom as he wrestles with the philosophical and religious changes that have led to these ambivalent attitudes.

One of the sad surprises that confronted me as an undertakers assistantworking with the police at the start of the coronial processwas the frequency of suicide, especially male suicide.

Men typically use surer methods of suicide: hanging, gunshot, jumping from buildings and cliffs, and exsanguination by deeply cutting multiple blood vessels. Women more often choose to overdose on medicines; a few will hang themselves.

Whatever the method, the tragic truth is that suicide may be much more common than we think. The expectation of mental health experts has been that it would increase as a result of the social isolation of Covid-19 lockdowns.

Without question, attitudes to suicide reflect the frequently bi-polar nature of our society. In our state parliaments, assisted-suicide proponents push for euthanasia to be legalised, or if its already legal made more widely available, while the same parliamentssometimes the same politicianslament the frequency of suicide and demand more action (i.e., spending more taxpayers money, never their own) to address the sad scourge.

The mixed message appears to be this: killing yourself with professional assistance in a dedicated facility is a liberal, brave choice; killing yourself alone at home (or elsewhere) is a desperate and ignoble tragedy.

This inconsistency results from the absence of a commonly accepted philosophy or religion. If G.K. Chesterton, in the early years of the 20th century, correctly identified modernity, not as a new idea or the development of an idea, but the abandonment of an ideathe idea of Western Christendom, and with it the meaning and hope it gave to human life and deaththen we in post-modern times are seeing the acceleration of this abandonment, and the dissolution of the meaning and hope that had been infused by the idea of Western Christendom.

Chesterton also noted that Christianitys supernatural explanation of everything had been rejected by many people, but no natural explanation had arisen to take its place.

He understood that we live in a confused and confusing time, and that its confused to promote and lament suicide at the same time, as many would-be leaders in our society are doing. Logic and consistency are neglected in many debates about end-of-life issues. As Chesterton put it:

The best reason for the revival of philosophy is that unless a man has a philosophy certain horrible things will happen to him. He will be practical; he will be progressive; he will cultivate efficiency; he will trust in evolution; he will do the work that lies nearest; he will devote himself to deeds, not words. Thus struck down by blow after blow of blind stupidity and random fate, he will stagger on to a miserable death with no comfort but a series of catchwords; such as those I have catalogued above.

Those things are simply substitutes for thoughts. In some cases they are the tags and tail-ends of somebody elses thinking. That means that a man who refuses to have his own philosophy will not even have the advantages of a brute beast, and be left to his own instincts. He will only have the used-up scraps of somebody elses philosophy; which the beasts do not have to inherit; hence their happiness. Men have always one of two things: either a complete and conscious philosophy or the unconscious acceptance of the broken bits of some incomplete and shattered and often discredited philosophy. (The Revival of Philosophy Why? The Common Man, 1950)

Last year, at a graveside service at which I was an attendant, the new-age celebrant and the funeral director lamentedwhile waiting for the family to arrivethe old-fashioned Catholic policy that forbade suicides being buried in consecrated ground.

How heartless it seemed! And yet Catholicism has the virtue of at least being unambiguous about suicide, regarding it objectively as a mortal sin; a rejection of the goodness, hope and sovereignty of God. Further, it ignores the commandment to love oneself. It negates the possibility of the person attaining spiritual maturity, and fulfilling their life-long vocation.

Obviously, pastoral sensitivity is required and we are reminded by the Scriptures not to judge anything before its time, and that the Lord know those that are His. It is God who passes the ultimate judgment on our lives; we may be wiser in our judgments to give the sufferingnow deceasedindividual the benefit of any doubt, while giving due care and attention to those people hurt, angry or confused by a friend or family members suicide.

Nonetheless, a difficult question remains. When the Christianised culture presented an unambiguous belief about suicide, that it was a terrible denial of life, would people contemplating such a step have been deterred in some instances and encouraged to look for other ways of coping with their extreme distress?

