Podcast appearances and mentions of wesley j smith

Today’s episode is a special rebroadcast of an episode of Humanize, a Discovery Institute podcast that discusses the issues that impact human personhood and to defend the unique and intrinsic moral worth of human life. Here, Humanize host Wesley J. Smith speaks to three contributors of the recent volume Minding the Brain to explore from both philosophical and scientific viewpoints why the Read More › Source

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die The post The Journal of the American Medical Association Calls for Over-the-Counter Abortion Pills – Wesley Smith, 2/5/25 (0362) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die The post West Virginia Bans Assisted Suicide & A New Report on Canada's Assisted Suicide Program – Wesley Smith, 11/15/24 (3203) first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Sponsor special: Up to $2,500 of FREE silver AND a FREE safe on qualifying orders - Call 855-862-3377 or text “AMERICAN” to 6-5-5-3-2“When a country or a state legalizes assisted suicide or euthanasia, it can no longer call itself anti-suicide, because it specifically approves some suicides. ... It's a very dangerous movement that is normalizing this kind of approach to dying as opposed to natural death.”In this episode, I sit down with Wesley J. Smith, a lawyer, public speaker, award-winning author, and chair of the Discovery Institute Center on Human Exceptionalism.“We're seeing in Canada also the beginning of a situation where patients who have a tough time getting an oncologist because of such a long waiting list, ask to be killed because they can't get quality medical care,” Smith says.We dive into his work on bioethics and euthanasia, better known today as “medically-assisted suicide.”“Assisted suicide and euthanasia is a symptom, not a cause, and there's a deep nihilism that seems to have infected society on many levels,” Smith says.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die The post 1982. A California Law Allowing Schools to Hide a Child's Gender Dysphoria from Parents – Wesley Smith, 7/17/24 first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die The post 1654. Donald Trump's Claim that Democrats are “Against Religion” – Wesley Smith, 6/13/24 first appeared on Issues, Etc..

Wesley Smith graciously spoke at our 45th Annual Legislative Day hosted just last week on May 1. He shared new developments and his insights on defending against physician-assisted suicide. We then had the privilege of continuing the conversation on our LifeBeat podcast. Lawyer and award-winning author, Wesley J. Smith, is the host of the Humanize podcast and Chair of the Discovery Institute·s Center on Human Exceptionalism. In 2004, he was named one of the nation·s premier experts in bioengineering by the National Journal. In 2008, the Human Life Foundation named him a Great Defender of Life for his work against assisted suicide and euthanasia. Smith·s book, ·Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die,· has become a classic in anti-euthanasia advocacy. He has published hundreds of articles and appeared on thousands of TV and radio programs across the U.S. and internationally. Smith is often called upon by members of the legislative and executive branches of government to advise on issues within his fields of expertise.

“Assisted dying” – what is it, and what's the purpose? Wesley J Smith,  Chairman of the Discovery Institute Center on Human Exceptionalism, joins Trending with Timmerie.  (2:27) Frank called and wants the option to commit suicide. (15:45) What happens when society accepts killing as a solution to human suffering? (31:48) Soldiers at the service of Christ – inspiring words of St. Fidelis. (45:30) Resources mentioned :  Discovery Institute  https://www.discovery.org/p/smith/   Young, healthy women being euthanized in the Netherlands should be a warning for Canada https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/young-healthy-women-being-euthanized-in-the-netherlands-should-be-a-warning-for-canada/   28-year-old Dutch woman to be killed by assisted suicide after doctors deem her autism ‘untreatable' https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/28-year-old-dutch-woman-to-be-killed-by-assisted-suicide-after-doctors-deem-her-autism-untreatable/ Fertility care  NaPro https://fertilitycare.org/find-a-mc   NaPro Telemedicine https://naturalwomanhood.org/find-a-doctor/telehealth/ Conversations with Dr. Susan Caldwell https://relevantradio.com/?cat=23210&s=susan+caldwell  

