Random Writings from a Doctor's Chair

Confucianism and Traditional Chinese Religion

Labels: Religions

posted by Alex Tang @ 1:46 PM 0 comments

A Philosophy of Action

or why the Batman will not kill the Joker


In a crisis we are sometimes surprised that we act in a way contrary to the way we think we should act. This is because in our conscious and subconscious minds, we have a philosophy of action which forms the basis of our decision making and daily living. This philosophy may be articulated or identified clearly but for most of us, we are not aware of it. Such a philosophy of action is often acquired by enculturation.

The Batman or commonly know simply as Batman is a fictional comic character created by artist Bob Kane and writer Bill Finger. For some unknown reason, Bob Kane is the only one receiving official credits. The Batman first appeared in Detective Comics #27 in May 1939. The Batman is the alter ego of millionaire Bruce Wayne. While as a child, he witnessed the brutal murder of his parents. As he grew up, he devoted his life to training himself intellectually and physically to fight crime. In order to protect his identity he dons a bat-like costume and soon became known as the Batman. Unlike other costumed superheroes in the comics, he does not have any superpowers. Like James Bond, another fictional character, he depends on his wits, martial skills and cool sophisticated, technological advanced gadgets in his crusade for justice. But unlike James Bond, the Batman has a rule: “He does not kill.” That is why he does not carry a gun.

Over the years, Batman fought and overcame many villains. The name on top of his list of villains will be the Joker, a psychopathic homicidal madman who created death and mayhem whenever he appeared. He repeatedly escaped from Arkam Asylum. Aside from the death of many innocent victims of his crime, the Joker is also responsible for the brutal murder of Jason Todd (the second Robin), the crippling of Batgirl, and the death of Commissioner Gordon’s second wife, Sarah. In spite of all the personal tragedies in his life, the Batman still refuses to kill the Joker, even when he has the opportunities. It will be interesting to understand the philosophy of action of this fictional character.

Philosophy of Action

Our actions are often based, not on what we proclaim but on what we maintain. All of us have an underlying philosophy of action which dictates how we make decisions in a given situation. Often such a philosophy is not stated and lies in our unconscious.

Philosophy of action may be broadly categorized into three categories:

(1) Utilitarianism/Consequentialism (for the greatest good)
(2) Deontologism (principles are universal – sense of duty)
(3) Moral Virtue Ethics Theory (I am what I do)

A simplified explanation of these may be illustrated by philosopher Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson in the form of a moral dilemma:

Imagine that a trolley is going down a track. Further down the track are five people who do not hear the trolley and will not be able to get out of the way. Unfortunately, there isn’t enough time to stop the trolley before it hits and kills them. The only way to avoid killing these five people is to switch the trolley to another track. But, unfortunately, there is one person standing on that track, also too close for the trolley to stop before killing him. Now imagine an innocent bystander standing by the track switch who must make a choice; do nothing, which leads to the death of five people on the current track, or act to divert the trolley to the other track, which leads to the death of the single person.

A utilitarianist, also sometimes know as consequentialist’s response is to sacrifice the one person to save the five. To them, the action that leads to the greatest good to the greatest number of people is the correct action. In utilitarianism, the end justifies the means. John Stuart Mills is a foremost proponent of this philosophy. Another popular proponent of utilitarianism is Peter Singer, professor of Philosophy in Princeton University and in the University of Melbourne.

A deontologist may elect not to do anything. The principle ‘do not kill’ is universal which means that the rule of not killing cannot be broken. By an action to choose to save one or five will violate the duty not to kill. This will not be acceptable in the framework of this philosophy. Here the principle of the action is more important than the consequences. Immanuel Kant is very influential in the development of this philosophy.

A virtue ethicist may elect to sacrifice himself or herself by throwing his/her body into the path of the moving trolley in order to save it. Foremost in this philosophy is the building of character. Our action flows out of our character. This philosophy has ancient roots dating from Aristotle. Aristotle postulated that the ethical behaviour of a person is not from his choice (utilitarianism), or his actions/duty (deontologism). It arises from who this person is. He calls these virtues or what we nowadays call character; compassion, justice, courage, and tolerance. One of the prominent philosophers today is Alistair MacIntyre.

Philosopher Thomson now suggest another scenario

There is a surgeon with five patients. Each of his patients is dying from failure of a different organ and could be saved by a transplant. Since there are no organs available by normal channels, the surgeon considers drugging one of his (healthy) colleagues and removing his organs to use for transplants.

By killing one, many will be saved. This is utilitarianism. This is similar to the trolley story. The death of one will save the five. It is not the action (murder) but the consequences (five healthy persons) that is the key in this philosophy.


What is the Batman’s Philosophy of Action?

Over the decades from their initial encounter in Gotham City, the Joker has transformed from the Clown Prince of Crime to a mass murderer. He killed the second Robin, Jason Todd, paralysed Barbara Gordon (Batgirl), and shot and killed Lt. Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife. As many times, the Batman captured the Joker, as many times the Joker escaped. Being insane, Batman knew the Joker will never be persecuted. Knowing as he did that the Joker will continue to escape and hurt and kill people, why did the Batman not kill the Joker?

