CRUZAN CASE COULD ALTER MEDICAL BELIEFS ABOUT LIFE AND DEATH

The case of a 33-year-old Missouri woman left brain-damaged by an automobile accident seven years ago has captured the thoughts and emotions of many Americans.

Nancy Cruzan starved to death Wednesday, 12 days after her hospital feeding tube was removed following a lengthy court battle.

Ms. Cruzan's parents struggled to gain court approval of their wish to allow their daughter to die. Their decision obviously followed years of agonizing deliberation. While many have debated vociferously the morality of the case, their decision was utterly personal and, no doubt, heart-wrenching.

The Cruzans were told by medical experts that their daughter was in no pain suffering in no way because the brain centers that allow you and me to perceive pain and suffering were destroyed in her accident.

In the last two or three days of her life, she lapsed into a coma, and died a "quiet, peaceful death."

Many people have focused on the "right-to-die" issue that's been so emphasized by the Cruzan case. But I doubt anyone can deny another his or her "right to die."

You can certainly tell me that it would be unreasonable, immoral or irresponsible, but if I'm determined to end my life, there's little anyone can do to prevent me from taking whatever measure necessary to get the job done.

But this case involved a woman whose tragic accident left her without the ability to make that decision. That decision, right or wrong, was left up to her parents, who undoubtedly knew her, and her wishes, as well as anyone on Earth.

While considering the complexities surrounding a case like Ms. Cruzan's, opinions on the morality of allowing her to die are formed on both sides of the issue by compassionate and sensible people.

But I wonder how many people consider the effect the Cruzan case will have on forming new premises in the medical field? I'm no medical expert, but allowing a living, breathing human being to die, when she could live for many years, even in a "persistent vegetative state," still constitutes killing.

Most refer to it as euthanasia, which Webster defines simply as "painless death" and "mercy killing."

Nancy Cruzan's condition was deceptive. Her eyes were open and moved about, often reacting to sound. She slept and awakened. She grimaced and, at times, seemed to smile. But she was unconscious, doctors said, permanently.

If death is inevitable in such cases, why not give a lethal injection and get it over with? It would spare the family the agonizing death watch.

But current law says that would be homicide. The Cruzan case, and others like it, will arouse debate over whether that should change.

That's why this Missouri case could have such a dramatic impact on the very issue of life and its sacredness.

Once legalization of euthanasia is accepted in "clear-cut" cases like Cruzan's, it won't be long before the idea is extended to more ambiguous cases.

One basic problem of Americans during the past 50 years or so regarding society and morality is that we seem to see things in bits and pieces instead of totals.

We have very gradually become disturbed over things like sexual promiscuity, pornography, public education, the breakdown of the family, and abortion-on-demand as a means of birth control.

But we haven't seen each of these issues as a symptom of a larger problem. These matters are a result of a shift in world-view away from one that was based upon Judeo-Christian morality, toward something totally different.

Today's world view is largely based upon the idea that reality is impersonal energy shaped by impersonal chance. This view leads to a relativistic morality based not on absolutes, but on "situation ethics."

The meaning of human life requires an external reference point: the absolute that says human life, created in the image of God, is sacred, regardless of its function or ability to function.

But today, things are judged in terms of utility and pragmatism. All things thus are relative to the purposes of society, especially secular purposes.

While the Cruzans' fight to remove their daughter's feeding tube was intensely personal, the ensuing battle over legal killing of the terminally ill will necessarily be impersonal.

A law that would make killing legal in certain instances would need to be very specific. But when those specifics are based on an ever-changing, ever-evolving morality, where will the law lead?

Do we stop at making killing of terminally ill patients or those in a persistent vegetative state legal, or do we extend it to the impoverished elderly?

Early in the history of the welfare state millions of young Americans supported a much smaller number of aged through various programs. Today the situation is reversed.

How long will it take for the youth of America, who are continually bombarded with the world view that human value is based on utilitarian function, to decide that the elderly are really nothing more than useless eaters and quite unwanted? It isn't that big a leap.

And what about the severely retarded? Or the handicapped? Homeless persons have little pragmatic benefit to society. Why not mandate a "mercy killing" of a percentage of them in our most crowded cities?

You might say that I'm extending the idea of euthanasia to ridiculous lengths. But, to quote John Whitehead's book "The Second American Revolution:

"The consequence of the loss of meaning in general is that man himself, who was once seen in the image of God, loses his meaning. He is seen only as a bundle of urges and drives seeking existential satisfaction. Man, like a throwaway pop bottle, is disposable.

"Through technology man has been reduced to an abstract entity a number in a computer something that can be erased on the tape. Human beings are, therefore, an afterthought in a technology that merely views people in utilitarian terms.

"This is why we are beyond the thinkable in the areas of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia."

I hope I pray in light of the Cruzan case, this great nation can return to its roots and recover the value of man as posited by Judeo-Christian theism. The future of freedom depends on how we apply the truths of the past, not the relativistic pseudo-morality that current "medical experts" have attempted to impose in the name of compassion.