Is modern science a search for truth or a search for power? How can we restore public trust in the scientific enterprise? On this ID The Future, we're delighted to share a recent conversation between bioethicist Wesley J. Smith and philosopher of science Dr. Stephen C. Meyer. In an exchange that lasts just over an hour, Smith and Meyer touch on a variety of topics relevant to the public's view of the scientific enterprise. This interview originally aired on the Humanize podcast. Source

Would our world be a better place if scientists were in charge? On this ID the Future from the archive, author and philosopher Jay Richards hosts bioethicist Wesley J. Smith to discuss a tweet from Physics-Astronomy.org. The tweet read, “Imagine a world ruled by scientists, not politicians.” The pair discuss the consequences of such a form of governance, using the response to the coronavirus pandemic as a case in point. Source

Would our world be a better place if scientists were in charge? On this ID the Future from the archive, author and philosopher Jay Richards hosts bioethicist Wesley J. Smith to discuss a tweet from Physics-Astronomy.org. The tweet read, “Imagine a world ruled by scientists, not politicians.” The pair discuss the consequences of such a form of governance, using the response to the coronavirus pandemic as a case in point. Source

Unless you've been living under a rock, you are aware of how the transgender ideology has been sweeping through the medical, educational, and legislative communities. This has created a growing sense, especially among our kids, that assuming a gender identity other than your birth gender is not only an option to explore, but an admirable thing to pursue. Salvo magazine reports that the trend may be taking a turn in the right direction, citing bioethicist Wesley J. Smith's list of four signals that the tide might be turning against the cult-like push for trans-positivity. Smith says that first, European countries are back-pedaling on policies that allow medical transitioning for kids. Second, detransitioners are now speaking up to tell their horrific stories. Third, some are now suing those who influenced and helped their transition. And fourth, states are passing laws to protect minors from predatory medical practices. Let's educate our kids on God's design and his good gift of gender.

Wisconsin Right Now's Jim Piwowarczyk, Discovery Institute's Wesley J. Smith, Strategic Vision's David Johnson, Election Watch's Peter Bernegger, WILL's Rick Esenberg, and Wisconsin Agricultural Tourism Association's Jean Bahn

Wesley J. Smith, lawyer, award winning author, and Chair and Fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center For Human Exceptionalism joins Dr. George to explore the policies that have led to the homeless crisis. Wesley J. Smith is an award-winning author, international lecturer and public speaker. He left the full-time practice of law in 1985 to pursue a career in writing and public advocacy. He is the author or coauthor of fourteen books, including: Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die  Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement The War on Humans Power Over Pain: How to Get the Pain Control You Need (co-authored with Eric M. Chevlen, MD) Additionally, Smith has published hundreds of articles and opinion columns. He covers issues such as the importance of being human (human exceptionalism), assisted suicide, bioethics, eugenics, transhumanism, legal ethics, medical ethics, and public affairs. Further, Smith is often called upon by members of legislative and executive branches of government to give advice on issues within his fields of expertise. He has testified as an expert witness in front of federal and state legislative committees and has counseled government leaders internationally about matters of mutual concern. [Humanize – Visit the Website & Listen to the Podcast] • [‘Housing First' Caused the Homelessness Catastrophe – Read the Article] • [Discovery Institute – Visit the Website] • [Wesley J. Smith – Follow him on Twitter]

Congressman Tom Tiffany, National Review's Wesley J Smith, MacIver Institute's Bill Osmulski, State Senator Steve Nass, The Federalist's Evita Duffy, and National Center's Bonner Cohen

Experiments on the living unborn. Organ harvesting. Reckless biotech. Radical environmentalism. These are not horror stories playing at your local movie theater. They're playing out in labs, hospitals, and institutes across America. On this episode of ID The Future, host Andrew McDiarmid speaks with bioethicist Wesley J. Smith about frightening abuses of science being done in the name of progress. In this unnerving exchange, Smith discusses examples of biotechnology that are advancing faster than our ethical considerations, including synthetic human embryos, genetic engineering, and fetal farming. He unpacks recent attempts by environmental activists to give rights to non-living things like rivers and oceans. He explains the difference between animal rights and animal welfare, while exposing the animal rights campaign as an anti-human movement that inhibits human flourishing. Smith also discusses the latest fronts in the gender ideology crusade, and how the rush to affirm gender dysphoria in children is causing tremendous harm to our society. And before the nightmare ends, Smith explains the pernicious push from evidence-based medicine to "science-based medicine," a strategy that encourages censorship and totalitarian governance of the scientific enterprise. Source