Batman has said many times that he refused to kill because in killing, he is no better than the criminals that he is sworn to fight. One would expect that he will make an exception with the Joker. I am sure he is aware of the hundreds of innocent lives that were lost and every more injured or crippled because he let the Joker live. This will be in line with utilitarianism thinking. This thought system will encourage the Batman to kill the Joker because this will prevent all the murders he will commit in the future. While it is bad to kill, yet killing one life will be the saviour of many other lives. In the Hush storyline, Hush asked the Batman, "How many lives do you think you've cost, how many families have you ruined, by allowing the Joker to live?...And why? Because of your duty? Your sense of justice?"

The Batman has ample opportunity to kill the Joker. He is holding the Joker's hands at the top of an unfinished office in the movie The Dark Knight. All he has to do is to let go and let the Joker fall to his death. Imagine the trolley scenario except the current track is onto the one person and switching the track will kill the five. The Joker still lives so obviously the Batman is not a utilitarianist.

While it may appear that Batman is a deontologist; that the act of killing is against his sense of duty to be not like the criminals he fights, however, his other actions do not support this conjecture. Batman as a masked vigilante often dangerously skirts the edge of the law and has been known to break the law when it suits his purpose. His Kantian ethics will not allow him to do this if he is a deontologist. Deontology is based on a sense of duty and its most well known proponent is Immanuel Kant. Of course, Immanuel Kant has never met the Joker.

"Is Batty a secret deontologist?" muses the Joker.

"I want my lawyer! Oh, that's right, I killed him too" (from The Dark Knight)
Our investigation into the existential question whether should Batman kill the Joker has evolved to why the Batman did not kill the Joker.

We have established that Batman does not subscribe to utilitarianism and Kantianism (odeontologism). That left us to consider virtue moral theory. While utilitarianism focus on the consequences of the action, odeontologism on the duty of actor, virtue theory is about whom the actor is, i.e. the character or virtues of the actor.

Batman/Bruce Wayne has very strong influential persons in his life. His father, Dr Thomas Wayne was a compassionate surgeon, industrialist and philanthropist. He believed in the goodness of people. Note that he organised the rich elite to help the poor during the depression in Gotham City and built the monorail system for the people. His death was partially due to the fact that he brought his family to the opera by monorail instead of by private car (see Batman Begins).

The butler Alfred was another influence and served as a surrogate father figure after the death of Thomas Wayne. Alfred exhibits strong elements of loyalty and integrity, looking after the family estates when Bruce was wandering around in search of himself. Though he disapproves of Bruce's nocturnal activities, he restricts himself to sarcastic remarks while availing himself to rescue the Batman and offer medical treatment when necessary. It takes a strong character not to impose his will on others and to remind in the shadow of another.

Dr. Thompson is another person who helped Bruce after the death of his parents. She provided the nurturing mother figure to balance Alfred's Yang with her Yin. A competent doctor, she chooses to devote her life to helping the poor and the helpless in slum alley.

Thomas Wayne, Alfred and Thompson did not act out of a sense of duty but because of who they are. It is their characters that dictate their actions, not the other way around. Bruce Wayne must have pick up this moral characteristics from them. In the storyline, Bruce Wayne: Fugitive, Bruce Wayne has an identity crisis. Is he the Batman and Bruce the man behind the mask; or Bruce Wayne and the Batman is the person behind the persona? As expected, the crisis was resolved when Bruce realised that the Batman was a means to an end (limiting the activities of the criminal elements by putting a fear in the criminal mind). This question resurfaced numerous times, for example in the story arch of No Man's Land and Knightfall (and Knightend).

Conclusion

Batman did not kill the Joker because it is not in his nature or character to kill. Like Gandhi who resort to non-violence to resist an unjust government, the Batman resort to non-lethal violence to resist a corrupt justice system and the criminal minds. It is in their strength of character that we must respect them. In the Batman mythos, built by many writers contributing to the character over the years, it is interesting to note that the fictional Batman has developed a philosophy of action. His “I do not kill” philosophy of action guides his actions and reactions. It will be good for us to examine ourselves to see if our philosophy of action is congruent with our stated philosophy of life. It may surprise many of us to discover that our philosophy of action is not consistent with our philosophy of life. This may explain why many of us do not “walk our talk.”

Labels: Christian living, Philosophy

posted by Alex Tang @ 12:52 PM 1 comments

Teaching of Values in Medicine

Recently I received an email about medicine with this equation

E² - evidence + experience = good medicine

I beg to differ from my learned colleague whom I respect very much. While the practice of medicine has improved with the introduction of evidence-based medicine, it is important to realize that evidence based-medicine is not the holy grail of medical standards. Even the highest level of meta-analysis has its limitation. It is just a statistical program which analyses data fed into it. It is important not to forget the old axiom: GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Also not everything that is done in the practice of medicine is available in the evidence-based medicine databases.

Experience is a good teacher but repetition is not a proof of expertise or even of competence. A doctor may be repeating the same mistake repeatedly. However, not repeating mistakes and increased competence may be achieved by combining evidence with experience. I believe that there is still another component to the equation. This component is good character. Thus I will suggest that the equation should be

E²GC- evidence + experience + good character = good medicine

I believed that good medicine can only be practiced by a doctor with good character. I have seen surgeons who have excellent surgical skills who could not bother with whom they operated upon. “The operation was successful but the patient died” was their creed. I have seen doctors who treat their patients as objects- some problems to be solved and then move on. True care, concern and compassion can only come out of good character. Good characters are formed by good beliefs.

It is a fallacy in many institutions of higher learning that knowing will automatically lead to believing. For example, if we teach our students to be compassionate to their patients, they will automatically be compassionate because of their knowledge. Unfortunately this is not true.

