Man Defiles What God Insists

The brazen modern-day desecration of the Sixth Commandment

By Khen Lim



Image Source: news.com.au

Of all of God’s Commandments, the one that man has persistently defied and defiled is the Sixth. And it has done so in the most abominable fashion. In this study of the Sixth Commandment, we look at the acts of modern society in its attempt at destroying man’s relationship with God, the creation link, the right of the individual against the divine right.

Introduction

It was only at the end of World War Two that the civilised world discovered the extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. Notwithstanding the Japanese brutalities on the other side of the world, Hitler’s regime had put to death more than 6 of the 9 million Jews across the European diaspora. And the manner in which many of them died had given mankind a worrying reason to judge themselves and where they were headed.

Euthanasia might have been a new word at that time but it appears not so new actually. On trial for euthanasia, a doctor offered the following rationale:

“My underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves. Such considerations should not be regarded as inhuman nor did I feel it in any way to be unethical or immoral. I am convinced that if Hippocrates were alive today, he would change the wording of his oath, in which a doctor is forbidden to administer poison to an invalid even on demand. I have a perfectly clear conscience about the part I played in the affair. I am perfectly conscious that when I said yes to euthanasia, I did so with the greatest conviction, just as it is my conviction today that it is right.” (Emphasis added)

That doctor is Karl Brandt and those words were said during the Nuremberg Trials in 1948. Brandt was a Nazi physician who led the Third Reich’s ethnic cleansing programme and had therefore seen to the deaths of millions of Jews who he considered were flawed, defective or simply not congruent to the Aryan ideal. Consider the key words and phrases Brandt spoke.

-         “the desire to help individuals”

-         “who could not help themselves”

-         “administer poison to an invalid even on demand”

-         “my conviction today that it is right”

(above) Dr Karl Brandt - Image Source: theapricity.com

In trying to understand Brandt’s words, the one disturbing piece of fact is that, he felt he was right in what he did. His “perfectly clear conscience” led him to believe that he was “helping those who could not help themselves.”

Dr Leo Alexander, a psychiatrist working from the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes in Nuremberg wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1949 that, the underpinnings of the Nazi ethnic cleansing programme were begun before the outbreak of war. There was, by then, a consciousness within the German medical profession that there existed “such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.” And with that, the Germans pre-empted the Holocaust to confront the “socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans” and cleanse the populace of elements that were considered undesirable.   

Because the German medical profession had already convinced themselves the righteousness in killing sick Germans, the next step became a matter of formality as Hitler took the same idea on to a much larger world scale with his genocidal program installed in 24 concentration camps (Jewish Virtual Library). Of these, six were very deadly:

Camp	Location	Usage	Deaths
Auschwitz-Birkenau	Poland	Apr 1940 – Jan 1945	1.1 million
Belzec	Poland	May 1942 – Aug 1943	600,000
Chelmno	Poland	Dec 1941 – Apr 1943; Jun 1944 – Jul 1944	152,000
Janowska	Ukraine	Sept 1941 – Nov 1943	200,000
Majdanek	Poland	Jul 1941 – Jul 1944	80,000
Sobibor	Poland	May 1942 – Oct 1943	250,000
Treblinka	Poland	Jul 1942 – Nov 1943	900,000

Because the attitude of the medical profession was so gradual, ordinary Germans did not see it coming. And so by the time the Holocaust came, it was so natural that nobody in Germany really felt the impact. Besides the Third Reich had deliberately chosen locations for the camps that were far removed from the German population that it was not easy to really know what was happening.

When the Allied forces shockingly discovered these camps, news spread fast about the Nazi monstrosity against humankind. In some cases we know of, the Allied forces basically dragged local German communities to the camps to view the atrocities themselves in order that they understand the magnitude of the Third Reich’s genocide.

By 1947, the British Medical Association (BMA) tasked themselves to redefine the stance of the medical profession, saying that because doctors like Karl Brandt “lacked both the moral and professional conscience,” the Holocaust was inevitable. The BMA asserted that the medical profession, whether in practice or research, “must never be separated from eternal moral values” and that it must never be a partner in crime “in the destruction of life by murder, suicide and abortion.”

At this point, the medical practice had been firmly founded on values reflected by not just the Hippocratic Oath but also the Declaration of Geneva, which was adopted by the General Assembly of World Medical Association in Switzerland in 1948. The Hippocratic Oath found in the New Zealand Medical Association’s Handbook underscores the value of life upheld by the medical profession:

“I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel, and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.” (Emphasis added)

Of the entire Declaration of Geneva, this was the important part:

“…even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” (Emphasis added)

As for the 1949 International Code of Medical Ethics, this was the universal stand adopted:

“…a doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.” (Emphasis added)

All of these declarations have a common but fundamental basis. And that basis forms the cornerstone of the Judeo-Christian ethic founded on the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13) that says, “You shall not murder.” At the centre of all this was God who commanded that the unauthorised taking of human life is morally wrong regardless of the circumstances.

But how times change. Over the many ensuing decades, medical ethical thinking – conveniently becoming bioethics – has transformed dramatically. Contrary to expectations, abortion has actually escalated since. In the British Isles alone, more than 180,000 abortions are performed yearly or one in every five live births. The ratio worsens to one in three in America. In some former Eastern Bloc countries, the ratio is even reversed.

China’s health ministry revealed that in the last forty years, as many as 336 million abortions were carried out (Johnsen, E. 2013). The figures get more staggering and depressing: There are more than 13 million abortions annually or 1,500 every hour in China. TIME magazine reports that China’s rate of abortion is at 1 in 100 people, which is “well above global averages” (Jiang, 2013).

With the exception of China, the usual reasons for the abortions centre do not centre on some congenital disease or life-threatening circumstances (between mother and child) or traumatic rape. In most cases, the mother was anxious about preserving her lifestyle and a child would get in her way. In China, on the other hand, four decades of the one-child policy have forced families to elect abortion or have the government “choose” it for them. Invariably Chinese families knew no other option.