Unless you've been living under a rock, you are aware of how the transgender ideology has been sweeping through the medical, educational, and legislative communities. This has created a growing sense, especially among our kids, that assuming a gender identity other than your birth gender is not only an option to explore, but an admirable thing to pursue. Salvo magazine reports that the trend may be taking a turn in the right direction, citing bioethicist Wesley J. Smith's list of four signals that the tide might be turning against the cult-like push for trans-positivity. Smith says that first, European countries are back-pedaling on policies that allow medical transitioning for kids. Second, detransitioners are now speaking up to tell their horrific stories. Third, some are now suing those who influenced and helped their transition. And fourth, states are passing laws to protect minors from predatory medical practices. Let's educate our kids on God's design and his good gift of gender.

The pursuit of human liberty, dignity and equality are just part of the ongoing efforts of Wesley J. Smith, Chair and Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. Wesley joins us for an in-depth discussion on the focus of his work such as bioethical issues, particularly relating to conscience, patient protection, eugenics, suicide, gender ideology, medical ethics and law and policy. Intriguing! Wesley J. Smith | Discovery Institute

The groundbreaking recent book Your Designed Body is the focus of today's ID the Future. Here in Part 2 of a two-part conversation with host Wesley J. Smith, the two authors, systems engineer Steve Laufmann and physician Howard Glicksman, delve deeper into the exquisite, multi-layered fine tuning of the human body. They point to essential systems within systems within systems—irreducible complexity cubed, if you will. They also respond to the charge that aspects of the human body are poorly designed and, therefore, are supposedly better explained by the blind process of Darwinian evolution. Laufmann identifies five common errors that Darwinists make when pushing this bad-design argument. All of the errors involve an ignorance of key engineering principles, he says, one of them being a failure to consider the principle of constrained optimization. This episode is reposted at ID the Future by permission of Wesley J. Smith and the Humanize podcast. Source

Is your body engineered? Or did it evolve through impersonal, random processes over millions of years through natural selection? On this ID The Future, host Wesley J. Smith interviews engineer Steve Laufmann and physician Howard Glicksman about their recent book Your Designed Body. In their book, Laufmann and Glicksman evaluate the causal factors of Darwinism - heritability, random mutation, natural selection, and time - and find that they are both inadequate and incapable of producing the interconnected systems of the human body. "The systems that are required to make the human body work," says Laufmann, "are exactly the kinds of things that engineers design and build." Instead, they explain the body through the lens of engineering, showing that design is the most adequate mechanism currently available to explain how the origin of our amazing human bodies. Says Glicksman: "The more we understand how life actually works, the more the neo-Darwinian narrative becomes impossible." This is Part 1 of a two-part interview, originally airing on the Humanize podcast, a production of Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. Source

For nearly a decade, federal policies meant to address homelessness have centered around “Housing First,” which begins with an assumption that the crisis is driven primarily by a lack of affordable housing. But is it really? Studies show that most individuals experiencing homelessness suffer from severe addiction, untreated mental illness, or a combination of the two. Others end up on the streets because they have no one to turn to, typically owing to broken familial relationships. It's time for a change. Steven Buri, Robert Marbut and Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute joined us to explore a new approach that acknowledges the inherent dignity of those suffering and that focuses on restoration, recovery, and self-sufficiency.Support the show

Climate Depot's Marc Morano, Moms For Liberty's Scarlett Johnson, National Review's Wesley J. Smith, Washington Times' Jed Babbin, and Judge Jim Troupis in studio

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die

Guest host Brooke Taylor is joined by her guest Wesley J. Smith to discuss Transhumanism. Where do we draw the line when it comes to radical anti-aging technologies? At what point do human enhancements become a challenge for human personhood. Tune in to Trending for the answers.