In his novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky defined Christian love in a way that appealed to people as different as Dorothy Day and Flannery OConnor: Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing compared to love in dreams.

Love is not just compassionate and helpful and this conviction of a harsh and dreadful love ratified and reinforced the taboo by denying to those who had committed suicide the right to be buried in consecrated graveyards, in the hope that anyone tempted, in the midst of despair, might fight their moment of weakness, and constrain their harmful emotions.

Chesterton wrote that most suicides result when people lose sight of all the goodness, beauty and wonder of the world, and focus instead on their own present bad feelings.

Certainly Chestertons judgment was offered in a different era from our own. The euthanasia movement has introduced a newly positive attitude to suicide, which challenges in the deepest and most poignant way our judgment of the value of life and death.

And yet, Chesterton is right, especially about many young peoples suicides. If only theyd waited until the grief over a cheating boyfriend or girlfriend had passed; if only theyd allowed time to provide perspective on the shame of an embarrassing episode at high school; if only theyd sorted out access arrangements so they could see their children.

Tribulations will pass, however hard this may be to realise at the time. A concert of voices and consistent teaching that suicide was wrong would have saved many lives. They wont get this unequivocal teaching from society. The Church at least must maintain its historic teaching about suicide if it wants to save some lives.

Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, a reverent man blest with acuity, observed a link between a persons spirit and their emotions. He said that if a person neglects their spirit, it continues to demand attention, but its demands are expressed negatively through anger, depression or a generalised anxiety.

Obviously, when Darwin, Freud, Marx and contemporary scientism have declared human spirituality a delusion, or proclaimed its irrelevance, and many people have accepted this perspective, then anxiety, anger and depression resulting from mans repressed and denied spirit will dominate many of those same lives.

Chesterton, speaking again about the need for a logical, consistent philosophy that would guide us in a good, life-enriching direction, also said:

Religion might approximately be defined as the power which makes us joyful about the things that matter. Fashionable frivolity might, with a parallel propriety, be defined as the power which makes us sad about the things that do not matter. (The Frivolous Man, The Common Man, 1950).

This article appeared in the quarterly newsletter of the Australian Chesterton Society, The Defendant (Autumn 2021). It has been republished with permission. A longer version appears in the June 12 edition ofNews Weekly, the magazine of the National Civic Council, and may be read onlinehere.

Read this article:

Lamenting suicide while promoting assisted suicide: where's the logic in that? MercatorNet - MercatorNet

TheTo the Rescuegame has partnered with thePetfinder Foundation in order to help support real-world animal shelters around the country.

To the Rescueis a simulation video game developed by Little Rock Games and published by Freedom Games, coming to PC and Mac via Steam, as well as the Nintendo Switch, sometime in fall 2021, and will retail for $19.99.

Twenty percent of the proceeds from each sale will go to the Petfinder Foundation, which describes itself as a public charity assisting animal shelters and rescue groups to prevent the euthanasia of adoptable pets.

Players will manage an animal shelters resources, aiming to find homes for adoptable dogs and build a solid reputation within their community.

When we chose the charity partner for our game we wanted to make sure our donation would have the biggest impact possible, Olivia Dunlap, co-founder of Little Rock Games, said in a press release. Were proud to partner with the Petfinder Foundation and are overjoyed thatTo The Rescue!will have a tangible impact both raising awareness of animal shelters and helping fund their amazing efforts.

Dunlap was also one of the lead developers of the game, which combines hand-drawn animation with real-world problems like overcrowding and managing medical issues, in addition to the headaches that come with fundraising, asshe explained in an interviewwith Dog ODayrecently.

On the other hand, you also get to play with puppies and help them find foster homes, in addition to knowing you found them the perfect family, so theres a good balance between the frustrations of the daily grind and the warm fuzzy moments.

The Petfinder Foundation was established in 2003 and has given more than $20 million to in need across the US, Canada and Mexico.