Educator Emeritus Professor Brian Hill of Murdock University identifies in How Learners Respond to the Teaching of Beliefs and Values the three dimensions in how students respond to the teaching of values. These dimensions are the psychological dimensions of the cognitive, the emotional, and the volitional. While writing about teaching in schools, I believe his findings have implications in centers of higher learning. The possible response of a student to the teaching of a value X may be:

Cognitive

(1) I don’t get it. What do you mean by X?

(2) Ah, I understand what you mean by X.

(3) I understand what you mean by X, but I don’t believe X is true.

(4) I accept your claim that X is true.

Emotional

(1) Knowing X makes no difference to me.

(2) I have a bad feeling about X.

(3) I don’t feel I can leave up to X

(4) I have a good feel about X.

Volitional

(1) I’m not willing to attach value to X in my life-priorities.

(2) I’m willing, so far as I can, to attach value to X in my life-priorities.

(3) I’m prepared to prioritise X in my own life, but I don’t regard it as something everyone else should necessarily prioritise.

(4) I’m prepared to prioritise X in my own life and, whenever appropriate, will commend its priority to others.

According to Hill, the cognitive plays a small role in the learning of values. The emotional dimension is more important and it is that dimension that influences the volitional in prioritizing its values. In the teaching of values, I agree with Hill that teachers have a tendency to use conditioning, coercion, indoctrination and persuasion as possible pedagogies.

Instead he suggests the following:

(1) I will model X in my own behaviour before students.

(2) I will, where necessary for the common good, require students to behave in the classroom in a manner consistent with X.

(3) I will encourage maturing students to engage in critical examination of the grounds for and against prioritizing X in their lives.

(4) I will represent to students that X, in my opinion, points to a defensible value by which to live, but I will respect and not penalize dissent.

Hill highlights that in the teaching of values, we need to be aware of the cognitive, emotional and volitional dimensions of learning. Our pedagogy must be based on these dimensions and should involve modeling, reflection and respect.

Reference:

Hill, Brian V., How Learners Respond to the Teaching of Beliefs and Values, Journal of Education and Christian Beliefs, 12:2 (2008) 101-113

Labels: Christian education, Medical education

posted by Alex Tang @ 5:01 PM 0 comments

The Ban

“Oh, my..” “Stop! Don’t say anymore” shouted Disciple Ah Kow waving a piece of parchment in front of his fellow disciple Ah Lek’s face. Ah Lek shut his mouth as he continued to read the Proclamation.

“By the spiritual authority granted to them, the Council of the Abba has forbidden anyone except its members to use the following words,
(1) God
(2) I
(3) We
(4) They
(5) You
This is to ensure the spiritual purity of these words as they pertain to the guardian of the faith.”

“We are a monastery. Everyday we pray to…”
“Arrh. Don’t say it,” warned Ah Kow. “Cannot say the ‘w’ word too.”
“Then how am…” stammered Ah Lek lapsing into silence.
“And how can …” “No ‘t’ word too. It has been done. It is the law. It has to be obeyed,” Ah Kow spoke slowly carefully choose his words.

“How can anyone banned the use of certain words? These words are in common usage!” Fumed Ah Lek as he started to tear the parchment. “No. Stop. Mustn’t tear,” warned Ah Kow, “holy paper.”

“So what are ..ur..the two person here should do?”

“This person does not know.”

“This two person must go to the chapel. It is time for service.”

The chapel service had already started when the two disciples crept into the seats at the back of the chapel. There was some confusion as the choir tried to sing a few hymns without using the five banned words.

“What’s this,” whispered Ah Lek looking at the chapel Bible. “Why are there so many blackened sections on the pages?” “Banned words” whispered Ah Kow in reply.

“Today’s reading is Psalms 77:1-2. _cried out to _ for help; _cried out to _ to hear me. When _was in distress, _sought _; at night _ stretched out untiring hands and my soul refused to be comforted.” Ah Lian finished reading and walked sheepishly back to her seat.

“…” said the congregation.

The sunlight was bright when Ah Lek and Ah Kow left the chapel. “What’s this,” said Ah Kow when he was handed another parchment. “Oh, no. The council have banned more things. A list of books. And soap! All are not supposed to use soap when bathing. It is now a banned item.”

“Why?” asked Ah Lek surprised. “Apparently in the Gospel it is said that Jesus went under the water and came up cleansed. He did not use any soap,” said Ah Kow reading from the parchment.

“Arrgh,” said Ah Lek thinking how the dorm would smell that evening.

“Here,” said Abba Ah Beng, handing them another patchment. “Another banned item from the Council of the Abba.”

“Pneuma or breath refers to the Holy Spirit,” Ah Kow read from the latest parchment, “It is therefore not appropriate for sinful humans to inspire the Holy One….”

“What! What!”

“They’ve banned breathing!”

picture credit

Labels: Ah Beng Stories

posted by Alex Tang @ 12:53 AM 0 comments

The Balanced Spiritual Person

Disciple Ah Lek went to the other brothers working in the field and said, “St. John said ‘Do not labour for the food which perishes’ (John 6:27) and St. Luke said ‘Mary has chosen the good portion’ (Luke 10:42).” He became such an nuisance that the disciples complained to Abba Ah Beng.