Former Milwaukee Co Sheriff David Clarke, WILL's Luke Berg, National Right To Work Foundation's Mark Mix, Discovery Institute's Wesley J. Smith, No Left Turn In Education's Ali Scweitzer, and Attorney Lance LoRusso

MacIver Institute's Brett Healy, Color Us United's Christian Watson, American Commitment's Phil Kerpen, Project 21's Horace Cooper, Author Larry Correia, and The Epoch Times' Wesley J. Smith

Ed Morrissey, host of "The Ed Morrissey Show Podcast" and Managing Editor at HotAir.com, fills in for Hugh from Central Texas. Ed discusses the news of the morning with John Hinderaker, co-founder of PowerLineBlog.com and president of the Center of the American Experiment, Wesley J. Smith, Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism senior fellow, Brian Wesbury, Chief Economist at First Trust Portfolios LP, as well as King Banaian of St. Cloud State University, Cam Edwards of BearingArms.com, and Christian Toto, editor of HollywoodInToto.com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Wesley Smith's National Review Columns Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die

Today's ID the Future brings listeners the second half of a panel discussion at the 2022 Center for Science and Culture Insider's Briefing. This portion begins with bioethicist and Discovery Institute senior fellow Wesley J. Smith making a surprising argument: His own field, bioethics, is at war with true medical ethics. Specifically, its most prominent figures—hailing from elite universities in the United States and Europe—are dedicated to emptying our medical culture of traditional ethical standards that protect human rights and are guided by a commitment to inherent human dignity. Some leading bioethicists see human beings as of no more inherent value than yeast. Smith stands athwart this anti-human trend and urges listeners to wake up and push back. Then John Read More › Source

Wisconsin Right Now's Jessica McBride, Sheriff David Clarke, American for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist, The Stream's John Zmirak, Discovery Institute's Wesley J. Smith, and Senator Ron Johnson

In episode one of the second season of Humanize, Wesley J. Smith's guest is the internationally famous novelist Dean Koontz. Dean and Wesley discuss how he came to be an author, how life is filled with meaning, his art, the importance of human exceptionalism, the problem with transhumanism, and how Dean uses humor to further his plots and character development. Read More ›

Mr. Wesley J. Smith is a lawyer, award-winning author, the host of the Humanize podcast and Chair of the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. Here he joins Dr. George to discuss the underlying tenets of transhumanism. They talk about whether or not it is possible to be a Christian and believe in transhumanism. https://humanize.today/ https://www.discovery.org/   

Manhattan Institute's Brian Riedl, Dr. Duke Pesta, The Federalist's Elle Reynolds, Wesley J. Smith, Dr. Keith Smith, and Empower Wisconsin's Matt Kittle

RSR host Fred Williams and Brian Lauer continue to expose the underlying agenda behind the World Economic Forum's "The Great Reset". History professor Yuval Hariri is one the movement's chief advisors and a mouthpiece for promoting its anti-Biblical tenets. The top of his website reads, “History began when humans invented god, and will end when humans become god.” (see Isaiah 14:14)  He believes that Artificial Intelligence will eventually take over, and end free will as we know it given that humans are "hackable animals". In a 2020 article “The World After Coronavirus” he said that "It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough.". A dedicated materialist, he shows a total ignorance of the concept of information that many leading physicists are now accepting as a major component in science. MIT's Edward Fredkin, sometimes Feynman collaborator, sometimes physics professor, once said "I've come to the conclusion that the most concrete thing in the world is information".  Fred and Brian discuss various audio clips by Harari including alarmist claims regarding transhumanism, which amounts to a different packaging of eugenics. The words of Wesley J Smith said it best: "This is transhumanism's fatal flaw. To paraphrase a great saint, 'If I blend with an AI computer program and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have enhanced capacities that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.' " He is also an advocate for global solidarity and implores "People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media.". Whose “science” should we trust? Which public authority, Fauci? Which media outlet? Pravda, CNN?

