Life and Death

[Ryan Scott]

Some of you have done much more reading on this than I have, so I'm hoping to hear some good thoughts.

A number of things lately have really had me thinking about how we view life and death as Christians. I'm all for affirming the value of life, but I struggle with what seems to a more and more common idea that we should do everything in our power to preserve every possible breath in every body.

Especially in light of health care discussions recently, particularly surrounding end of life care - it seems as though we have mixed a fear of death with a love of life in ways that may or may not be healthy.

I don't want to appear to be defending a Christian Scientist view of medicine, nor do I want to to advocate people intentionally suffering for long periods of time, but I continue to wonder about how we view life and death and the cycle of life on the planet.

I think specifically about how we say things like, "she lived a good, long life" as if the length were something incredibly special. The more I think about it, if we're living life each day in ways we believe are faithful to God what does the length matter? And moreso, how does this affect the choices we make in life? Does it affect them at all?

Again, it seems difficult to separate these questions from emotions. Obviously I'd prefer to have my wife around as long as I possibly could, but then again, hurt, pain, and loneliness are important parts of life.

Perhaps to make my questions more concrete - what lengths do I go to in order to preserve my own life? Is spending $100,000 to treat cancer an investment worth making? To speak like this about other people comes off crass and insulting, but it seems like a responsible question to ask regarding one's self.

On an even larger level. We have real, serious issues with overpopulation in many parts of the planet. Is this an outgrowth of our fear of death/love of life?

I know I'm not getting anywhere close to a specific question and this really is just rambling. I do wonder, and lately its been a lot, about the cycle of life and death on the planet and it just seems like we humans do a really horrible job dealing with it.

[Bob Evans]

In 1988 I spent 150 thousand of blue cross money to get a clean bill of health to defeat cancer in my life. Myself and a few others are glad I did

[Ryan Scott]

In 1988 I spent 150 thousand of blue cross money to get a clean bill of health to defeat cancer in my life. Myself and a few others are glad I did

That's exactly my question. I've been looking at potentially not having health insurance in the future. Obviously, my wife would like for me to have treatment were I to get cancer or something similar. I just haven't figured out in my mind why I would do that if it were very expensive and/or incredibly painful. No one is guaranteed 80 years of life and I'm happy with my life.

[Ryan Scott]

http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/in...0=0&option_1=0

[Jeremy D. Scott]

http://www.theworkofthepeople.com/in...0=0&option_1=0

There's some great stuff in that video series. One may not agree with it all, but you at least have to consider the topics after watching them (at least, I did).

Just for one instance, Hauerwas says that we spend between 15-17% of our GNP on crisis care medicine and that 60% of that is spent on those in the last year of their life.

[Steven Martinez]

Just some thoughts Ryan:
What is your belief of being one flesh with your wife? Is it not her body as well? Does she get a say in your health choices? What about children, do we have obligations to provide for them to the best of our ability?

Do you believe that medical science is a gift from God?

Do you believe that it is God who should control your motives on this? In other words, is it possible to be just a selfish with this attitude?

I ask these questions because I thought in a similar light until I was diagnosed with a live threaten disease at 28. I realize that "my life" is anything but that. I am working and fighting as hard as I can to be there for my wife and child. They are a part of my body and to be as healthy as possible is for their benefit as it is mine. Therefore I continue to do anything I can (which I believe is provided for by God) to help myself because I believe that I am showing the world that Christians promote life and a quality of life in this earth and not just the world to come. Why fight for social justice if I feel that my life is not worth living and struggling for? Why have clean water and available shelter if my attitude is just to die anyway? Ultimately, how we view our own lives and worth will reflect how we view the value of others. The command is to love others as we love ourselves.

[Shea Zellweger]

I think the only way I can really answer this question is a little story.
There was a time in my life where I seriously contemplated how I wanted the end of my life to go, and I came to several conclusions- I did not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state, did not want the use of heroic measures, and when I died I wanted to be cremated and have my ashes disposed of in the most environmentally friendly way possible. Since I've been married, I've changed my mind on all of that. Those are still my preferences, but I've decided that as long as my wife is alive, she will have full discretion in making those decisions, because I don't want my personal preferences to be something that causes unnecessary trauma for her. If I'm dead or in a vegetative state, I'm not using my body anyway, so why wouldn't I let her use her best judgment as one final gift to her?

As for diseases that are fatal if left untreated, but treatable, I'm going to do my best to beat those. I intend to be a father to my son, and any other children that might come along. I intend to be there for my wife as long as I possibly can, and furthermore I intend to work for the Lord as long as I possibly can. Sure, God probably doesn't need my help, but I'm pretty sure God wants me to help, so I'm not going home to Jesus until I can stand before him and say I absolutely did everything I could to share his message with others, and that includes staying alive.