Comparisons with early post-war declarations by the medical profession reveal a reversal of the intended effect. Instead of preserving life and hence observing the Sixth Amendment, the world had gone off in a tangent headed for individual liberalism, placing priority on the self and not God. In August 1970, the Declaration of Geneva was no more – the 24th World Medical Assembly that convened in Norway made sure of that. Called the Declaration of Oslo, it disavowed the previous by legitimising abortions. It did so by establishing the precedence that abortions are legitimate “where the vital interests of the mother conflicts with those of the unborn child.” So long as their respective national bodies consent, abortions were now no longer an offence.

But the Declaration of Oslo crossed swords with the Judeo-Christian ethic. Whereupon once we could rely on the Ten Commandments to know to differentiate right from wrong, we have veered to the liberal standard of placing far greater importance on ‘individualised conviction and conscience.’ The moral fabric has been discarded. What we were now taught was to trust our feelings and abide by our consciousness. Moral values were considered relative to what you believe is or isn’t moral. The Sixth Commandment no longer had a place in influencing such outcomes.

A further nail to the coffin arrived in 1983 when the 35th World Medical Assembly convened in Venice, Italy. The Declaration of Geneva was further pulverised. Just the wordings alone told the story of the inevitable shift – the original phrase “from the time of conception” was now watered down to “from its beginning” thus paving the way for deliberate misinterpretations to predominate. The question of when human life actually began was foremost but with the change in wording, abortion could safely proceed without legal complications and without contravening the ethical medical practice.

Inevitably the International Code of Medical Ethics was the next to capitulate. Again the matter of contextual relevance was vigorously deliberated. While the original wording was “…from the time of conception until death,” the liberals among the medical elite revised it to say, “A physician must always bear in mind the obligation of preserving human life.” By removing the original words, there was now no further consternation over what constituted a life in the womb – the fact was simple, a growing foetus was categorically not a human. And with that, the revised words simply supported the medical profession’s standard of life preservation albeit with the word ‘life’ redefined to fit the agenda of the abortionists.

Why and how have we reached this point in our human life? How did all this come to pass? Where did they all originate from?

Biblical evidence

There are two places in the Bible that offer us insights into compassionate killing. One is in Judges 9 and the other is in 2 Samuel 1.

In the first one, the Bible tells this story:

“So Abimelech came to the tower and fought against it and approached the entrance of the tower to burn it with fire. But a certain woman threw an upper millstone on Abimelech’s head, crushing his skull. Then he called quickly to the young man, his armour bearer, and said to him, ‘Draw your sword and kill me, so that it will not be said of me, ‘A woman slew him.’ So the young man pierced him through and he died. When the men of Israel saw that Abimelech was dead, each departed to his home.”  (Judges 9:52-55, NASB)

Abimelech was laying siege against the city of Shechem when he was informed that every leader of the tower of Shechem was all in one place. He then gathered his army to collect branches so that they could start a fire in the inner chamber and hence, burn all the thousand men and women alive inside (vv46-49) before he set forth for another town called Thebez. 

Image source: bibleoutlines.com

On hearing that there were also men and women with leaders of the city all gathered at the roof of the tower there, he set about to do the same thing but then an unnamed woman “threw an upper millstone” onto his head, crushing his skull (vv50-53).

Laying there dying, he asked his armour-bearer to put an end to his life because he did not want to be humiliated by news that his killer was a woman, much less with a millstone. In sparing him of the shame, the armour bearer pierced him with his sword. On knowing the Abimelech was dead, the men of Israel all went home (v.55). The next verse tells us that this was divine justice not only for the murder of his seventy brothers but also for the “wickedness of the men of Shechem” (vv.56-57). However we have no knowledge of what happened to the armour-bearer but not with the second example.

Image source: st-takla.org

In 2 Samuel 1, we learn of Saul attempting suicide but was not entirely successful but then an Amalekite happened to be nearby. In the chance dialogue, Saul asked the young man to kill him off. “Please stand beside me and kill me, for agony has seized me because my life still lingers in me” (v.9). It would be quite apparent that Saul wanted the Amalekite to complete – or assist him in – his suicide for him. To which he did and thereafter, removed his crown and bracelet and brought them to David quite likely looking for a reward (v.10). And David together with his men mourned and wept.

“David said to the young man who told him, “Where are you from?” And he answered, “I am the son of an alien, an Amalekite. Then David said to him, “How is it that you were not afraid to stretch out your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” And David called one of the young men and said, “Go, cut him down.” So he struck him and he died. David said to him, “Your blood is on your head, for your mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have killed the Lord’s anointed.’” (2 Samuel 1:13-16, NASB)

It’s clear that the Amalekite wasn’t expecting David’s question:

“Why were you not afraid to lift your hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?” (2 Sam 1:14, NASB)

And apparently, David wasn’t even waiting for his answer. Or rather before he could, he was killed. To David, the Amalekite’s confession was enough evidence to put him to death, putting into very sharp focus that regardless of the motive or reason, compassionate killing in God’s eyes remains abominable. Saul was gravely wounded but it didn’t matter. That he would have died eventually also didn’t matter. He wanted to be killed mercifully rather than be found in the enemy’s hands but that wasn’t an acceptable reason to God either. He was in sheer pain and getting the Amalekite to finish him off would have spared him the ordeal but again, God rejected this. If God did not authorised this killing, then it is not righteous in His eyes. David’s decision to execute the Amalekite must therefore be seen from these points.

And if it is from these that we establish the Christian position. Compassionate killing – or what we broadly know as euthanasia today – must be considered from a deontological standpoint that is best presented in Scripture in the form of the Sixth Commandment. Herein, we will try to join the dots to our present ethical and legislative challenges.

Establishing the etymological origins

My first recommendation is to view the Sixth Commandment from two fundamental standpoints. Firstly, in Genesis 1:26, God tells us that man was created in His image. This forms the premise in that what God creates that is in His image, man must not kill. The second standpoint, Genesis 9:6, warns us that, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” In other words, in a judicial killing, the ‘avenger of blood’ will act in God’s best interests and in that, he is not guilty of killing (Num 35:19).

