Richard and Helen Brown built a career nurturing young lives with their School of Broadcasting. Their legacy, however, was tarnished by their 1994 suicide, fueled by a desire to spare themselves future suffering and create a legacy within their United Church of Christ denomination. It has fueled a 30-year debate on whether a choice to self-terminate can in any way be aligned with the Christian faith.

When Jack Kevorkian assisted with the suicide of Janet Adkins in 1990, it kindled this debate, fueled by arguments like “suffering-free lives,” “death with dignity,” and a supposed “right to die.” These notions, however, lack foundation in divine authority.

The assisted suicide movement is deeply flawed in its premise. Advocates contend:

1. No one should have to suffer.
2. The right to die is an entitlement to all people.
3. Society should be complicit in those exercising the choice to self-terminate.

Suffering

Christians believe in alleviating suffering (Matthew 25:35-36), but not at the cost of violating God’s commandments (James 2:10). Murder, including self-murder, remains prohibited despite the challenges that suffering may bring. Our higher allegiance lies with God and others (Philippians 1:23; 2:3-5), not with self, and a desire for self-termination.

Right to Die

Rights aren’t self-made; higher authorities grant them. For example, Courts permit gun ownership under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Yet, the foundation of life in the United States acknowledges that human life is a divine gift, not a government concession. This suggests the “right to die” lacks grounding in higher human authority (Deuteronomy 32:39).

Complicity

Furthermore, governments shouldn’t facilitate actions based on nonexistent rights. The role of government is to protect and preserve life and freedoms that are rightly granted. Demanding government aid for actions deemed wrong seeks external validation for bad choices (Isaiah 5:20).

The potential consequences of embracing this “divergent path” favoring euthanasia are chilling. Vulnerable groups, those lacking a strong voice, the aging, and the disabled become the silent casualties. Recent proposals to euthanize the homeless and some children paint a foreboding picture for the future. This isn’t about rights. The euthanasia movement is about rebelling against the divine Author of life, regardless of whether you sinned for the benefit of your church. The Browns exercised a deed God did not permit them to exercise. There is no glorious legacy in that. No matter how much lipstick you put on the pig, it is still ugly.

Choosing death might seem like a solution, but it’s crucial to re-evaluate its alignment with faith and its potential societal implications. We must prioritize alleviating suffering, upholding the sanctity of life, and protecting the vulnerable instead of venturing down a path paved with assumed rights and dire consequences.