[John Reilly]

Hi Ryan, In light of the National Health Care debate, I appreciate your thoughtfulness on the issue of life and death and the cost to stay alive. I mentioned months ago that my father who just had his 86th birthday, has paid or has been covered by health insurance as a benefit of his employer. If we assume the cost of health insurance was $10,000 per year for 86 years that equals $860,000. Actually currently the cost for Medicare supplemental is $443 per month. Other than his birth by Ceasarean section in 1924, Dad has never been in the hospital. At his birthday lunch as my brother and I got Dad to tell stories, he told us he has the original bill of his birth. His 16 days hospital stay following birth for mother and baby, for hospital and medical care, the bill was $48.00 in 1924. He pays $5316 annually for supplemental today. He has had testing throughout his life like colonoscopy, but nothing more extensive than that. All that to say that insurance is a money making risk reduction for profit business. Dad paid for risk reduction but if he had paid out of pocket he would be financially ahead. Actually I wanted to ask my Dad if he thought paying for supplemental at this point in his life was worth it, but I did not. I think if our society looked at health care in a different way you would not be asking the question. Health Insurance is about risk reduction for those who can afford it. Health care ought to be considered a basic human right and provided for everyone to promote health and happiness, so that no one need to worry or be anxious about basic health care. Technology and medical science ought to be available to everyone just as a basic public education is available. SO my contribution to your reflection is, Perhaps your need for Health Insurance in NOT so much for your peace of mind as it is for your wife and children. Blessings, John

[Jeremy D. Scott]

...and when I died I wanted to be cremated and have my ashes disposed of in the most environmentally friendly way possible.

This is beside the point of your post and the thread, but I've been led to believe that cremation is not very environmentally friendly. Perhaps the most natural thing to do is be buried with no preservatives in a natural wood box (or no box at all). I've verbally expressed these thoughts, but probably need to put them on paper. There's a fairly new process called "resomation" as well that may or may not be the quickest and "greenest" option.

[Steven Martinez]

This is beside the point of your post and the thread, but I've been led to believe that cremation is not very environmentally friendly. Perhaps the most natural thing to do is be buried with no preservatives in a natural wood box (or no box at all). I've verbally expressed these thoughts, but probably need to put them on paper. There's a fairly new process called "resomation" as well that may or may not be the quickest and "greenest" option.

Very orthodox Jews bury their dead unpreserved in wooden caskets with holes in them to speed up the decomposition process. This is the way I have thought about being buried.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Very orthodox Jews bury their dead unpreserved in wooden caskets with holes in them to speed up the decomposition process. This is the way I have thought about being buried.

I learned this from my Jewish rabbi friend as well, but she's not-very-orthodox (Reform Judaism).

[Steven Martinez]

I learned this from my Jewish rabbi friend as well, but she's not-very-orthodox (Reform Judaism).

That's why I put the orthodox in lower case. I guess I could have said devote or traditional, but then those words have problems too. I am sure your Rabbi friend is very orthodox even if she is not very Orthodox.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

That's why I put the orthodox in lower case. I guess I could have said devote or traditional, but then those words have problems too. I am sure your Rabbi friend is very orthodox even if she is not very Orthodox.

Ah, I see. Got ya.

[David Troxler]

Just some thoughts Ryan:
What is your belief of being one flesh with your wife? Is it not her body as well? Does she get a say in your health choices? What about children, do we have obligations to provide for them to the best of our ability?

Do you believe that medical science is a gift from God?

Do you believe that it is God who should control your motives on this? In other words, is it possible to be just a selfish with this attitude?

I ask these questions because I thought in a similar light until I was diagnosed with a live threaten disease at 28. I realize that "my life" is anything but that. I am working and fighting as hard as I can to be there for my wife and child. They are a part of my body and to be as healthy as possible is for their benefit as it is mine. Therefore I continue to do anything I can (which I believe is provided for by God) to help myself because I believe that I am showing the world that Christians promote life and a quality of life in this earth and not just the world to come. Why fight for social justice if I feel that my life is not worth living and struggling for? Why have clean water and available shelter if my attitude is just to die anyway? Ultimately, how we view our own lives and worth will reflect how we view the value of others. The command is to love others as we love ourselves.

Steve,
These are very important questions, and often these themes or similar ones I cover with couples in pre-marital counseling. Our bodies belong to our spouses as much since we are one flesh.

Single persons cannot avoid the question either when they consider the loving others as one loves oneself.
dave t

[Ryan Scott]

Just some thoughts Ryan:
What is your belief of being one flesh with your wife? Is it not her body as well? Does she get a say in your health choices? What about children, do we have obligations to provide for them to the best of our ability?

Provision may be one thing. Although my wife certainly doesn't need for me to provide for her and we have no children. I do understand the emotional aspect of this decision, which obviously colors things. I want my wife to remain alive as long as possible and she's never said any different about me. I'm also not saying that I would just roll over and die. Especially at my age, medical treatment is quite successful for many issues.

