Presbyterian Church in America
Official Denominational Website: https://www.pcanet.org/
Contents
Beginning of Life
Abortion
Official Statement: from General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America, "Studies & Actions of the General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America: Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Abortion," 6th General Assembly (1978): Appendix O, 270-281.
- “Abortion in distinction from miscarriage, is the intentional killing of an unborn child between conception and birth.
- While Scripture may not provide a precise scientific statement in answer to this question, the theological understanding of man revealed in Scripture leaves no doubt about the continuity of personhood which includes the unborn child. Simply, yet profoundly, the life resulting from conception is designated "man" both before and after birth. A "man-child" is conceived; the unborn child is not less than a man.
- The Word of God affirms throughout the continuity of personhood both before and after birth. Abortion, the intentional killing of an unborn child, is to destroy that continuity. Abortion would terminate the life of an individual, a bearer of God's image, who is being divinely formed and prepared for a God-given role in the world.
- It would therefore be a willful act of defiance against the Creator intentionally to kill an unborn child whose conception is so intimately a Divine as well as a human act. No child belongs only to man. He is God's child. And His Word must govern the protection and care of that child both before and after birth.
- Were there to be no support in the whole history of ethical and moral thought, were there no acknowledged confirmation from the medical sciences, were the history of legal opinion to the contrary, we would still have to conclude on the basis of God's Holy Word that the unborn child is a person in the sight of God. He is protected by the sanctity of life graciously given to each individual by the Creator, Who alone places His image upon man and grants them any right to life which they have.
- The conclusion of the First International Conference on Abortion held in Washington, D.C., in October of 1967, was that no point in time could be found between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of the infant which could not be considered human life. The changes described below are merely stages of development and maturation.
- It must be pointed out that there is a vast difference between the threat of death to the mother and the certain death (intentional) of the baby in the alleged special case for abortion. No man, trained physician or not, is able to say with 100% accuracy that a woman will definitely die because of a pregnancy. The woman's life is not in her own hand or in the hands of her physician, but it rests in the hands of a loving, sovereign God, who is holy and righteous. We do not pretend to understand all that God does, nor would we imply that this is an easy question for one who must face it. Like other areas of the Christian's walk, this calls for us to have a strong faith and trust in God to carry on a pregnancy in these circumstances.
- On this basis we believe the intentional killing of an unborn child is a violation of God's command and authority. Scripture considers such a child a person and thus covered by Divine protection even as a person after birth. Any medical support or historical precedent can only be of secondary authority when we have a clear Word from God on moral questions.
- We are convinced Scripture forbids abortion. The premise of the personhood of the unborn child and the premise of the universal validity of the Sixth Commandment, if true, necessitates the conclusion that abortion is wrong.
- In a day in which situation ethics has left its mark, the question easily arises in the minds of some, "But what if?" The familiar objections are then presented: population control, economic hardships, unwanted children, psychological or physical health of the mother, rape or incest, deformed children, and protection for the mother's life. We have not dealt with these particular cases . . . to emphasize the principle set forth in this report. Abortion is wrong; it is sin. God as the righteous and holy Judge will not permit sin to be justified by human "situations." Thus the practical application in each of these cases is the consistent application of God's absolute prohibition and the comfort derived from the knowledge that our greatest good is dependent upon our obedience to God.
- There is a danger of weakening our witness by either retreating from an absolute ethic revealed in God's Word or by uncritically associating ourselves with a humanistic philosophy of right to life based on human wisdom. The Church as the repository of God's revelation must speak from that authority and must do so without compromise or equivocation.” ("Report of the Ad Interim Committee on Abortion")[1]
Official Statement: from Study Committee on Abortion, "Abortion: The Disruption of Continuity," 153rd General Synod Minutes (1975), 98-108
- "Believing that the sixth commandment condemns the wanton or arbitary [sic] destruction of any human life at any stage of development, we therefore affirm that voluntary abortion, except in the necessary defense of the physical life of the mother when such is clearly threatened by the presence of the fetus, is a violation of that commandment.
We call upon our society to deal justly with the unborn, and encourage Christians to implement this call in their various spheres of influence knowing that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." (Proverbs 14:34) At the same time, we call upon society and the church to show compassion toward unwed mothers and other mothers in distress, not only offering sympathetic counsel but concrete relief, economic or otherwise" ( "Abortion: The Disruption of Continuity")[2]
End of Life
Extraordinary Measures
Official Statement: from General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America, "Report of the Heroic Measures Committee Presbyterian Church in America," 16th General Assembly (1988), Appendix S and 16-83, 186.