Hopefully more pet-themed video game news will be revealed during the E3 convention, which will take place from Saturday, June 12 to Tuesday, June 15.

For more information about the game, see the Freedom GamesandLittle Rock Games websites for more information. For more news, opinions and reviews about video games in general, be sure to check out our FanSided Network sister siteApp Trigger for the latest.

View original post here:

To the Rescue game partners with Petfinder Foundation - Dog of the Day

A petition signed by some 60American prelates asks to postpone the debate scheduled for next June on the refusal of Eucharistic communion to politicians who promote abortion and euthanasia. The initiative comes a fortnight after the Roman reframing of pro-life bishops.

On May 21, 2021, FSSPX.News reported on the Roman disavowal received a few days earlier by American pro-life bishops.

Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), had written to them in order to discourage them from establishing a line common to all American prelatesconcerning the refusal of sacramental communion to politicians encouraging abortion or euthanasia.

Stimulated by the Roman intervention, some 60bishops - including several of those considered to be progressive in the United States - have just written to the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), asking him to postpone any discussion on the topic.

Having before our eyes the text sent on May 7, 2021 by His Eminence Cardinal Ladaria, we respectfully ask that all the work on discussion and commission, at the level of the Conference, bearing on the theme of Eucharistic dignity and other questions raised by the Holy See, be postponed until the entire body of bishops can meet, say the signatories.

A letter in the form of a petition was signed by several American cardinals, Wilton Gregory of Washington, Blase Cupich of Chicago, and Sean OMalley of Boston.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York, would have been the originator of the letter, but his name has since been withdrawn from the text, at his request, specifiedaspokesperson for the archdiocese who did not wish expand more on the subject.

In the Vatican, several senior officials of the Secretary of State confirmed to The Pillar news site that the text of the 60bishops had been communicated to the Vatican before its publication by Cardinal Cupich, who had come to Rome in person.

The same high prelate had also intervened successfully last January, in order to persuade the Holy See to bypass a fairly critical statement with regard to the new American administration, which was to be published by Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles and president of the USCCB, the very day of the inauguration of Joe Biden as president of the United States.

Several bishops rushed to the aid of Abp. Gomez, in particular the Archbishop of San Francisco, Msgr. Salvatore Cordileone, who spoke to express his pain at the controversy aroused and at the maneuvers of those who want to interfere in the normal operation of the USCCB.

But the president of the Episcopal Conference does not seem ready to give up: in a memorandum sent on May 21 to all the bishops, the prelate, who does not mention the petition received a few days earlier, specifies that the discussion on Eucharistic communion will take place in June as planned, at the next meeting of the USCCB.

I am grateful for the way the Doctrine Committee approached its work and for the good advice we have received from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: so I look forward to our plenary meeting, concludes the Archbishop of Los Angeles.

You don't have to be a psychic to understand that conservative and progressive prelates are polishing their weapons on the eve of a meeting that promises to be under high tension.

Read the rest here:

Refusal of Communion: The Discussion Heats Up Among American Bishops - FSSPX.News

This is the final in a four-part series on ethics at the end of life.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had this to say about the end of life:

Why, aside from the demands of religion, (is it) more praiseworthy for a man grown old, who feels his powers decrease, to await his slow exhaustion and disintegration, rather than to put a term to his life with complete consciousness? In this case, suicide is quite natural, obvious, and should by right awaken respect for the triumph of reason.

And this:

To die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly. Death of ones own free choice, death at the proper time, with a clear head and joyfulness, consummated in the midst of children and witnesses: so that an actual leave-taking is possible while he who is leaving is still there, likewise an actual evaluation of what has been desired and achieved in life, an adding-up of life all of this in contrast to the pitiable and horrible comedy Christianity has made of the hour of death.