Abba Ah Beng instructed disciple Ah Kow, “Put Ah Lek in a cell with his Bible and nothing else.” Ah Lek was very happy to remain in the cool cell while his brothers worked in the hot sun. When dinner time came, Ah Lek was watching the door expectantly but no one came to call him for dinner.

After an hour, Ah Lek cannot stand his hunger so he went in search of Abba Ah Beng. Abba Ah Beng was relaxing under a Frangipani tree and a pleasant soft fragrant was in the air. He gave a satisfied burp when he saw his disciple Ah Lek.

“Has all the brothers eaten?”

“Yes we have,” replied Abba Ah Beng, “and we had chilli crabs as the main course!”

Ah Lek’s stomach convulsed at the thought of missing chilli crabs which is his favourite dish. "Why did you not call me?"

Abba Ah Beng said to him, “Because you are a spiritual man and do not need that kind of food. We, being carnal, want to eat, and that is why we work. But you have chosen the good portion and read the whole day long and you do not want to eat carnal food.”

Realising his misinterpretation of the scripture, Ah Lek said “Forgive me, Abba, for misusing the Holy words.”

Abba Ah Beng said to him, “Mary needs Martha. It is really thanks to Martha that Mary is praised. It is because of Martha that everyone is fed. There need to be a balance of Martha and Mary in our lives.”

“Mary is the sitting at the Lord’s feet and enjoying his presence and love.”

“Martha is providing the support so that the Lord’s work may be done.”

“Neither sister is independent of one another. However, there is another in the house who loves and empowers them.”

“Who is it? Is it the Lord?” asked Ah Kow who has joined them under the Frangipani tree.

“No,” answers Abba Ah Beng. “It is Lazarus who has experienced the power of a new life. A resurrected life.”

“Ah Lek, you think we are carnal because we work for a living and you are spiritual because you spend your time in prayer and reading scripture. A true spiritual man is a perfect balance of Martha, Mary and Lazarus. There is a time for work, a time for contemplation and a time for renewal.”

“This is like the Holy Trinity; the Father , Son and Holy Spirit who are in perfect communion and harmony with one another. Theologian Rahler called it the economy of the Trinty,” continued Abba Ah Beng. Like all preachers, once get started Abba Ah Beng found it hard to stop.

“This spiritual man is dying of hunger,” Ah Lek whispered to himself.

Abba Ah Beng looked at his miserable disciple and a faint smile appeared on his face.

“Go,” he ordered Ah Lek, “I told the kitchen to keep some chilli crabs and rice warm for you.”

Labels: Ah Beng Stories

posted by Alex Tang @ 12:51 AM 0 comments

Euthanasia for Christians

Euthanasia for Christians: Why, How and Because


Introduction: Social Attitude towards Death

Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

From The Poems of Dylan Thomas, published by New Directions. Copyright © 1952, 1953 Dylan Thomas.

Subject:
Dylan Thomas’ father had been a robust, militant man most of his life, and when in his eighties, he became blind and weak, his son was disturbed seeing his father become “soft” or “gentle.” In this poem, Thomas is rousing his father to continue being the fierce man he had previously been.

Each of the six stanzas has uniformity and a specific purpose:
Stanza 1: The first line is a command, “Do not go gentle into that good night.” Paraphrased, “Don’t give up easily.” The second line offers the speaker’s belief that even when old and infirm, the man should stay energetic and complain if necessary as long as he does not give in to death easily. Then line three again is a command, “Rage, rage against the dying of the light”: Fight, complain, rail against the oncoming of death.

Stanzas 2, 3, 4, and 5 each try to persuade the father to “rage against the dying of the light” by offering evidence of what wise, good, wild, and grave men have done. For example and to paraphrase stanza 2: Even though wise men know that they cannot keep death away forever and especially if they have not accomplished their goals in life, they don’t accept death easily; they “Do not go gentle . . . .” Similarly, in stanza 3, good men exclaim what might have been, their “frail deed” might have shone like the sun reflecting off the waters of a “green bay,” and they, therefore, “Rage, rage” against the oncoming of death. Likewise, in stanza 4, wild men whose antics seemed to shine as brightly as the sun and who thought they were so optimistic, but later realized they spent much of their life in grief, still they “Do not go gentle . . . .” And in stanza 5, grave men whose eyes are fading fast can still flash life’s happiness, as they “Rage, rage . . . . ”

Stanza 6: The speaker addresses his father. Paraphrased, “And so my father you are nearing death—yell at me, scream at me, cry out; to see you do that would be a blessing for me and I beg you to show me that militant man you once were: “Do not go gentle . . .”

Defining the Terms

Euthanasia is a term that has not been used consistently. In classical Greek, it means “good death.” In modern usage, it has taken a different, more specific meaning. Euthanasia has come ‘to mean that one person intentionally causes the death of another who is terminally or seriously ill, often to end the latter’s pain and suffering’

• Active Euthanasia
Usually when euthanasia is mentioned, it is meant active euthanasia i.e. with intention to cause death, an action was taken. For example if a father were to inject his son, who is in great agony as he was dying, with a lethal dose of a drug in order to end his son’s suffering, this will be active euthanasia. Also known as dignified dying.
• Passive Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is used to describe the action of withdrawing and withholding treatment with the results that death occurs as it would as a natural consequence of the disease process.
• Involuntary Euthanasia
Involuntary euthanasia is a compassionate act to end the life of a patient who is perceived to be suffering and could make a voluntary request, but has not done so. For example, if the same man with end stage lung cancer who wish to live as long as possible were given an overdose of barbiturate without his permission by his friend, the nurse who felt sorry for him, this will be involuntary euthanasia.
• Non Voluntary Euthanasia
Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when another person, out of compassion, does an action with the intention of ending the life of a suffering patient where the patient is unable to make a voluntary request (e.g. an unconscious, retarded or demented adult; an infant or child). For example, if a man with advanced Alzheimer’s disease and in great distress had his life taken by her daughter, this would be non-voluntary euthanasia.

