Nancy Crick has become a media celebrity in the past few days. Not that she will be able to appreciate the fact. Even though a recent interview with her reason for her was screened on Thursday night, she was not around to see it. And that was the reason for her notoriety. Nancy Crick deliberately, with careful premeditation and planning, and surrounded by a considerable group of her family and friends, ended her own life.

According to what she herself said in the Television interview, she believed that she was suffering from advanced cancer of the stomach, which the doctors had pronounced to be terminal, and she was experiencing an unbelievable degree of pain. She had decided to take her own life into her own hands and end it, along with the suffering, by taking a drug which is used for painlessly putting down horses. According to those who witnessed the event, her passing was calm and peaceful.

It was stated by a number of radio commentators that 80% of the population support euthanasia (which literally means "good death"). Those who oppose it were gererally labelled with uncomplimentary epithets. Dr Philip Nitschke, the high profile pro-euthanasia campaigner claimed that he had at least three patients that were likely to follow Nancy Crick's example. Others who are a part of the pro-euthanasia movement believe that this is a significant step forward in their campaign for what they hold to be a basic right that we all should have, the right to decide when to die.

In the current climate of thought, much of this seems eminently reasonable. The concept of individual rights is firmly established in our thinking, as is the view that suffering is to be avoided at all costs. Another view that is widely held, although seldom held up for examination, is that suffering ends with death. What is more, some actually believe that what lies beyond death will be better than their present existence. Nancy Crick actually expressed the view that she would be reunited with her dead husband "up there".

Such views are widely held in the community, and are often heard expressed at funerals. But rarely are they questioned. It is particularly bad form to challenge such views when people are grieving over the loss of a loved one, and grasping for whatever straws of comfort they can find. Yet they must at some point be examined, because of their eternal consequences. And especially so since they have been given such public exposure in the media.

For example, would Nancy Crick have made the same decision if she believed that beyond death there was pain infinitely greater than anything experienced in this life? Would she have taken the same action if she believed that any meeting with her husband would be "down there", and would only increase her pain? I am not stating that this is the case for her, it is not for me to judge. I am merely pointing out that what we believe about death and beyond greatly affects our attitude to euthanasia.

Human beings have speculated about death from the beginning of human history. It is only in recent times that a significant number have taken the view that death is simply the end of everything. But there is only one authoritative view on what lies beyond death, and that comes from the one who has returned from the dead, Jesus of Nazareth.

It is from the lips of Jesus himself, that we have the most horrible pictures of the fate that awaits the great majority of humans. In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells the story of the rich man and the beggar who both died. The beggar is described as being at Abraham's side, being comforted, while the rich man is in hell and in torment and agony. Whether or not this picture is to be taken literally we are not sure, but the prospects beyond death are eternally terrible.

The ultimate question in relation to the question of euthanasia is: "Whose life is it?" Is our life really our own, and do we have the right to decide when it should end? The overwhelming view of society is that our life is our own, even though we were not responsible for getting it in the first place. However, the Bible presents a different view. Our life is a gift from God, and we are responsible to Him for what we do with it. In particular, we do NOT have the right to take any life, even our own. To do so is to break the sixth commandment and bring ourselves under God's judgement. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against God. The prospects for what follows are terrible indeed.

Of course, whether or not we accept the Bible's view is a matter of faith. But it seems to me to be a much more reliable answer than any of the other popular ideas around.

John Davies
26 May 2002

PS. After writing the above I learned that the coroner has not been able to find any evidence of active cancer in Mrs Crick's body. This only underlines the foolishness of what she did. - JD