These two standpoints appear evidently contradictory but that’s not all. The confusion stirred by varying translations of the Sixth Commandment will add further to it. Early translations such as that portrayed by the 1611 Authorised Version (better known as King James Version or KJV) said, “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13, Dt 5:17). Yet we know this to be wrong (more on this later). As it turns out, the actual translation reveals it to be, “You shall not murder” and the contrast in the use of the two different words couldn’t have been starker and more dramatic.

From Hebrew etymology, the error was derived from the source of the translation. Back during the days of the 1611 Authorised Version, the broad practice was to rely on the Latin Vulgate as the source origin, of which Jerome was a significant contributor. However as history has proven, the Latin Vulgate is itself deeply flawed but therein lies the mistake – the failure to distinguish ‘retzichah’ from at least ten other Hebrew words.

The word ‘kill’ has many Hebrew words with slightly different shades of meaning but only one translates directly to ‘murder’ and that is ‘retzichah (written as רצח).’ In the Jewish Torah, the word ‘retzichah’ is used to specifically refer to the criminal and premeditated act of killing a human being. The Pentateuch offers four such relevant instances including Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17-21, Numbers 35:16-31 and Deuteronomy 19:4-13. On the other hand, the other words take into account life for all classes of living beings and not just humans. Therefore if we were to be bound by “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” then it means we are to not kill at all no matter what the reason or motive or who tells us to. If that were the case, then all the bloodletting in the Old Testament that God sanctioned and were committed by Israel would have been a violation of Self (Dt 20). As we know, this is impossible – God’s infallibility means He Who is God does not break His Own commandments.

Let us look at some examples in the Bible to distinguish the difference:

Outright murder

-         When Cain killed his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8)

-         When the Amalekite took the sword to a mortally wounded King Saul who then asked him to finish him off (2 Sam 2:1-16)

Kill, but not murder

-         When David slain Goliath (1 Sam 17)

-         When Paul spoke of the right of the state to take the lives of evildoers (Rom 13:1-7)

-         Consistent with the above, all examples of capital punishment that is the consequence of a person murdering another (Mt 5:21, Ex 21:14)

-         When killing is done during times of war and at the command of superiors

-         When God commands the taking of other lives (1 Sam 11, Jdg 6-7)

-         The unintentional act of having taken the life of another in what we term as manslaughter where the manslayer seeks refuge in designated cities (Ex 21:13, Josh 20)

-         When the Levites were commanded by Moses to take up the sword against the 3,000 who resorted to idolatry with the golden calf (Ex 32:29)

-         The stoning to death of anyone who blasphemed the Name of the Lord with a curse is not murder (Lev 24:10-23)

-         Achan who was put to death by Joshua for the defeat of Israel as a direct result of him stealing some of the plunder and hiding it in his tent (Josh 7:10-26) is not murder.

-         David who executed the Amalekite who claimed to have taken the sword to King Saul (2 Sam 2:1-16) is not murder but what the Amalekite did to Saul was murder.

-         Killing that is premeditated where one plans the taking of the life of another is murder because this is not done according to God’s will.

The above helps us to distinguish between authorised and unauthorised killing. They also clarify that premeditated killing – as in the case of Cain against Abel – is not condoned by God. The taking of the life of another for selfish devious purposes is murder. God doesn’t only not authorise it; it is also done against His will. This is another way of saying that God would only authorise the killing of the guilty – for all intents and purposes, the Amalekite who put Saul to the sword – even mercifully – was one such example.

In the same vein, those who are vulnerable to exploitation or are socially disadvantaged are also protected by God and therefore cannot be killed. They include the slaves and servants (Ex 21:2-6), the aliens (Ex 22:21), the impoverished and the destitute (Ex 23:7), the physically maimed (Lev 19:14), the widows and orphans (Ex 22:22-24) and the old and infirmed (Lev 19:32). Be that as it is, none of them are immune to capital punishment if they are proven guilty (Ex 23:3-7).

Flawless and clear Biblical definitions

God is serious about those who breach His commandments. If He weren’t, He would not have given us enough examples throughout the Bible so that we can distinctively tell “kill” from “murder” throughout the ages. God’s aim in all of these is that we can deter ourselves from behaving unacceptably and commit unwarranted deaths lest we face His retribution, which He spells out at the end of the Ten Commandments saying, “the fear of the Lord will be with you to keep you from sinning (Ex 20:20).

Know also that God does not excuse sin. He may delay judgement but only because He offers us a chance at repentance (Rom 2:4). His demands remain the same – the guilty cannot be acquitted (Ex 23:3-7). In other words God can forgive but He will not excuse the sin. Of all the people described in the Bible, the one who understood this most would be David. Although God forgave him, the price he paid for his adulterous-murderous episode was hefty and crippling.

There is clarity in how God teaches us about intentional or hostile killing. From the Old Testament, we learn that killing of this nature is a capital offence, punishable by death regardless of how old the perpetrator is or what excuses he comes up with. God does not care if we feign temporary mental lapses. We can plead insanity for all we like in a court of law but with God as the supreme Judge, it doesn’t work. We saw this with the Amalekite at Mount Gilboa and Abimelech’s young armour-bearer. God makes no provisions for compassionate killing or assisted suicide. And in case we forget, there is no such thing as “right to die” because all human lives belong to God (Ps 24:1).

We do not own our lives. We cannot just do what we like with our lives. We are created by our Creator in His image. Therefore we can only do things that are expressly under His sovereign delegated authority. Any other way that falls outside His jurisdiction are rejected.

God’s contemporary view for the new ages

The period of the Old Testament is almost 4,000 years ago from today. Those were the days filled with ancient holy wars. To be called a ‘holy’ war is to say that God sanctioned His people to partake in it. The day the Israelites entered Canaan to claim the Promised Land, God authorised and commanded His people to slay their enemies and if they remained obedient, He would reward them with victories. And those victories were properly documented in the Old Testament.

In our contemporary age, there are no holy wars any more than there are any instructions by God to kill. Unlike then, our wars aren’t in flesh and blood terms but are spiritual in nature (Eph 6:12). Our wages of battle against evil aren’t defined by killing anymore. This is because Jesus had brought triumph on the cross over our enemies and as such, we now enjoy the privilege of being “seated with Him” in sharing His position of authority over all evil (Eph 1:20-22, 2:6). But what do all this mean?