RSR host Fred Williams and Brian Lauer continue to expose the underlying agenda behind the World Economic Forum's "The Great Reset". History professor Yuval Hariri is one the movement's chief advisors and a mouthpiece for promoting its anti-Biblical tenets. The top of his website reads, “History began when humans invented god, and will end when humans become god.” (see Isaiah 14:14)  He believes that Artificial Intelligence will eventually take over, and end free will as we know it given that humans are "hackable animals". In a 2020 article “The World After Coronavirus” he said that "It is crucial to remember that anger, joy, boredom and love are biological phenomena just like fever and a cough.". A dedicated materialist, he shows a total ignorance of the concept of information that many leading physicists are now accepting as a major component in science. MIT's Edward Fredkin, sometimes Feynman collaborator, sometimes physics professor, once said "I've come to the conclusion that the most concrete thing in the world is information".  Fred and Brian discuss various audio clips by Harari including alarmist claims regarding transhumanism, which amounts to a different packaging of eugenics. The words of Wesley J Smith said it best: "This is transhumanism's fatal flaw. To paraphrase a great saint, 'If I blend with an AI computer program and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have enhanced capacities that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.' " He is also an advocate for global solidarity and implores "People need to trust science, to trust public authorities, and to trust the media.". Whose “science” should we trust? Which public authority, Fauci? Which media outlet? Pravda, CNN?

Dr. Duke Pesta, FAIR's RJ Haumann on illegal immigration, Wesley J Smith, AG Candidate Adam Jarchow, GOP District 2 candidate Charity Barry on the horrendous vandalism and intimidation of her fundraiser, and good news

Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine Forced Exit: Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide and the New Duty to Die Wesley Smith's National Review Columns

On today's ID the Future, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith explores a recent article in the journal Nature, “The Alarming Rise of Complex Genetic Testing in Human Embryo Selection.” Source

On today's ID the Future, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith explores a recent article in the journal Nature, “The Alarming Rise of Complex Genetic Testing in Human Embryo Selection.” As alarming as that title sounds, Smith says the reality is even worse than the Nature article suggests. Using the breakthrough technology known as CRISPR, scientists are not only altering the genes of a given creature, including humans, but are even altering the creature's germline. This threatens to permanently alter a species, Smith explains, including the human species. There's the question of whether we have the right play god in this way, of course. There's also the practical issue of scientists not really knowing what they are doing yet. A gene identified Read More › Source

This week on Family Policy Matters, host Traci DeVette Griggs welcomes Dr. Wesley J. Smith to discuss the rise of a troubling “religion”—transhumanism—which elevates technology as the way to eternal life.

On today's ID the Future, Human Nature author David Berlinski continues his conversation with host Wesley J. Smith. Here Berlinski reflects on the Jewish Holocaust, the destructive nihilism of the Nazis and the SS, and the shortcomings of Neo-Darwinism as an explanation for the diversity of life. Berlinski and Smith also discuss the increasingly widespread attacks on human exceptionalism, the growth of emotivism and why it's a problem, and the bizarre nature rights movement. This is the second and concluding part of a conversation borrowed, with permission, from Wesley J. Smith's Humanize podcast. Source

On this ID the Future, host Wesley J. Smith talks with polymath and Human Nature author David Berlinski about the philosophy of mathematics, the corruption of science, the burning of Notre Dame, modern Europe's curious incapacity to build graceful, beautiful structures, and what's driving the devolution of Western society. Source

On this ID the Future, host Wesley J. Smith talks with polymath and Human Nature author David Berlinski about the philosophy of mathematics, the corruption of science, the burning of Notre Dame, modern Europe's curious incapacity to build graceful, beautiful structures, and what's driving the devolution of Western society. But before any of that, Berlinski relates the dramatic story of how his parents, European Jews, escaped the Nazis only by the skin of their teeth. This is Part 1 of a two-part conversation borrowed with permission from Wesley J. Smith's Humanize podcast. Source

