Evangelical Presbyterian Church

Official Denominational Website: https://epc.org/

Beginning of Life

Abortion

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church opposes abortion except in extreme cases when the life of the mother is in danger.

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Abortion" (2013), 1-3.

"The Evangelical Presbyterian Church is convinced that the Bible strongly affirms the dignity and value of every human life based on what the Scriptures clearly teach...

The Evangelical Presbyterian Church affirms that the Bible does not distinguish between prenatal and postnatal life. It attributes human personhood to the unborn child. This extends to the unborn child ex utero as no less a human being than the child in the mother’s womb.

Because we hold these convictions concerning the unborn child, we urge the promotion of legislation that brings our judicial and legal systems into line with the scriptural view on protecting the poor, the weak, and the defenseless...

The Bible teaches that all persons and nations are responsible before God for their moral and ethical decisions, including those that relate to the preservation of human life. In addition to prayers and general assistance, the General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church urges that the following steps be implemented by the individuals, congregations, and judicatories in a concerted effort to provide substantial support for those impacted by problematic and/or unexpected pregnancies:

1. A woman facing a problematic pregnancy or an unexpected pregnancy should expect to receive support, love, acceptance and wise counsel from her pastor(s), counselor(s), physician(s) and fellow Christians. Regardless of the woman’s decision, the Church should always provide compassionate biblical and spiritual guidance to that individual.
2. The Church must serve as a loving and supportive community to any man involved to inform and direct him in his personal responsibilities and obligations as the child’s father.
3. The Church must be supportive of the woman who chooses life for the child of an unexpected pregnancy and must seek ways to support and care for those children carried to term through unexpected pregnancy.
4. The Church must serve as a loving and supportive community to those who have experienced physical, emotional, or spiritual wounds as a result of undergoing an abortion or placing a child for adoption.
5. Christians should individually and corporately oppose abortion (except under the most extreme of circumstances that endanger the physical life of the mother), and do everything in their power to provide support groups, para-church ministries and sponsoring agencies that offer viable alternatives to abortion.
6. The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion should never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control.
7. The Church should actively oppose the killing of human embryos through the extraction of stem cells for medical research or treatment.
8. The Church should oppose the practice of producing more embryos by in vitro fertilization than would be implanted in utero, which would either be destroyed immediately or stored frozen with the strong practical likelihood of later destruction." ("Position Paper: Abortion")

Contraception

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Abortion" (2013), 3.

"The Church should declare to the world and teach its members that abortion should never be used as a convenience or a means of birth control." ("Position Paper: Abortion")

Infertility & Reproduction

Frozen Oocytes

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Abortion" (2013), 3.

"The Church should oppose the practice of producing more embryos by in vitro fertilization than would be implanted in utero, which would either be destroyed immediately or stored frozen with the strong practical likelihood of later destruction." ("Position Paper: Abortion")

Science & Technology

Biotechnology

Stem Cell Research

"The Church should actively oppose the killing of human embryos through the extraction of stem cells for medical research or treatment." ("Position Paper: Abortion")

End of Life

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying" (1995), 1.

"Because of the value and sanctity of human life, we stand against any effort such as suicide, assisted suicide,and euthanasia—each of which seeks to terminate innocent human life outside natural processes, even though the motive for such efforts may be a misdirected kindness. When faced with medical situations that could call for heroic measures, Christians should make a distinction between treatment that may prolong life in hopes of recovery and that which will only prolong the dying process. As Christians deal with difficult choices surrounding life and death, they should seek the support and counsel of the Church that should reach out with compassion and the truth of God’s Word." ("Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying")

Extraordinary Measures

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying" (1995), 8-11.

"'Heroic measures' refers to the use of extreme emergency measures to prolong a patient’s life when vital processes cease to function. Few topics in medicine are more complicated, more controversial, and more emotionally charged than the decision of whether or not to forego life-sustaining treatment for the hopelessly ill.

Because of our technological advances in the medical field, we now encounter perplexing moral questions that earlier societies never had to face. Heroic measures may extend the life of the patient, but it may alsoextend the suffering of the patient and family members. Financial debt and a difficult legal climate add to the complexity of this situation. We are faced with profound ethical dilemmas. For example, does God demand, in every situation, that all medical options available be used to extend the life of one who is dying? Or would God have us, at times, to refuse extraordinary medical procedures and allow the patient to die? If a person is taken off a respirator and allowed to die, has the Sixth Commandment been violated? The answers to these dilemmas depend upon a clear distinction being made between prolonging life when there is hope of recovery and postponing the dying process when it is hopeless.