It means we have no right to use God’s name in declaring wars or in killing others. Similarly we cannot say that He authorised whatever wars we wage. We cannot shout “Praise the Lord” or “Hallelujah” and then go on a killing spree. All of God’s Commandments remain as valid as they were first declared by Moses to God’s people. None of them was set aside, as Jesus said, until which time, “heaven and earth pass away” (Mt 5:18). Through the Son of God, we are no longer bound to the rituals or the sacrifices (Heb 7:11-28) but we nonetheless have a moral obligation to stay true to the commandments. Therefore after 4,000 years, we still honour our parents, we still steer away from adulterous relationships, we still do not covet anything of our neighbours and we remain duty-bound to not murder.

Romans 6:14 reminds us that we are not under the law but under the New Covenant, we are justified by God’s grace. To put this into perspective, it means that rather than being blindly faithful to the Mosaic laws, we are ethically bound to live in accordance to the Spirit. As Martin Luther wrote in ‘Christian Liberty’ (1520), “Good works do not make a good man but a good man does good work; evil works do not make a wicked man but a wicked man does evil works.” Jesus puts it similarly, saying, “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit nor can a bad tree produce good fruit” (Mt 7:18).

So now that we are under the New Covenant, nothing has changed as in the Spirit of the law. Even from our elevated view, being saved by grace, compassionate killing is still forbidden. God’s contemporaneous view has not altered. Faithful as He is, His Word does not change even over the ages and His promises remain unbroken. He still does not authorise any exceptions that would undermine the infallibility of the Sixth Commandment.

Man Defies God

Image source: thefederalist.com

By the time the Eighties arrived, society had embraced abortion on a worldwide scale. It had become a fact of life. A cultural standard. A given. And not something to be shameful about. There is no longer any stigma attached to a person who decides on abortion. The medical profession had taken huge steps in distancing themselves from God by altering the wording of the original declarations. By doing so – as we have learned – intended definitions were fudged and facts were blurred, leaving just enough doubts to sway or reshape public opinion. Revised declarations gave rise to not just differently held opinions but emboldened attitudes to deny God under the pretence that everyone was promoting the essence of life.

God has been replaced as the “arbiter of truth” Either that or man has decided to play God themselves. Either way, the new age has ushered in the predominant “individual conviction and conscience.” Man no longer look to God as a ‘reference marker’ for what is right or wrong even when life is at stake. Doctors do not require the moral obligation not to kill; neither do they need compliance. They do not need to rely on any conscience to have to stop their fellow fraternity from killing. They merely encourage one another that it’s the right thing to do. To kill, that is.

In 2015, abortion is unstoppable. It is increasing at a frightening rate throughout the world. These and many other foreboding facts reveal a reality that we don’t really want to know but it is nonetheless unavoidable:

-         Abortion has killed 1 to 2 billion worldwide in the past 50 years (lifenews.com)

-         About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion (lifenews.com)

-         There are around 42 million abortions between 1995 and 2003 (lifenews.com)

-         In China alone, there are 10 to 14 million abortions a year (Guttmacher Institute)

-         At the current rate, it would take only 25 years to kill 1 billion babies (lifenews.com)

-         One should compare these figures with the 37 million killed during World War I or the 20 million who died at the hands of the Soviet authorities or the 65 million killed by the Chinese Communist Party or the 42 million starved to death because of Mao’s Great Leap forward (Population Research Institute)

-         As at April 2015, this year’s abortions have climbed past 13.7 million already on the way to meeting the 40-50 million average annual marker (WHO)

-         There are around 125,000 abortions every day in the world and about 3,000 of these are daily figures in America alone (WHO)

-         Nearly half of the pregnancies in America are unintended and of these, 4 in 10 are terminated by abortion (Finer, LB and Henshaw, SK)

-         25 percent of American pregnancies end in abortion (WHO)

-         Planned Parenthood in America have committed up to 6.7 million abortions since 1970 (numberofabortions.com)

Abortion isn’t the only problem. Euthanasia is becoming increasingly prevalent as well and it is also growing at an alarming rate. Immersed in the heady heights of civil rights, political correctness and stirred with an unhealthy dose of liberalism, the rights of a suffering individual trumps any idea that God owns our lives. Therefore if he decides to end his life of misery, God does not figure in the discussion.

Image source: australianconservative.com

Just as disturbing as the facts surrounding abortion, here are some startling ones concerning euthanasia:

-         British doctors assist in the death of 20,000 people in a year (theguardian.com)

-         In one survey, about 80 percent of people supported law changes that would make it easier for terminally ill patients to seek medical assistance in truncating their lives (theguardian.com)

-         Even if it meant breaking the law, some 47 percent said they were still willing to help loved ones die

-         Voluntary euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg even if non-voluntary types occur elsewhere in Europe (Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, Southern Baptist Convention)

-         Polls reveal that 86.5 percent of Dutch physicians are prepared to help with euthanasia requests with only 7.9 percent saying they won’t (ERLC)

-         1 in every 5 Dutch citizens want euthanasia to be an option for elderly citizens who are “tired of living” (ERLC)

-         The Dutch government has discovered that more than 20,000 life-terminating acts that occurred in 1990 were done without the patient’s express consent and the number did not even include disabled newborns, children with life-threatening disabilities or the psychiatrically infirmed who were killed involuntarily (ERLC)

-         The Royal Dutch Medical Association revealed that a survey of 405 doctors said that recommended safeguards to control how and when euthanasia is performed were ignored (ERLC)

-         20 percent of euthanasia cases in the Netherlands were of patients who actually did not want to die and 17 percent had other viable treatment options (ERLC)

-         The situation is so endemic in the Netherlands that over 10,000 of its citizens now carry on their bodies ‘Do Not Euthanise Me’ cards in case they are admitted to hospital unexpectedly (terrisfight.org)

-         Even while the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that there is “no federal constitutional substantive right to assisted suicide,” still, the states of Washington and Montana including Oregon now have legalised physician-assisted suicides (terrisfight.org)

-         Euthanasia cases in the Netherlands have dramatically increased by 18 percent in 2011 to 3,695 (lifesitenews.com)

-         The Lancet medical journal reported that even though 3,136 cases of euthanasia were documented in 2010, the real figure was actually 3,859 with a further 192 assisted suicide deaths (lifesitenews.com)

-         Euthanasia numbers in the Netherlands have been on the rise – 1,923 (2006) to 2,120 (2007) to 2,331 (2008) to 2,636 (2009) to 3,136 (2010) to 3,695 (2011) (lifesitenews.com)

There are no smarts involved in figuring out a common thread between abortion and euthanasia. In both, the medical profession has been busy aiding and abetting the killing of innocents through professional and institutionalised mandate in order to not just keep pace with but also appease the rapidly decaying lifestyle that is as decadent as it is repugnant to God the Creator.