Contrast Nietzsches moral vision about the end of life with that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, writing during the Nazi era and in awareness of its euthanasia campaign against what the Nazis called life unworthy of life:

If we nevertheless must say that self-murder is reprehensible, we can do so not before the forum of morality or of humanity, but only before the forum of God. The self-murderer is guilty before God alone the creator and lord of the persons lifeUnbelief hides from people in a disastrous way the fact that even self-murder does not deliver them out of the hand of God, who has prepared their destiny. Unbelief does not recognize, beyond the gift of bodily life, the Creator and Lord who alone has the right to dispose over creationThe right to self-murder breaks down only before the living God

At one level these two Germans the 19th century Nietzsche and the 20th century Bonhoeffer hardly could seem more different in their moral vision. Nietzsche favors suicide as a proud act of self-assertion before one falls into exhaustion and disintegration, an evocative term that aptly describes many peoples dying process. Bonhoeffer says precisely the opposite, that self-murder is reprehensible.

But at another level they appear to agree. It is only the demands of religion (Nietzsche) and only the living God (Bonhoeffer) that bans self-murder. Still today, it is true: The main reason for banning the hastening of death which in the context of rule of law and patient autonomy can only be informed-consent, advance-directed, voluntary assisted suicide is the belief that the Creator and Lord alone has the right to dispose over creation. Where that belief fades, the moral norm against hastening death also will fade.

The main reason for banning the hastening of death is the belief that the Creator and Lord alone has the right to dispose over creation.

There are, in fact, other good reasons not to give ground here. It should certainly be sobering that Nietzche went on to argue that physicians have a duty to participate in the ruthless suppression and sequestration of degenerating life, including the dying. Physicians indeed took the lead in engineering an involuntary euthanasia campaign in Nazi Germany that took more than 100,000 lives, which is the main reason Bonhoeffer took up the subject, and which he fiercely opposed.

Sometimes today one runs into accounts of medical personnel believing it to be their heroic responsibility to end the lives of patients they consider to be suffering too much or otherwise living on too long. Many medical ethicists believe it is not good for the medical profession to integrate killing into their work under any circumstances both we and they need to know that their job is to be for life, period. Here the ancient Greek Hippocratic Oath combines with the biblical tradition to set a moral boundary that many medical professionals still find to be properly impermeable. Physicians heal and comfort, never kill.

I was glad for that clear boundary as we undertook at-home hospice care for my father during his last 10 days of life. Everyone involved our private doctor, the hospice nurse who visited a few hours a week, the social worker and chaplain who offered their support, the home health aides whom we paid to keep us and Dad company overnight for the last week, and all family members understood that we were going to keep vigil for Dad until he drew his last breath.

I was glad for that clear boundary as we undertook at-home hospice care for my father during his last 10 days of life.

Some of these moments were excruciating, grievous and even horrifying. Dad himself, in some of his last lucid comments, wondered why it was taking so long for him to die. He was ready. Yet he, too, understood that no one caring for him was going to hasten his death, and as a loyal Catholic Christian he supported this decision and never challenged it.

Dad died in the morning of Dec. 28, 2020. He went when it was his time. Not a moment before.

I am glad my family and those who worked alongside us shared a moral consensus that death would not be hastened, but that our father must be made as comfortable as possible and must die in the company of his family. While it was excruciating, I preferred the in-home hospice care experience with my father over the hospital setting I have endured with other deaths. In some ways, it was a turning back of the clock to an earlier era. It was just us, Dad and God, until he took his last breath.

David P. Gusheeis a leading Christian ethicist. He serves as Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University and is the past president of both The American Academy of Religion and The Society of Christian Ethics. Hes the author ofKingdom Ethics,After Evangelicalism, andChanging Our Mind: The Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBTQ Christians. He and his wife, Jeanie, live in Atlanta. Learn more:davidpgushee.comorFacebook.

Also in this series:

Ethics at the end of life: How medicine and technology have changed the context of dying

Ethics at the end of life: The first ethical issue is not who decides but who accompanies

Ethics at the end of life: The ultimate ethical issue is whether we wait for death

Visit link:

Ethics at the end of life: Which moral vision shall govern at the end of life? - Baptist News Global