If your dog and a perfect stranger were drowning in a lake, side by side, who would you try to save? Would it surprise you to learn that nearly 2/3 of American adults would choose their dog? This disregard for our fellow man, in favor of animals is permeating society to a degree that many married couples are choosing to have pets instead of having children, and many animal species have greater legal protections than unborn babies. As Christians, we ought to be aware of how our attitudes about animals and their relative value to human beings can mimic that of the secular world, and this is exactly the consideration - and many more - that Ciara and Jessi look at in this episode.Show Notes:Chewy.com Christmas commercial: https://youtu.be/iIavnj8qGa0PragerU: Are Humans More Valuable Than Animals? https://youtu.be/7JATJv8HlV8Episode 15: Is God A Wo(Man)? https://www.buzzsprout.com/1538023/8151370-ep-15-god-is-a-wo-manA Rate is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement https://www.amazon.com/Rat-Pig-Dog-Boy-Movement/dp/1594033463The New England Journal of Medicine: The Groningen Protocol https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp058026"Euthanizing Children" by Wesley J. Smith https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2016/10/euthanizing-childrenCDC 2020 Birth Rates https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr012-508.pdfPopulation Trends in the Middle East and North Africa https://www.prb.org/resources/population-trends-and-challenges-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa/Why Muslims Are The Fastest Growing Religious Group https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/06/why-muslims-are-the-worlds-fastest-growing-religious-group/Voddie Baucham: The Centrality of the Home in the Evangelism and Discipleship of the Next Generation https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/gracefamilybaptist/sermons/5209234630/Follow crosswise on:Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/crosswisepodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crosswisepodcast/

On this episode of The Resistance Library Podcast, Sam Jacobs interviews Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith is the host of Humanize Podcast, Chairman of Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism, and an award-winning author whose works have appeared in the op-ed pages of The Epoch Times among other places. We had him on to discuss the Culture of Death in the West, the woke dehumanization of women, and why the vaccine mandate is Biden's exploding cigar.   For $20 off your $200 purchase, go to https://ammo.com/podcast (a special deal for our listeners).   Follow Sam Jacobs on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SamJacobs1776   And check out our sponsor, Libertas Bella, for all of your favorite Libertarian shirts at LibertasBella.com.   Wesley J. Smith Links: @theWesleyJSmith | Twitter Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism   Helpful Links:  Resistance Library  Sam Jacobs

As I said in a BreakPoint commentary last month, gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR and what's being called “Prime Editing” are “existential threats.” We have no idea what our attempts to play god with the human genome will unleash on humanity. Yet, we insist on charging ahead despite our imperfect knowledge with an unbounded confidence in our abilities. Coming from a concerned non-scientist like me, these concerns can be easily dismissed as alarmist, but what if the concern comes from the Director of the National Institutes of Health? It turns out that Francis Collins is also concerned. In a recent article in Discover Magazine entitled “We Must Never Allow Our Technology to Eclipse Our Humanity,” Collins called for a “moratorium of at least five years on heritable human gene editing.” Heritable gene editing technologies, like “Prime Editing,” aim to edit genes that can be passed on to future generations, along with any unintended and dangerous mutations. This differs from “non-heritable gene editing,” which can be used to treat people with “life-threatening disorders, such as sickle cell disease, HIV infection, cancer and muscular dystrophy.” Proponents of Prime Editing talk about the possibility of making “any kind of DNA change that anyone wants at just about any site in the human genome.” Thus, according to Collins, “scientists and leaders around the globe have an obligation to consider the appropriate use — if any — of heritable human gene editing. This involves scrutinizing the safety of such experiments, including the risk of unintended mutations, as well as a clear-eyed analysis of actual medical need.” Anticipating some objections, the NIH Director added that “the current arguments — that the benefits outweigh the risks — are surprisingly uncompelling.” Finally, Collins insisted that “We must weigh the profound social, ethical and moral issues associated with modifying the germline in ways that could change the human species forever.” It's good to hear someone as prominent as the director of the National Institutes of Health voice many of the same concerns we have at BreakPoint. But, as Wesley J. Smith pointed out at National Review, it's probably not enough. As Smith notes, when it comes to “the rapid development of the most powerful technologies ever invented — CRISPR germline gene editing, “artificial life,” “3-parent” embryos, cloning,” the Trump Administration has been, and I am quoting Smith here, “derelict.” For the most part, while NIH Director Collins' statement should be applauded, it is an exception. As Smith states, “unless leaders higher up the food chain engage the question in more amplified media venues than Discover,” Collins' proposed moratorium will never happen. In some ways, as I recently pointed out, the Communist Party of China, by sentencing Dr. He Jiankui to three years imprisonment for experimenting on fetuses using CRISPR, has demonstrated more commitment to reining in scientific hubris than our own government. Of course, given their track record, it would be silly to think that Beijing cares at all about humanity dignity and the sanctity of human life. Their reaction was almost certainly because Dr. He's transgressions portrayed that country in an especially bad light. In our country, scientists differ from Dr. He in only one respect: They're a lot more subtle about what they are doing than Dr. He was. We need much more evidence that those “higher up the food chain” in this administration care about the issue and are willing to make it a priority. For that to happen, we have let them know that it's a priority for us. Gene editing, what Smith has called “biotech anarchy,” is among the greatest threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life that we currently face. I will say it again: It is an existential threat. It's time for Christians, and through them our leaders, to treat it like one.  