Here is a very important case in point:

(above) Dr Andries Postma - Image source: parlement.com

Dr Andries Postma was a relatively unknown Dutch doctor operating in rural Friesland, Netherlands. However the infamy in helping his wife, Dr Geertruida Postma, kill her mother in 1971 ensured that his name would forever resonate with the world’s first known euthanasia case. Their act ‘inspired’ the launch of the Dutch Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which took less than 20 years to legally equip the medical profession with enough protection to ensure that they could kill and not be brought to justice.

However it wasn’t so simple. Dr Postma had already begun working on public conscience well before killing his mother-in-law. He prepared the way as early as 1965 by expressing his strong views in his local region about the right of the individual to “a good and conscious death” (Sheldon, British Medical Journal, 2007). From thereon, it was simply a matter of finding the right moment to set it in motion and that was when his increasingly unwell mother-in-law offered him just that.

Dr Postma’s 78-year-old mother-in-law had myriad health problems. Besides speech impediments, she was also deaf and later suffered from brain haemorrhage. It was claimed that she pleaded with her daughter, Geertruida, to put an end to her misery. We are told that she had no further will to live. In agreeing, she injected her mother with 200mg of morphine and then informed the nursing home director of her actions. The director raised the matter with the health inspectorate who then arranged for her arrest. She was arraigned for voluntary euthanasia, which then carried a hefty 12-year sentence.

For supporters of euthanasia looking for a dream result, Dr Geertruida’s case supplied it. As a landmark victory, the Leeuwarden court found her guilty in 1973 but gave her what amounted to a slap on the wrist – a measly one-week suspended prison sentence and a 12-month probation. The shockingly light sentence opened the floodgates, emboldening those with like intentions to follow suit. Greatly encouraged by the verdict, other physicians came forward to confess that they, too, had aided their patients to their suicides.

The whole debacle had fuelled massive debates on euthanasia and awaken the subconscious of those who had secretly endeavoured to embrace mercy killing. Dr Postma and his wife might not have wanted the surrounding publicity but it would also be entirely naïve to believe that they didn’t expect it. Keeping such an explosive piece of news under the lid was never going to be possible for long and so in a space of a decade, all forms of resistance were completely swept aside. The Royal Dutch Medical Association succumbed 11 years later, paving the way for the law to be changed to accommodate euthanasia. And with that, a new society had arisen in defiance of God’s orders.

Here is a second case as if to follow up:

On July 16, 1982 Dr P.L. Schoonheim assisted in the death of the 95-year-old Marie Barendregt by way of a lethal injection. Barendregt had signed an advanced directive that would eventually lead to her assisted suicide with all due knowledge of her son and two other independent doctors. Two years later, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled Dr Schoonheim not guilty of murder even if it were certainly premeditated (libraryindex.com). Even though the Appeals Court later ruled him guilty, there was no sentence delivered.

Andries Postma died in 2006 at the age of 80 but he left behind a manic momentum that is today unstoppable. According to the Daily Mail (UK), there is now one euthanasia case for every 30 deaths in the Netherlands. Beyond the Netherlands, government policies on euthanasia have varied but by and large, here is the overview of the following countries (based on Wikipedia and The Guardian UK):

	Completely  illegal	Fully legal	Passive only	Becoming legal
Australia	Yes (1997 reversal)
Belgium		Yes (2002)
Canada				Likely (2015)
Colombia		Yes (1997)
Denmark	Yes but practised
Finland	Yes but practised
France				Possible direction
Germany		Non-assisted only		Possibly banned
India			Yes (2011)
Ireland			Yes
Israel	Supposedly			Going passive
Japan			Yes (1962)	Possible
Luxembourg		Yes (2008)
Mexico			Yes (2008)
Netherlands		Yes (2002)
New Zealand	Yes (1961)
Norway	Yes
Philippines	Yes
Switzerland	Yes but vague
Sweden			Yes (2010)
Turkey	Yes
United Kingdom	Yes			Possible
United States	Yes, some states*		Yes
Uruguay		Yes (1932)

* Assisted euthanasia is legal in Oregon (1997), Washington, Vermont, New Mexico, Montana

Not all that it seems to be

Image source: blog.noeuthanasia.org.au

There is nothing unclear about where the world is headed in terms of euthanasia. The more developed or affluent the society, the more likely that they embrace euthanasia in some form or another. Invariably this will only lead to full adoption. Interestingly of all such developed countries, only Australia, New Zealand and Germany today buckle that trend. The federal government in Australia reversed its position in 1997 and made euthanasia in whatsoever form illegal throughout all states. It also appears that New Zealand banned its practice even earlier. Despite strong support for euthanasia, the German federal government looks likely to move for a total ban also.

Without a doubt, the Dutch are leading all such efforts, setting yardsticks and landmark turning points and guiding the rest of the world by its behaviour, attitude and pools of legal and medical data. Today the Netherlands records around 2,300 and 1,000 cases of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia cases respectively (Remmelink Report).