Euthanasia is not…
• Refusing treatment
• An opportunity to get rid of the old folks
• Advanced Medical Directive (AMD)
• Doctors are killers

Framing the Issue
• The right to die
• The right to ask another to kill
• The right to ask a doctor to kill
• The right of a government policy to allow doctors to kill

A Biblical/Theological Approach

1. Is the practice/principle clearly supported by well-grounded biblical teaching?
2. Is the practice/principle compatible with well-grounded biblical teaching?
3. Is there a biblical/theological rationale for the practice/principle?
4. Is there extra-biblical support of the practice/principle from the study of general revelation?
5. Is there widespread historical acceptance and endorsement of the practice/principle within the history of the Christian church?


1. Is euthanasia clearly supported by well-grounded biblical teaching?

There is no well-grounded biblical teaching on euthanasia. In fact the bible does not mention euthanasia as defined as dignified dying. However the bible does teach about a good death.

What does the Bible teaches about death?

• In the Bible, the apostle Paul said the only reason for his life was to bring honour and praise to Christ. To love and serve Christ is life. For Paul himself (as for all Christians) death will mean being ‘at home with the Lord’ in heaven.
“For me to live is Christ and to die will be gain.”(Philippians 1:21)
Life is no something to cling to.
• Not even death can separate Christians from the love of Jesus:
“I am sure that not death, or life, or angels, or rulers, or things that now are, or things to come, or powers, or things in the sky, or things under the earth, or anything in the world can come between us and the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)
Death is not to be feared
• Jesus has prepared a place for Christians with him in heaven:
“Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not let your hearts trouble you. Believe in God, and believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms. And I am going now to prepare a place for you. I would not tell you this if it was not true. And after I have prepared a place for you, I will come back. I will take you to stay with me, so that you will be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going’.” (John 14:1-4)

Death is a transition to another part of our journey
(1) The death of Jacob (Gen. 48:1-49:33)

• Accept his death at the appointed time
• A dying father and a dying son (links relevance for the past with hope for the future)
• Continuing a way of life after his death to fulfil God’s purpose

(2) The death of Jesus
• Accepted his death at the appointed time (though decreed by evil authorities)
• A redemptive act
• To die as an act of surrender


2. Is euthanasia compatible with well-grounded biblical teaching?

Suicides in the Bible
Since euthanasia is considered a form of suicide, we shall look at some suicides in the Bible and see if there are any compatible teaching pertaining to euthanasia.

(1) Suicide of Abimelech

The first chronologically mentioned is Abimelech. After capturing the city of Thebez, he attacked a fortified tower in the centre of the city. The Old Testament noted “ Abimelech went to the tower and stormed it. But as he approached the entrance to the tower to set it on fire, a woman dropped an upper millstone on his head and cracked his skull. Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can’t say, ‘A woman killed him’.” So his servant ran him through, and he died.” (Judges 9:52-54). Scripture neither approves nor disapproves of this act of assisted suicide. It was noted as a fitting end to an evil man. “Thus God repaid the wickedness that Abimelech has done to his father by murdering his seventy brothers.” (Judges 9:56).

(2) Suicide of Samson

The next suicide though arguably as there was a good cause and with divine sanction, was that of Samson. “Then Samson reached towards the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on one and his left hand on the other, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived” (Judges 16: 29-30) Scripture passed no judgement on his act of suicide.


(3) Suicide of Saul and his armour bearer

The suicide of Saul and his armour bearer elicit more comment. ‘The fighting grew fierce around Saul, and when the archers overtook him, they wounded him critically. Saul said to his armor-bearer, Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me”.

But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his own sword and died with him.’ (1Samuel 31: 3-5). Saul is condemned in 1 Chronicles 10:13-14, Saul died because he was unfaithful to the Lord; he did not keep the word of the Lord and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the Lord. So the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse.Even though Saul killed himself by his own sword, the chronicler noted that God himself killed Saul for his unfaithfulness. His armor-bearer chooses to die with his king, an example of suicide by identification. There was no comment on it in the Scriptures.

(4) Suicide of Ahithopel

Ahithophel was King David’s counsellor. He became Absalom’s when Absalom rebelled against his father. David prayed that God would turn Ahithphel’s counsel into foolishness (2 Samuel 15:31b). When Ahithophel found that his advice was ignored by Absalom, he hanged himself.(2 Sam 17:23). Again, there was no comment in the Scriptures about his actions.

(5) Suicide of Zimri

Zimri came to the throne of Israel by assassination. The Israelites rebelled and besieged his city of Tirzah. “When Zimri saw that the city was taken, he went into the citadel of the royal palace and set the palace on fire around him. So he died, because the sins he had committed, doing evil in the eyes of the Lord and walking in the ways of Jeroboam and in the sin he has committed and had caused Israel to commit.” (1Kings 16:18-20). Here it was noted that his death was judgement for his sins.