Guest Bios Show Transcript Is Assisted Suicide a compassionate means of ushering the terminally ill into the next life? Or is it simply a way of pressuring those we consider a burden to take their own lives?  This week on The Roys Report, I'll be talking about this issue with Wesley Smith, one the world's foremost critics of euthanasia. Also joining me will be Kimberly Kuo—who has a powerful story of how her husband's battle with cancer transformed her thinking on this issue.  I really hope you can join us for The Roys Report, this Saturday morning at 11 on AM 1160 Hope for Your Life and on Sunday night at 7 on AM 560 The Answer! This Weeks Guests Wesley J. Smith ...is among the world's foremost critics of assisted suicide and utilitarian bioethics. In 2004 he was named by the National Journal as one of the nation's top expert thinkers in bioengineering for his work in bioethics. In 2008, the Human Life Foundation named him a Great Defender of Life. And just a few weeks ago, he was named to Terri Schiavo Life and Hope Network Board of Directors. His Human Exceptionalism blog, hosted by National Review Online, is one of the premier blogs dealing with human life and dignity. His latest book (2016) is the newly updated and revised edition of Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, a warning about the dangers of the modern bioethics movement. When first published it was named one of the Ten Outstanding Books of the Year and Best Health Book of the Year for 2001 (Independent Publisher Book Awards). Smith has published hundreds of articles and opinion columns nationally and internationally, including in Newsweek, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Forbes, the Weekly Standard, National Review, The Age (Australia), The Telegraph (United Kingdom), Western Journal of Medicine, and the American Journal of Bioethics. Throughout his career in public and consumer advocacy, Smith has appeared on thousands of television and radio programs including such national shows as ABC Nightline, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, CNN Anderson Cooper 360, CNN World Report, CBS Evening News, EWTN, C-SPAN, Fox News Network, as well as nationally syndicated radio programs, including Coast to Coast, Dennis Miller, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, and EWTN. Kimberly Kuo ...has over 25 years experience as a Communications and Marketing professional in national politics, federal government, corporations and start-ups. Her experience in politics includes time as Press Secretary for Senate Majority Leader and then presidential candidate Bob Dole and vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp. She currently serves as Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, Communications and Communities at Coca-Cola Consolidated. In addition to opinion pieces, she also writes music, poetry and children's fiction. She loves writing for and teaching young kids at Forest Hill Church in Charlotte, N.C., and her greatest joy is adventuring with her two children. Show Transcript Note: This transcript has been edited slightly for continuity. Segment 1 Welcome to The Roys Report, brought to you in part by Judson University.  I am Julie Roys.  And I'm so glad that you've joined me to talk about, what is admittedly a very sobering but important subject—euthanasia and assisted suicide. So what do you think about euthanasia or assisted suicide?  Is this a humane way to usher those with terminal illnesses into the next life?  Or, is it simply a way to pressure those that we consider a burden to take their own life? Over the past 25 years, the move to legalize assisted suicide has accelerated rapidly.  In 1997, Oregon became the first state to legalize euthanasia.  Today, eight states and the District of Columbia have joined Oregon's ranks.  A ninth state will be added in September when a new law goes into effect in Maine.  Over the years, nearly 1,500 people in Oregon have died from ingesting drugs legally prescribed by a doctor.  In the state of Washington, nearly 1,400 people have done the same.  But that's nothing compared to the numbers of people euthanized worldwide.  In the Netherlands, for example, where assisted suicide was first made legal, more than 6,000 people die by euthanasia and assisted suicide every single year.  And just about a month ago, a 17-year-old Dutch rape victim, who suffered from depression, starved herself to death after requesting euthanasia. It's unclear if the doctors played any role in her death, though my guest today argues that it really doesn't matter.  