For the law to consider these as crime is only for the books these days. By and large, society has turned a corner and does not look like reversing its position on euthanasia. In fact many doctors have jumped on the bandwagon and used this opportunity to make a name for themselves. From euthanasia, they have become “leading lights of compassion.” Once such proponent is the Dutch euthanasia activist and anaesthesiologist, Dr Pieter Admiraal who declared the following:

“The opponents of euthanasia say that every human being has only one wish: to survive and to live. So if a patient asks to end his life, there can be only one explanation: she or he must be depressed. And, indeed, these doctors prescribe anti-depressant drugs in high doses. But, in my opinion, these doctors are unobservant and seem to be more preoccupied with their own concerns than with serving the needs of their patients. To send a terminally ill patient to a psychiatrist is an insult.

The way we have legalised euthanasia in the Netherlands may be a good example for other countries. After all these years, it is my honest opinion that every doctor has the duty to help his patients to die with dignity and that he has the right, after thorough deliberation, to do euthanasia at the request of a patient and in his interest, knowing of his responsibility to himself, the patient and the law.

To carry out euthanasia is an emotional and difficult decision. I have seen my patients as friends, and every time I was sad and satisfied after euthanasia: sad to lose a friend and satisfied that I could end the suffering of that friend.”

(Bimbacher, D and Dahl, E. Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Doctor’s Perspective, Giving Death a Helping Hand, 2008) (Emphasis added)

For added perspective, consider what Dr Admiraal had also said:

“In spite of these measures, every doctor who decides to assist in suicide must be aware that something can go wrong, with the result being a failure of the suicide. For this reason, one should always be prepared to proceed to active euthanasia. In other words, the doctor should always have at hand thiopental and muscle relaxant” to administer in the form of a lethal injection.”

(Admiraal, P.V., Toepassing van euthanatica,” Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, 1995, p.267) (Emphasis added)

What he is saying is that if the patient does not die, go ahead and just kill him. If passive euthanasia does not seem to work, go fully active. Get your hands dirty. Kill the person yourself. That may sound cold and brutal but in light of what we are talking about, it is fairly accurate.

(above) Dr Pieter Admiraal - Image source: who-is-hu.de

Dr Admiraal’s observation in this case is not uncommon apparently. In a study found in the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb 2000), scientists from the Netherlands had indicated that complications have occurred and things can go awry. From the study of analysed data conducted from 649 cases culled from two periods (1990-91 and 1995-96), there have been assisted suicide cases that did not go accordingly with incidences like longer-than-expected time to death, failure to enter a comatose state, induction of coma followed by awakening of the patient. And in 21 of all such cases, the physician killed them (life.org.nz).

Instead of Dr Admiraal’s recommended use of thiopental and a muscle relaxant, barbiturates were commonly used for assisted suicides in Oregon and in the Netherlands, which then led to instances of overdoses that produce very unwanted outcomes such as extreme gasping and spasmodic muscular movements as well as convulsions in the midst of losing consciousness followed by inhalation of the vomit. There have been shocking occurrences of panic, sensations of terror followed by assaultive behaviour all deriving from a drug-induced confused state. Sometimes the drugs would not induce the patient to unconsciousness. At other times, the patient had to endure days before death took over (New England Journal of Medicine, Feb 2000 and Oregonian, Mar 2000).

In one specific case in Oregon, a man’s physical symptoms were so distressful for his wife after he took drugs to induce his death that she had no other option but to call 911. He was then warded in a hospital where he was then successfully revived (Oregonian, Mar 2000). Despite this, Dr Katrina Hedberg’s report on assisted suicides did not cite any complications in Oregon (Oregonian, Feb 2000).

No matter the outcome, the die seems cast. Society has embraced euthanasia as life’s ungodly escape clause. People are viewing euthanasia as an honourable way out while retaining one’s individual dignity. The Daily Mail (UK) reported in April 1987 that Dr Admiraal claimed to be a friend and ally to his patients. He was someone, he asserted, who was always prepared to ensure them “an easy and painless death”:

“I inject them with normal drugs used in anaesthesia and their suffering stops. This final act of terminal care has enriched my life as a doctor.” (Daily Mail, Apr 9 1987) (Emphasis added)

The unstoppable moral morass

God’s Sixth Commandment has all but disappeared. It has been overcome. Considered non sequitur. And therefore, the only thing to do is to banish it from any sensible discussions. In its place, the new age proclaims with pride and joy, the bastions of our modern lifestyle – moral relativism and secular humanism. What Hitler failed to do, the modern man has taken up his legacy and simply legitimised mass murder.

In winding back the clock to the pre-war years, we revisit the annexation of Poland. We know now that the ethnic cleansing did not just happen overnight; that the Nazi Holocaust had little beginnings that were inextricably linked to strong convictions of well-intended doctors. The problem of course was that they had no idea the monstrosity they had unleashed. From this window in history, we learn a lesson that for an idea to germinate and progress, four things are needed to be in place beforehand:

-         The support of an equally witless public

-         Just a starting pocket of “convicted” doctors

-         The justification of economic necessity to add to the pressure

-         Guarantee of no prosecution for those involved*

* Under the Third Reich, eugenic programmes were not prosecutable.

Let us now compare that with what took place in the Netherlands almost forty years later and see if we can find any semblances.

Just as it was for the Germans, euthanasia in the Netherlands was not a sudden occurrence. Indeed a small catalyst in the early Seventies based on the compelling belief of not one but a small band of doctors had sparked its eventual explosion. Back then all of them were practising euthanasia on a discrete level but none of them, till today, had any idea what they had created.

In the case of the Netherlands, we can also witness the same four things in place:

-         1 in every 5 Dutch citizens would like euthanasia to be an option for the elderly who are “tired of living” (ERLC)

-         86.5 percent of Dutch doctors are willing to help anyone with euthanasia requests and of course, this is no mere “small pocket” but a very unanimous proportion of the medical profession (ERLC)

-         There may not be any particular economic necessity (more of that below) but the pressure is on alleviating suffering from those with terminal or incurable diseases or ailments that are a burden on the family to carry

-         In the Netherlands, euthanasia is not a prosecutable offence anymore

Those who support euthanasia believe that euthanasia is a viable solution in an age of increasing economic pressure. They like to point to societies that are spiralling dangerously out of economic control. Recession is getting uglier. Unemployment adds burden to families who have to look after their ill loved ones and service their growing debts. Unpaid bills are piling up and many are struggling to cope. Everywhere we look, costs are rising inexorably. On a macroeconomic scale, federal spending is out of control as nations look to service their debts out of their GNP. Often when that happens, funding for health services takes a hit as we can see in the U.K.

