Canada is rapidly moving toward the assisted killing of people. The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons have already developed policy saying that when a patient requests assistance in dying, if the doctor will not assist then the doctor must make an effective referral. In another setting, if a man requests that someone kill his wife, the man who made the request is guilty of the killing. In the same way, is the doctor making the request not also responsible for the killing? There are a number of doctors who believe this to be the case.
Recently reviewing an essay on Organ Donation which I wrote in 1998, I came across some thoughts on the definition personhood. How a “person” is defined plays a vital role in how we approach things like vital organ donation and assisted death. Our society is rapidly moving to a definition of personhood that connects a person’s intrinsic value to their ability to think. Those with less ability to think are considered to have less value and are more easily deemed expendable.
Recently I read a blog post by Christopher Bogosh titled, Fetal Body Parts, Brain-Dead Donors, and Inconsistent Christians. He writes,
While Christians are irate when it comes to abortion and fetal body parts, they are peculiarly silent when it comes to harvesting organs from brain-dead organ donors—Christians are gravely inconsistent concerning this matter.
Is this true that many Christians’ beliefs are inconsistent when it comes to their approach to organ donation?
Included in the argument Christopher writes,