It's probably much more of an issue for older people. I greatly respect Pope John Paul II and the way the suffered through his medical problems until he could no longer function and allowed himself a quick death. I find him a great example. I do continue to struggle with the balance between allowing other people to care for you and creating too large a burden. Some of the Hauerwas videos posted above deal directly with the idea of death.

I just continue to see how we (myself included) fear death, perhaps in ways Christians should not. I think that's more of an issue for me in these thoughts.

(As for burial. I've told my wife I want to be thrown in a dumpster, although I suspect if she's still around when I day, that wish will not be granted. I do think being buried quickly to aid decomposition is the most responsible choice. We can rent or borrow and empty casket and put a framed picture on to of it for the funeral.)

[Billy Cox]

This is beside the point of your post and the thread, but I've been led to believe that cremation is not very environmentally friendly. Perhaps the most natural thing to do is be buried with no preservatives in a natural wood box (or no box at all). I've verbally expressed these thoughts, but probably need to put them on paper. There's a fairly new process called "resomation" as well that may or may not be the quickest and "greenest" option.

The end product of cremation is organic (duh!), but the amount of sustained heat required to completely reduce a body to ash requires a considerable amount of energy.

[Billy Cox]

I just continue to see how we (myself included) fear death, perhaps in ways Christians should not. I think that's more of an issue for me in these thoughts.

I think that this is a worthy line of inquiry. Too often, folk wisdom is tolerated for emotional or sentimental reasons.

(As for burial. I've told my wife I want to be thrown in a dumpster, although I suspect if she's still around when I day, that wish will not be granted.

Yeah...that won't happen unless you find yourself on the wrong side of the mafia, and even they prefer water graves. Because a dead body is a biohazard, the proper disposal of bodies is closely regulated by law.

[Jeremy D. Scott]

The end product of cremation is organic (duh!), but the amount of sustained heat required to completely reduce a body to ash requires a considerable amount of energy.

I've read that it's more than that, producing air pollutants beyond what's natural and "organic."

[David Graham]

What a great discussion; its actually not an issue I have thought about very much, but needs to be seriously considered. As a 74 year old, my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer (Malenoma) in 1999, and given from between three months and two years to live. They told him at the time, that there were some experimental drug treatments that they could try, but they didn't offer any hope. My father was philosophical and said: "Well, they might do some good, in which case I might live longer. But, even if they don't work, the effect of these drugs on me, might help someone else". (He was sharing a ward at the time with a lad of 17 years who had the same prognosis). Dad underwent four treatments of some particular drug, with apparently no benefit to him, and after 6 months he succumbed to the disease and went to be with the Lord.

In his case, the whole of his treatment was paid for by the Government e.g. the Health System, and so finances were not an issue. But for me personally, I'm not so sure that I would want to spend too much money on my own health treatment towards the end of my life unless some positive health research benefit could be shown to be gained by other patients with the same particular disease. In this regard, I would therefore like to see a greater level of accountability by the various University and Hospital research units to the families of their "Guinea Pig" patients of what was gained by the particular treatment administered. Maybe this is hard to quantify, but if the patients are willing to sacrifice what liitle of their lives remaining in the interests of research, than their families should be at least given the courtesy of knowing that such sacrifice was not in vain. In my fathers case, the treatment only brought him extreme nausea in addition to the pain he was already suffering because of the cancer, and we as the family never ever did find out what they learned from the use of this drug on him.

Blessings,
Dave

[Ryan Scott]

I guess my biggest question is why we consider a longer life a definite good. Clearly its not a definite "bad," although it could be in some cases, I suppose. I was thinking more along the lines of considering the length of one's life as a "neutral" thing, placing judgment on the actual content of the life, no matter how long it is. It just seems like this would change some of the ways we approach things.

[Mike McVey]

A longer life allows for the possibility of more good to happen. The longer we live the more chance that we got to experience good. Also, we are fairly shortsighted and feel that a long life means that more life has been lived. Of course, it is when we think we don't have much life left that we start living (or at least that is a consistant perception).

I think for the religious like us we couple the above with the fact that some of us aren't as sure about the afterlife as we proclaim. Several of my atheist acquaintances value a longer life because all we get is the time we are living. I suspect that when it comes to death, there are several closet atheists.

[Ryan Scott]

I think for the religious like us we couple the above with the fact that some of us aren't as sure about the afterlife as we proclaim. Several of my atheist acquaintances value a longer life because all we get is the time we are living. I suspect that when it comes to death, there are several closet atheists.

I wonder how much it has to do with our perceptions of what the afterlife entails. I view it very much as a continuation of the life I'm presently leading, which may be the reason I'm contemplating some of these questions. To me death is just a necessary step along the journey.

For those who have a more ethereal picture of heaven (cloud lounges and harp practice), it may seem better here and thus provide more incentive to value the length of life.