(above) Jacques Attali - Image source: babelio.com

But these are laboured contrivances and they are conveniently presented to persuade us to believe that euthanasia is a logical solution that is also, economically unavoidable. For some of the most shocking statements we have ever heard about euthanasia, consider this comment from Jacques Attali, economist and former advisor to French President François Mitterand as well as first President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development:

“As soon as he goes beyond 60-65 years of age, man lives beyond his capacity to produce and he costs society a lot of money… euthanasia will be one of the essential instruments of our future societies.” (Cited by Saunders, P. June 13 2011)

Comparisons between the failed Nazi Experiment and the modern Dutch Reality is not just startling; it also suggests to us that the moral morass is unassailable. Who would have thought that stopping Nazi Germany in its tracks did not stop the genocide? Who would have imagined that despite its collapse and surrender, the very spirit of ethnic cleansing would resonate with popular – and even supposedly intelligent – minds today?

Ethnic cleansing, assisted suicides, voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, abortions or whatever form that unauthorised killing takes continues today in all its myriad variations. In all its perplexing popularity, one oddity that stands out is the lack of popularity of the word ‘euthanasia’ in Germany even amongst those who support its movement because its nearness to the word ‘eugenics’ (a Nazi hallmark) made people uncomfortable. But then a spade called a shovel remains the same thing.

Euthanasia is rampaging. It might not be as widespread yet as abortion but as world population becomes more of a problem, its threat will only become more obvious in the later years. Right now, opinion polls in many countries affirm strong public preference for the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. Depressingly, at no less than two to one, the majority is overwhelming. More and more doctors are signing up to say they’re up for it. It also shouldn’t be surprising that those who contribute to UK’s 180,000 yearly abortions are all signatories. And they are all jubilant that they’re morally doing the “right thing” and believing that they are of invaluable service to the people.

(above) Peter Saunders - Image source: crossrhythms.co.uk

Peter Saunders at the website ‘Christian Medical Comment’ has this to say about how media support is condoning and accelerating the acceptance of euthanasia in the U.K.:

“The Sunday Times, in line with its new editorial policy, ran a typically effusive article last weekend about last night’s ‘documentary’ in which we saw a British man, Peter Smedley, kill himself on screen by drinking poison at the Dignitas suicide facility near Zurich. Earlier this year, I suggested that the BBC was acting in the role of cheerleader for assisted suicide through its partisan coverage of this issue; and I blogged earlier about how this particular programme was further evidence of BBS bias and would fuel more suicides by way of the Werther effect.” (Saunders, P. June 13 2011)

So with the major liberal media networks all backing up the government and with the people all going for it, what’s there to truly stop euthanasia from being a standard jewel in the crown of modern society?

The New Holocaust

(above) Peter Singer - Image source: smh.com.au

Current architect and darling of the culture of death, Peter Singer is also the Director of the Centre for Human Bioethics in Melbourne, Australia. He is considered a leading voice euthanasia’s global influence and therefore at the very epicentre of bioethics. He writes this:

“We can no longer base ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation, made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals and alone possessing an immortal soul. Once the religious mumbo-jumbo surrounding the term ‘human’ has been stripped away, we may continue to see normal members of our species as possessing greater capacities of rationality, self-consciousness, communication than other members of any other species; but we will not regard as sacrosanct the life of each and every member of our species, no matter how limited its capacity for intelligent or even conscious life may be. If we compare a severely defective human infant with a… dog or pig… we will often find the non-human to have superior capacities. Species membership alone is not relevant. Humans who bestow superior value on the lives of all human beings, solely because they are members of our own species are similar to white racists.”

(Singer, P. Paediatrics. Vol. 72, Nr. 1; Jul 1983, p.129) (Emphases added)

Abortion is most naturally not a problem with Singer. From his book called ‘Practical Ethics’ (co-authored by Dr Helga Kuhse), he writes:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons. With animals being self-aware, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee. And a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others.”

(Singer, P. and Dr Kuhse, H., Practical Ethics, 1979) (Emphasis added)

Singer’s controversial brand of bioethics goes far more extreme than this, if that is even possible. In the June 9 1999 edition of the New Yorker, Michael Specter wrote in his article, ‘The Dangerous Philosopher’ the following about Singer:

“Singer believes, for example, that a human’s life is not necessarily more sacred than a dog’s and that it might be more compassionate to carry out medical experiments on hopelessly disabled, unconscious orphans than on perfectly healthy rats.”

(Specter, M., The Dangerous Philospher’, New Yorker, Jun 9 1999) (Emphasis added)

But it gets more convoluted and worrying. Here is another of Singer’s quotes that Specter mentioned:

“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of happier life for the second. Therefore if killing the haemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.” (Specter, M. Ibid.) (Emphasis added)

Singer’s view of human value is dangerous, disturbing, indecent and grossly inhuman. For him, the ideal eugenist view is that man is nothing but merely a product of atomic matter, created by chance and in a time bottled within a godless ecosystem. He is by and large a highly specialised animal but an animal nonetheless. Singer determines human life quality as not much different to anything that lives. We hold no greater importance over anything else in the animal kingdom.

In being equitable, he determines ‘value’ as something defined by degrees of rationality, self-consciousness and physical characteristics. What all this drivel means is that, according to Singer, if any human were not to possess these qualities, he can be disposed of without conscience. Singer, like all the others who had stood on the pantheon of modern-day Mengele-style compassionate killers, is the voice of a movement that hoodwinks itself into believing their act as one of mercy and kindness.

Looking back, Singer’s standpoint is not dissimilar to Dr Karl Brandt’s. While the latter was executed at the Nuremberg Trials for his cold inhumanness in the extermination of Jews in the concentration camps, the former is living a healthy and vibrant life, trumpeting the virtues of killing those he deems to be of little value to humanity. However both men claim that their motive is to “help those who could not help themselves.”