- "Heroic measures" are extensive medical procedures that involve significant discomfort and expense to the patient. . . . On the one hand these measures are essential to the practice of modern medicine. In their application many individuals have been healed and restored to health. On the other hand this technology may be applied thoughtlessly, lengthening the dying process while adding suffering and expense for the patient and family.
- On one side of the problem are measures that are "necessary means of preservation of life." First, food, air and water by natural routes, that is, without technical assistance, may not be denied by the patient or anyone caring for him. Second, medical treatment that is clearly efficacious to heal or to restore may not be refused either.
- On the other side treatments that are ineffective, minimally effective or have frequent and serious side effects are not obligatory. Many diagnostic, medical and surgical procedures in these situations have these characteristics. Doing "everything possible" is usually inappropriate. Specific, effective measures should be chosen with clear-cut goals for the patient's condition.
- Ethical choices may become more clearly evident if the goals of medical care in these situations are, first, to heal or restore and, second, to relieve suffering. It is not the goal of medicine simply to prevent death. Thus, the goal of medical care to relieve suffering remains clear even when healing or restoration is not a realistic hope. This goal is likely to prevent the use of technology that prolongs death and often increases the suffering of the patient.
- The tendency in these ethical decisions is to make the age of the patient the overriding factor that determines what is or is not done. Our response to babies and young children in distress is greater than that to older people. The Biblical principle, however, is that one life is not more valuable in God's eyes than another (except as all people are divided into the saved and the unsaved).
- Christians of any age who have chronic incurable illnesses and a limited life expectancy may ethically refuse "heroic measures" rather than briefly prolong a life which God is clearly drawing to a close. The elderly who have lived their. normal expected life span and desire to die quietly may choose not have extensive medical measures. Their wishes may be difficult to ascertain, so elders and pastors may need to inquire in a sensitive manner to know this important and necessary information. Heroic measures mostly benefit people who have not yet reached old age and have a critical illness, yet one from which they can recover or be cured. In such cases intensive medical technology should be used in spite of the associated suffering, particularly if they still have significant responsibilities to their families or other Christian duties to perform." ("Report of the Heroic Measures Committee Presbyterian Church in America")[3]
Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
Official Statement: from General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America, "Report of the Heroic Measures Committee Presbyterian Church in America," 16th General Assembly (1988), Appendix S and 16-83, 186.
- "To intend the death of a patient as a means to relieve his suffering, however, is morally wrong. Much current thought within the medical profession and among medical ethicists considers that life support may be terminated with the intent to relieve the patient's suffering by causing his death. As Christians, we must be cautious never to use suffering as a criterion for the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment. There are times when medical treatment may be morally withheld or stopped, but the decision must be based upon reasons other than suffering. For example, such a decision may be based upon the improbability that a patient's lungs will re-cover sufficiently to enable his respirator to be removed. A decision in this patient to turn his respirator off with the intent to relieve his suffering would be wrong. The relief of suffering is never the reason to shorten a person's life.
- Euthanasia, or "mercy-killing" of a patient by a physician or by anyone else, including the patient himself (suicide) is murder." ("Report of the Heroic Measures Committee Presbyterian Church in America")[4]
Withholding & Withdrawing Treatment
Official Statement: from General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in America, "Report of the Heroic Measures Committee Presbyterian Church in America," 16th General Assembly (1988), Appendix S and 16-83, 186.
- "To intend the death of a patient as a means to relieve his suffering, however, is morally wrong. Much current thought within the medical profession and among medical ethicists considers that life support may be terminated with the intent to relieve the patient's suffering by causing his death. As Christians, we must be cautious never to use suffering as a criterion for the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment. There are times when medical treatment may be morally withheld or stopped, but the decision must be based upon reasons other than suffering. For example, such a decision may be based upon the improbability that a patient's lungs will re-cover sufficiently to enable his respirator to be removed. A decision in this patient to turn his respirator off with the intent to relieve his suffering would be wrong. The relief of suffering is never the reason to shorten a person's life.
- To withhold or to withdraw medical treatment, as is being discussed here does not constitute euthanasia and should not be placed into the same category with it."
- A decision to withdraw medical support from a patient should be based upon the same medical and ethical considerations as a decision not to initiate it. Of course, the withdrawal of treatment is more difficult when it seems likely that death will be hastened by that decision. Actually, a decision to withdraw life support is often based upon better medical evidence than a decision to initiate life support. Heroic measures are frequently started in an acute situation when physicians must make quick decisions about patients, but with limited information. Over the next few days or weeks, however, with continued observation and additional information, they may discover that a feeding tube or respirator may only be prolonging the dying process, whereas when these measures were started, some hope of recovery was realistic." ("Report of the Heroic Measures Committee Presbyterian Church in America")[5]