(6) Suicide of Judas Iscariot

Judas Iscariot was the only suicide mentioned in the New Testament. When Judas saw that Jesus was condemned, he was filled with remorse and tried to return the money. Then he went and hanged himself. (Matt 27:3-5) There was no further comment on Judas in the Scripture, except that his apostleship was given to Matthias (Acts 1: 23-26).

It is interesting to note that in this brief survey of the seven suicides recorded in the Scriptures; the suicides of Abimelech, Saul and Zimri were recorded as direct judgement of God on their sins, even going as far as to say God killed Saul. The Scriptures were silent on the other four suicides, although the silence of Scripture is not the basis for positive argument, especially when the ignoble context in each case speaks for themselves.

3. Is there a biblical/theological rationale for euthanasia?

Compassion (1 Cor 13)

4. Is there extra-biblical support of euthanasia from the study of general revelation?

(1) Socrates. Sentenced for death, he could have fled Athens

(2) Stoic philosopher like Marcus Aurelius (movie Gladiator) and Seneca “If the room is smoky, if only moderately, I will stay; if there is too much smoke, I will go. Remember this, keep a firm hand on it, the door is always open.” – the argument for the open door.

(3) David Hume (18th Century) argues that suicide is not a transgression. “On Suicide” (1755)
• Disease belongs to the natural order of things.
• Disputed Aquinas that suicide harms the community in his “Essay”

(4) John Stuart Mill
• “one very simple principle” in his 1859 essay, On Liberty: so long as others are not harmed, we can do whatever we want with our bodies.
• “self-regarding” and “other-regarding acts”. We can on censure others for their other-regarding acts.
• State has no power to force an individual to act in his own interest

5. Is there widespread historical acceptance and endorsement of euthanasia within the history of the Christian church?

(1) Augustine (fourth century) condemned suicide basing on sixth commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” (Exo. 20:13). However Augustine distinguish private killing and killing endorsed by God.

(2) Suicide and martyrdom
Is martyrdom acceptable and why?

(3) Thomas Aquinas (13th century) held that suicide is sinful
• because it leave no time for repentance.
• life is a gift from God and only God can take it back
• deprive community of talented people
• deprive children of their parents
• unnatural, going against the instinct of self preservation

(4) Immanuel Kant oppose suicide
• an act is right if it is based on a universal rule. Suicide is not universal because it is self-interest
• immoral because it treats people as an ends. No one’s will is absolute
• to respect the sacred value of lives of others, one must respect one’s own
• “Human beings are sentinels on earth and may not leave their posts until relieved by another beneficent hand. God is our owner; we are his property.” “On Suicide” in Lectures on Ethics.

Conclusion

There is therefore no theological/biblical basis for Christians to support euthanasia.

What happens if Euthanasia is legalised?: The Oregon Experience

The ten years data of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (ODDA) October 1997 which allows physicians to write prescription for lethal drugs to terminally ill patients are available.

The ODDA is based on
• Patient self-determination
• Professional immunity and integrity
• Public accountability

The Oregon experience
• Relatively few patients
o Oregon did not become a ‘suicide center’
o In 10 years, 541 Oregon residents received lethal prescriptions but only 341 actually ingested the drugs.
o While figures have risen over the years, this is still a very low proportion of Oregon’s total deaths
o ODDA served as a catalyst to improved end-of-life care among Oregon’s doctors

• Other states have not followed
• Patients seem to be free from coercive influences (burden, financial)
o Of the 341 patients euthanized; 39% was “because of concern of being a burden” and less than 3% was “because of financial pressure.”

Lessons from the Oregon experience
• Palliative care as the alternative for end-of-life care
• Better pain control
• Better medication with minimal side-effects
• Better diagnosis and treatment of depression

Conclusion

Euthanasia (good death) for Christians is to live well and to die well at the appropriate time
• Die at your appointed time
• Leave behind a legacy of life-in-Christ
• Look forward to an eternity-with-Christ
• As you have lived, so shall you die

Soli Deo Gloria

Labels: Biomedical ethics, Euthanasia

posted by Alex Tang @ 12:59 PM 0 comments

Walking on Water

One bright sunny morning, Abba Ah Beng was in a small boat on a lake below the Sow Lin Monastery. In the same boat were his disciples Ah Lek and Ah Kow, and a visiting monk, Abba Isaac. They were sharing a Christian meditation on Jesus walking on water (Matt.14: 22-34).

“Why was Jesus walking on water?” asked Abba Ah Beng of his disciples.

“To get to the other side,” answered Ah Lek innocently, “because there were no more Air Asia tickets?” Whack! “Ouch.” “Be serious,” said Abba Ah Beng, his face turning a darker shade of crimson. “To prove that he can?” ventured Ah Kow cautiously, eyeing the bamboo fan that Abba Ah Beng was holding.

“And why does he need to prove that?” Abba Ah Beng asked, his facial colour returning to normal. The two disciples developed a sudden interest in examining their feet while Abba Isaac looked at the clouds above with a hint of a smile on his face.

“To show the disciples that he is more than a miracle worker? That he is the Son of God?” Ah Kow ventured an answer. Abba Ah Beng beamed at the response looking at Abba Isaac. “Aiya, showoff,” whispered Ah Lek under his breath.

“Jesus wanted to expand his disciples’ understanding of who he is,” explained Abba Isaac in his lecturer voice, “by proving that he could defy the laws of nature by walking on water. He also wanted to show that this ability may apply to others if they have enough faith as he demonstrated with Peter also walking on water. Unfortunately, Peter doubted and he sank. As Abba Joseph had written, it is our faith that keeps us afloat.”