On the one side, heroic measures are indispensable to the practice of modern medicine. Many individuals have been restored to health by their application. On the other side, this technology may be applied thoughtlessly with the tragic consequences of lengthening the dying process and adding unnecessary suffering and expense for the patient and family.

Guiding Principles:

1)We cannot provide simple formulas and conclusions that fit every encounter with heroic measures. On the contrary, we find that it is impossible to give a specific direction for every conceivable circumstance, and we realize that decisions will differ. We can be sure that “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble” (Psalm 46:1).

God has promised to give us wisdom if we will ask in faith. Ministers should be consulted to pray with and for the patient to help him to determine God’s will in the application of heroic measures. Often God will give us the wisdom we need through the counsel of caring doctors. The patient and family should prayerfully and carefully weigh any decision to go against the counsel of the trusted physician,since he would be expected to have the best advice in these situations. In many situations,a distinction can be made between treatment that will heal, improve,or restore the patient to health and treatment that will only prolong the dying process. The patient and family should ask appropriate questions to obtain this information, since for various reasons a physician may not make this distinction when various options of medical treatment are presented. Pastors or other elders should be consulted as patient and family carefully and prayerfully consider these options.

2)Necessary means of preservation of life must not be withheld from the patient. Negative judgments about the “quality of life” of an unconscious or otherwise disabled patient have led some to propose withholding nourishment in order to end the patient’s life. Medical treatment that is clearly efficacious to heal, improve, or restore must not be refused.

3)The Bible does not teach that people are obligated morally always to accept treatment that would sustain life artificially. For example, there does not seem to be an absolute moral obligation to undergo chemotherapy or to receive kidney dialysis in certain cases. In the case of irreversible diseases (like certain forms of cancer), the patient may in good conscience refuse treatment that may briefly lengthen his life if he believes that his quality of life would be greatly impaired.

A decision to withdraw medical support from a patient is terribly difficult, especially when it seems likely that death will be hastened by that decision. Nevertheless, a decision to withdraw life support is more often based upon better evidence than a decision to initiate life support. These heroic measures are often begun in an emergency situation when physicians must make decisions quickly about patients, but with limited information. Over the next few days or weeks with continued observation and additional information, however, they may discover that utilization of a respirator or feeding tube would be futile treatment which would only prolong the dying process. Initially these procedures were started when there was some reasonable hope of the patient’s recovery.

Although heroic measures have been started, they do not necessarily have to be continued. Since there is “a time to do,” it is morally permissible to discontinue life support when doctors agree that there is no hope of recovery.

4)Physicians should be chosen with these principles in mind. It is possible to have your doctor know your desires for each family member. “Do Not Resuscitate” orders are often an appropriate way to avoid heroic measures, because hospitals are required to resuscitate all patients who die suddenly unless such orders are on the patient’s chart.

5)The advantages and disadvantages of available legal measures should be explored with a trusted lawyer if possible. This action can prevent many of the dilemmas that occur with terminally ill patients.

6)Our Lord Jesus gave us two helpful guidelines. First He enunciated “The Golden Rule:” Do to others as you would have them do to you (Luke 6:31), and the great summary commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31).

Numerous surveys have demonstrated the fact that most people do not want extraordinary treatment for themselves when there is no real hope of recovery. Nevertheless, when faced with a decision on behalf of close relatives or friends, they often want more for others than they would do or want done for themselves. Love for our neighbor demands that “in proxy decision making, we should apply the same biblical standards of justice, mercy and faithfulness to others that we want and expect to be applied to ourselves.”

We encourage spouses and family members to draw upon the biblical and theological principles outlined above as they seek to discern God’s will in regard to heroic measures. After appropriate biblical reflection, we urge that families pray together and openly discuss what they desire concerning the various choices of medical treatment before being confronted with the actual experience of such a decision. We also encourage families to meet with their minister, Christian friends and physician about their concerns regarding care and to become educated about their conditions in order to permit informed decision-making. Sooner or later each one of us, either directly or indirectly, will face decisions regarding our own or a loved one’s medical condition(s)." ("Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying")

Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying" (1995), 3-7.

"The Sixth Commandment clearly rules out the lawfulness of suicide, assisted suicide,and active euthanasia. Suicide is the direct and intentional taking of one’s life: murder of self. Assisted suicide is the enabling of one to take his own life and is considered assisted murder. Active euthanasia is the willful and active taking of someone’s life,and is clearly a violation of this commandment.

Some argue that the motive of alleviating suffering justifies suicide, assisted suicide or euthanasia. But we can never justify the taking of life on the basis of suffering. The church must oppose any effort to terminate innocent life outside the natural process even though the motive may be a misdirected kindness.