Arbeit Macht Frei means "work makes (you) free," the slogan placed over the entrances to a few Nazi concentration camps - Image source: charliethepoet.com

Just as Hitler had envisioned a life free of humans who were “too flawed” to stand the scrutiny of the Third Reich’s ideals, Singer and his like-minded peons and minions deny God’s existence. In other words, His commandments have no bearing on their godless beliefs. By impressing their world upon us, we are then expected to toe the line. This means that if your neighbour has a handicapped child, we must do him the favour of having his child euthanised. If we know of any friends who are pregnant with a child that has Down syndrome, we must persuade them that infanticide would be their best solution. If a friend of ours has incurable cancer, we must be “humane” enough to enrol him in a euthanasia programme to preserve his dignity. As Dr Admiraal said, it may be sad to lose a friend but you are doing him “a favour.”

So we now come back a full circle. And we return to the Bible story of the Amalekite who, in thinking he did the right thing, dispatched a mortally wounded Saul upon his request. What did you think then? What would you think Singer would say? Was it wrong?

Did David execute the Amalekite because he could see his action as something of a far greater threat, a threat that he saw coming to mankind but one that we are, today, completely blind and deaf to? Did he see in the Amalekite someone who had no fear in denying God of His commandments? So is it because man has no fear of the Lord that we don’t think twice in defying the Sixth Commandment?

Welcome to the New Holocaust.

Key References (in alphabetical order)

25 Surprising Physician Assisted Suicide Statistics, Jul 13 2014, Health Research Funding (HRF), http://healthresearchfunding.org/physician-assisted-suicide-statistics/

Auschwitz, Jun 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005189  

Carter, Joe, Feb 20 2014, 5 Facts about Euthanasia in Europe, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of The Southern Baptist Convention (ERLC), http://erlc.com/article/5-facts-about-euthanasia-in-europe

Communicate Research’s May 2006 Poll, Sept 19 2008, CareNOTKilling, http://www.carenotkilling.org.uk/public-opinion/facts-and-figures/

Concentration Camp System: In Depth, Jun 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007387

Concentration Camps, 1933-1939, Jul 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

Concentration Camps, 1942-1945, Jun 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005475

Concentration Camps: List of Major Camps, Jewish Virtual Library (sourced from the Simon Wiesenthal Library), https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/major_camps.html

Dr Engelhardt Jr., H Tristram, editor, 2002, The Philosophy of Medicine: Framing the Field, New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Dr Schoonheim, Pieter L., Oct 1 2009, The Right to Die: The Euthanasia Discussion in the Netherlands, Journal of Cancer Education, Vol 4 Issue 2 1989, pp.109-112, available at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/08858198909527982

Dr Schwartz, Richard H., Is The Sixth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” or “Thou Shalt Not Murder”? http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/killormurder.html

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Laws Around the World, Jul 17 2014, Assisted Dying: The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/17/euthanasia-assisted-suicide-laws-world

Euthanasia Is Out of Control in the Netherlands – New Dutch Statistics, Sept 25 2012, LifeSite, https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/euthanasia-is-out-of-control-in-the-netherlands-new-dutch-statistics

Euthanasia, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Facts about Euthanasia, Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, http://www.terrisfight.org/facts-about-euthanasia/

Griffiths, John and Bood, Alex and Veyers, Heleen, 1998, Euthanasia & Law in the Netherlands, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press

Janowska, Jun 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005279

Janowska Concentration Camp, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janowska_concentration_camp

Jiang, Chengcheng, Sept 30 2013, What Happens When Only 1.2% of Chinese Women Take the Pill: 13 Million Abortions, TIME magazine, http://world.time.com/2013/09/30/what-happens-when-only-1-2-of-chinese-women-take-the-pill-13-million-abortions/

Johnsen, Erika, Mar 18 2013, Report: 336 Million Abortions Under China’s One-Child Policy, Hot Air, http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/18/report-336-million-abortions-under-chinas-one-child-policy/

Legality of Euthanasia, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_euthanasia

Lublin/Majdanek Concentration Camp: Conditions, Jun 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005190

Major Implications of Euthanasia are Ignored, Plymouth Herald, Sept 27 2012, http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Major-implications-euthanasia-ignored/story-16994698-detail/story.html

Mobile Death Squads to Kill Sick and Elderly in Their Own Homes Leads to Surge in Suicide Rates in the Netherlands, Daily Mail (UK), Sept 24 2013, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430479/One-thirty-deaths-Holland-euthanasia-choosing-end-lives-cancer.html

Nazi Camps, Jun 20 2014, Holocaust Encyclopaedia, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington DC, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005144

Nazi Concentration Camps, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps

Pieter Admiraal, MD PhD., Source Biographies, Euthanasia, Pros & Cons of Controversial Issues, http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=000896

Saunders, Peter, Thou Shall Not Kill – The Christian Case Against Compassionate Killing, Christian Medical Fellowship, http://www.cmf.org.uk/publications/content.asp?context=article&id=1364

Schindler, Bobby, Mar 30 2015, I Will Never Forget the Look of Horror on My Sister Terri Schiavo’s Face the Day She Died, Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network, http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/30/i-will-never-forget-the-look-of-horror-on-my-sister-terri-schiavos-face-the-day-she-died/

Smith, Wesley J., 2002, Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Encyclopaedia of Crime and Justice, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/euthanasia.aspx

Smith, Wesley J., Sept 24 2013. 75,000 U.S. Euthanasia Deaths a Year at Dutch Rate, National Review: Human Exceptionalism, http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/359385/75000-us-euthanasia-deaths-year-dutch-rate-wesley-j-smith

The Killing Machine: The Concentration Camps, 1933-1945, 2009. Holocaust – A Call to Conscience, Project Aladin, http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holocaust-shoah/the-killing-machine/concentration-camps.html

The Singer Scandal at Princeton, http://www.nrlc.org/archive/news/1999/NRL999/pres.html

Where is Euthanasia Legal? New Health Guide, http://www.newhealthguide.org/Where-Is-Euthanasia-Legal.html