“It is time for me to get back to the monastery,” Abba Ah Beng said, standing up in the boat. Then he climbed over the left side of the boat. To the disciples’ astonishment, he only sank until his knees and then was able to stand upright. They watched Abba Ah Beng’s receding back with their mouths open. Abba Ah Beng moved from the boat towards the distant shore opposite the monastery. The further he walked, the higher he rose until he was walking on the surface of the water. When he reached the shore he turned round and looked at Abba Isaac. Abba Isaac too climbed out of the boat and walked towards the shore in a similar manner as Abba Ah Beng.

“Wow,” exclaimed Ah Lek as they watched the retreating back of Abba Isaac, “what faith, man! I didn’t know Abba Ah Beng and Abba Isaac can walk on water.”

“Think we can too?” Ah Kow wondered.

“Of course,” said Ah Lek, “We have faith don’t we? Let us claim some more faith.”

So both the disciples sat in the boat, screwed their eyes tight and in their minds claim greater faith to walk on water. After a few seconds, Ah Lek said, “Let’s go! Let’s go over the right side so that we can reach the shore before Abba Isaac.”

Ah Lek climbed over the right side of the boat and promptly sank. He rose to the surface sputtering water. “You have not enough faith,” laughed Ah Kow, “let me show you.” Ah Kow climbed over the right side and also sank. “Ahh! Help! Cannot swim.” “Don’t worry,” shouted Ah Lek, “I am a qualified lifeguard.”

Meanwhile the two Abbas were watching from the shore. “Do you think we should tell them that the lake is very shallow on the left side of the boat?” Abba Ah Beng mused to Abba Isaac.

Unexamined spiritual assumptions may be very dangerous

Labels: Ah Beng Stories

posted by Alex Tang @ 12:49 PM 0 comments

Organs for Sale

Organ donation has always been regarded as an altruistic act. Thus all government, professional societies and ethics committees regard it as unethical to allow for sales of kidney. Altruism is implied that a person donates an organ (usually a kidney) without coercion and receiving any compensation including financial ones. Their only reward is satisfaction in their self-sacrificial action. Unfortunately there are not many altruistic persons around. Most organs for transplants come from brain dead or dead donors (cadaveric organ transplants). Very few living persons come forward as donors. The result is a scarcity of organs for transplants which results in thousands of deaths for want of organs.

By not allowing sales of organs, these organisations have unwittingly created a black market for organs sales. Unscrupulous middlemen have arisen to take advantage of the needs of organs. In countries where the laws were not so stringent, a commercial transplantation trade of transplant tourism has arisen where one may buy a kidney if one is willing to pay and not ask too many questions. There is no protection for donors. Horror stories abound of people being kidnapped and their kidneys removed, the poor exploited or prisoners forced to donate their kidneys. The middlemen reaped large amount while the donors were given pittance. In a recent court case in Singapore, the donor received $23,700 for his kidney out of the $300,000, magnate Tang Wee Sung paid the middleman. This is the unregulated free market!

In an effect to address the scarcity of organs for transplantation, the Singapore government has taken the bold step of legalising the monetary ‘compensation’ for kidney donors (The Straits Times, Nov 1, 2008). The amount which may be in five or six figures will compensate the donors for their kidneys. It is also suggested that all transplants be regulated through an independent organisation to ensure that the donors will not be taken advantage of. Singapore sidestepped the ethical issue by allowing monetary compensation rather than sales. This is the semi-regulated approach to organ donations.

A third alternative is the Iranian model which the fully regulated model. In Iran, all organs transplants are done through a state-sponsored body which regulate organ transplant in a transparent, non-commercial, and middle-man free process. Donors are paid by this government sponsored agency. It has worked well so far and in Iran there is no waiting list; all patients (rich, poor, educated, uneducated) have receive their transplants. Iran has a government sponsored healthcare system so the model may not work in other countries.

Is there a difference between a sale and compensation? A sale is a business transaction while a compensation is something given for something lost or given. However when it comes to human organ, it is a thin line between the two. It is interesting to note that while it is unethical to sell one’s kidney, however it is acceptable to sell one’s sperms or eggs or in some countries, blood. The moral ethical basis that lies behind the forbidding of sale of human organs come from the group of moral theories called virtue-based theories. The virtue-based theories are based on the premise that human beings are basically good and altruistic. Reality has however shown how far that is from the truth. It may be time for us to review the ethics of human organ sales.

picture credit

Labels: Biomedical ethics, Organ Donation

posted by Alex Tang @ 3:15 PM 0 comments

You Can't Take It With You

The first thing that come to mind when someone says, “You can’t take it with you” are our jewelleries, companies, fame and fortune. Very few of us think of our bodies, those vessels which have embodied our souls for so many years. Our bodies are being discarded as our souls move into the hereafter. Like discarding a dirty shirt for a clean one, we exchange our mortal bodies for immortal ones.

How many of us ever think of the mortal bodies we leave behind except to think of its disposal-cremation or burial? Yet our mortal left-behind bodies may still be of use to others. Yes, I am talking about organ donation.