Because we live in a fallen world (Genesis3), suffering is a harsh reality. But as we examine the healing ministry of our Lord Jesus, we can only conclude that God is on the side of healing. We have a God-given drive to resist suffering and death,and to seek to alleviate physical and emotional pain. It is right to seek to lessen the sting of suffering through pain-killing medications that help make those who are suffering as comfortable as possible.

It is permissible in the case of terminal illness to use painkillers that carry the risk of shortening life, so long as the intent is to relieve pain effectively rather than to cause death. “Give strong drink to him who is perishing”(Proverbs 31:6). The proper application of medical science, as demonstrated by much of our hospital and hospice care, can in most cases enable patients to live and die without extreme suffering...

Even though we now have the technological means to make dying easier, our society is increasingly seeking to make active euthanasia more palatable. Until recently, euthanasia was commonly understood to refer to the practice of passively allowing the dying process to take place. Today, proponents of the “Right to Die” movement seek to differentiate euthanasia by blurring the distinction between “passive” and “active.” Passive euthanasia has never really been a moral problem, for it is simply allowing the process of dying to take its natural course as the medical team seeks to provide adequate pain management. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, means intervention that would hasten the patient’s death. The church must speak out against active euthanasia as it rapidly gains popular approval.

Advocates of active euthanasia, suicide, and assisted suicide continue to point to man’s need to die with dignity. They argue that the lack of physical or mental abilities precludes death with dignity since they assume that man’s dignity is derived from mental and physical abilities. But the word of God clearly reveals that man possesses dignity and honor by virtue of the fact that he was created in the image of God. Man’s dignity does not depend on his mental or physical condition. Each person, no matter how infirm or socially useless he or she may appear to be, deserves acceptance as a person of dignity created in the image of God.

At one extreme we find the proponents of active euthanasia, and at the other extreme we find vitalists who demand that in each and every case, life must be preserved at all costs. A biblical perspective of death and dying must be established in order to counter these extreme views...

Unlike spiritual death—which is an absolute evil—physical death is only a relative evil in a fallen world. Physical death for the Christian is not an enemy,always to be fought at all times. The conviction that physical life must be preserved at all times is fundamentally idolatrous from the standpoint of biblical theology. God tells us in Hebrews 9:27 that “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” In Ecclesiastes 3:1-2,the Preacher says, “There is an appointed time for everything...a time to give birth and a time to die.” Thus, there is no moral or biblical obligation to prolong death when an individual is clearly in the dying process. There is a time to resist death, but there is also a time to cease resisting." ("Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying")

Withholding & Withdrawing Treatment

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying" (1995), 10.

"Necessary means of preservation of life must not be withheld from the patient. Negative judgments about the “quality of life” of an unconscious or otherwise disabled patient have led some to propose withholding nourishment in order to end the patient’s life. Medical treatment that is clearly efficacious to heal, improve, or restore must not be refused.

3)The Bible does not teach that people are obligated morally always to accept treatment that would sustain life artificially. For example, there does not seem to be an absolute moral obligation to undergo chemotherapy or to receive kidney dialysis in certain cases. In the case of irreversible diseases (like certain forms of cancer), the patient may in good conscience refuse treatment that may briefly lengthen his life if he believes that his quality of life would be greatly impaired.

A decision to withdraw medical support from a patient is terribly difficult, especially when it seems likely that death will be hastened by that decision. Nevertheless, a decision to withdraw life support is more often based upon better evidence than a decision to initiate life support. These heroic measures are often begun in an emergency situation when physicians must make decisions quickly about patients, but with limited information. Over the next few days or weeks with continued observation and additional information, however, they may discover that utilization of a respirator or feeding tube would be futile treatment which would only prolong the dying process. Initially these procedures were started when there was some reasonable hope of the patient’s recovery.

Although heroic measures have been started, they do not necessarily have to be continued. Since there is “a time to do,” it is morally permissible to discontinue life support when doctors agree that there is no hope of recovery." ("Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying")

Issues of Human Dignity & Discrimination

Disability Ethics

Official Statement: from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, "Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying" (1995), 2.

"The value that we place on human life cannot be determined by an individual’s productiveness to society,nor by any other arbitrary standard set by man. The tendency of a techno-logical culture to assign value to an individual based on his or her function (what he or she can do, rather than who he or she is) is completely unacceptable. We must look to our Creator’s declaration that “God saw all that He had made and behold, it was very good”(Genesis 1:31 NAS)." ("Position Paper: Problems of Suffering, Death, and Dying")