Labels: Love, Organ Donation

posted by Alex Tang @ 3:59 PM 0 comments

A Time to Be Doing, A Time to Be Still

A Time for All Things

There must be times in your life that you yearn for more of God than
your schedule will allow. We all have. We are tired, stressed by our
jobs, crowded by friends and burdened by obligations. We have abundant
life but are too busy for it! Even good obligations and commitments
can turn toxic to our soul. Christian author, Madeleine L’Engle
resonates within us when she writes in A Circle of Quiet that “(e)very
so often I need a OUT; something will throw me into total
disproportion, and I have to get away from everyone- away from all
those people I love most in the world-in order to regain a sense of
proportion.” However this is more than just a need to get away. There
is also a need to get to (somewhere). And in our case, the need is to
get to the presence of God. In other words, we need to go to a
spiritual retreat.

“Spiritual retreat,” explains Emilie Griffin in Wilderness Time, “is
simply a matter of going into a separate place to seek Christian
growth in a disciplined way. Retreat offers us the grace to be
ourselves in God’s presence without self-consciousness, without
masquerade. Retreat provides the chance to spend time generously in
the presence of God. In such time, God helps us to empty ourselves of
cares and anxieties, to be filled with wisdom that restores us.”

Jesus himself sought times of quiet and solitude. The evangelist Mark
tells us in middle of a busy schedule, “(v)ery early in the morning,
while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to
a solitary place, where he prayed. Simon and his companions went to
look for him, and when they found him, they exclaimed: "Everyone is
looking for you!"” (Mark 1:35-37). This is not an isolated incident
for Jesus. After his miraculous feeding of the five thousand,
“(i)mmediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on
ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After leaving
them, he went up on a mountainside to pray” (Mark 6:56-46).

The evangelist Matthew too made a similar observation of Jesus: “After
he had dismissed them, he went up on a mountainside by himself to
pray. When evening came, he was there alone.” (Matthew 14:23). Luke
too remarks on this peculiar characteristic of Jesus: “Yet the news
about him spread all the more, so that crowds of people came to hear
him and to be healed of their sicknesses. But Jesus often withdrew to
lonely places and prayed.” (Luke 5:15-16). It appears that the more
his fame spreads, the more he is in demand as a teacher and healer,
the more Jesus looks for a quiet place, to be away from the crowd that
he serves. And what does he do when he is alone? He prays. He commune
with his Father. As soldiers in battle in the frontline need to be
rotated back to the rear to rest or team sportspersons have time out,
Jesus after every spiritual battle needs a retreat; a retreat, not in
the sense of a setback but in the concept of a timeout. It is in his
Father that Jesus finds rest.

It is more than rest that Jesus receives in his retreats. He also gets
wisdom. “One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray,
and spent the night praying to God. When morning came, he called his
disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated
apostles…”(Luke 6:12-13). These twelve men will transform the world
and brings God’s plan of redemption to another level. The wisdom comes
from being in the presence of God. To achieve this type of wisdom
needs trust.

For us, a spiritual retreat requires trust in the Holy Spirit. A
retreat is not like a church camp, a conference or a vacation- where
activities may be planned in advance and we know the agenda (mostly to
have a good time, hopefully to learn something). In a retreat, we do
not know what God has in store for us, but we are willing to take the
risk to find out. We participate in confidence that the Holy Spirit is
entirely trustworthy and will never lead us to harm.

There is a need for us to persist in Scripture reading, journal and
prayer even though the silence and solitude frightens us. In a group
retreat, there is a strong temptation to flee the presence of God into
the company of friends where it is safe and comfortable. To engage in
idle group gossip takes our attention from having to be silent before
the Lord, and the discomfort of the work of the Holy Spirit on our
souls. However it is to our good that we persist. The Psalmist says,

He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High
will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress,
my God, in whom I trust."

Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare
and from the deadly pestilence.

He will cover you with his feathers,
and under his wings you will find refuge;
his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. (Psalm 91:1-4)

It is in a spiritual retreat that you have the time and opportunity to
discover who you are, and to whom do you belong to. That is wisdom
indeed.

A Retreat Prayer,

Father, we approach You with great expectations and fear. We have high
expectations in this encounter with you. Yet we are fearful because in
Your light and holiness, we may discover things about ourselves that
we are not comfortable with. Help us to discover and face the truth
about ourselves. May the Holy Spirit works powerfully within our
hearts, minds, and souls. May we rediscover ourselves in new ways and
give us the strength to be transformed to the likeness of Your Son.
Give us more love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

Father, we ask for a more intense revelation of Yourself to us in this
retreat. We want to know You, know more of You and to love You. Help
us to break the many false concepts of You that we have developed over
the years, some of which we have made into idols. Help us to know You
as revealed in Your Son, Jesus Christ.

Give us the grace to follow you. The road ahead is hard and rugged. We
are afraid, O Lord. We are afraid of pain and suffering. We are afraid
of things that you may ask us to give up. We are afraid of illness,
loneliness, dryness, despair and constant stress. Know our weaknesses
and be gentle with us. Forgive us in our failures when You test us. As
you make a saint of St. Peter, make a saint of us, we pray.

Most of all, Lord. We ask that you will show us the splendour of what
you have given us: our life in You; a life lived here on earth with
Christ. We ask that you show us and lead us into simplicity of life
and of heart. Lord, help us to know you in our daily life, to know you
in the breaking of bread, in song, in fellowship, and in the cleansing
of our hearts by penitence and prayer.

In the Name of Your Son we pray.

Amen

“Isn’t it time for you to go for a spiritual retreat?”

.

Labels: eReflection, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation

posted by Alex Tang @ 10:46 AM 0 comments