He writes: “A teenager, with a terrible psychiatric condition, was allowed to make herself dead instead of receiving continued and robust treatment efforts.  That's abandonment as surely as providing a lethal injection.  This is where all assisted suicide or euthanasia legalization laws eventually lead.  Once a society accepts killing as an acceptable way to eliminate human suffering, there is no limit as to the categories of suffering that will eventually justify eliminating the sufferer.”  Well, my guest today is Wesley J. Smith, one of the world's foremost critics of assisted suicide and utilitarian bioethics. Wesley is an author and a senior fellow at The Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism.  And his Human Exceptionalism blog, which is hosted by National Review Online, is one of the premier blogs dealing with human life and dignity. His latest book is the newly updated and revised edition of Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine. So Wesley, welcome to The Roys Report.  I'm so glad you could join me.   WESLEY J. SMITH:  Well, thank you for having me and hello to your listeners. JULIE ROYS:  So Wesley, you know, let's talk a little bit about this Dutch teenager who committed suicide.  By all accounts, she didn't die by injection or prescribed drugs.  I think it is a little bit unclear. But can you explain more why you feel that her suicide is actually the result of sort of this culture of death that assisted suicide and euthanasia contributes to?   WESLEY J. SMITH:  Well, absolutely. I call that an abetted suicide.  And this is what I mean.  Starving oneself to death is known in euthanasia parlance as VSED for Voluntary Stop Eating and Drinking. It is pushed by euthanasia and assisted suicide groups such as Compassion and Choices, which used to be more honestly named The Hemlock Society.  And in fact, in the Compassion and Choices, they promote aggressively and teach people how to do it for elderly people who may not qualify for legal assisted suicide in states where it's legal, but are tired of life or just feel that their life is over and it's time to move on.  So, what happened, is this teenage woman, a young woman, or late, you know, teenager, had been sexually molested when she was 11.  And had been gang raped by two men when she was 14.  Obviously, that caused a terrible upset in this poor thing, poor girl.  But she had actually managed to make something positive out of it.  She wrote a best-selling book, just as an example, to show the vitality of her life force, that tried to make something positive out of this awful experience, which she was suffering from depression, anorexia, PTSD and so forth.  And at the end, she asked for the mental health officials to provide her with electro-shock therapy, which can help in treating depression.  She was refused on the basis that she was too young. So she then decided I'm going to just starve myself to death, obviously having been told about this VSED situation. Now in VSED, people don't just starve and dehydrate themselves to death, generally, without a doctor's help because of the symptoms you would experience. If you don't eat, the pain and don't take water, the pain and suffering can be quite intense. So what often happens is that a doctor will palliate those symptoms – give you drugs to make, so that you don't feel them so well that actually helps you then continue on with this suicide effort, which is suicide in slow motion.  What I suspect happened, and I don't know, is that doctors in the Netherlands probably put her, may have, let's put it, instead of probably, may have because there's an investigation ongoing, may have put her into an artificial coma to allow her to complete this process of ten days dehydration.  That is something called “terminal sedation.”  And terminal sedation isn't intended to just palliate symptoms. It is intended to make it so the person dies.  And it must be distinguished—I hate to be (inaudible) but we have to be nuanced—from what is known as palliative sedation.  In a situation where someone is actively dying and perhaps, they're suffering from anxiety or the pain is difficult to control, doctors' palliative experts can put patients into a sedated state that can actually be titrated up and down. The point of that isn't to kill people. The point of that, is to make it so that they live as fully as possible considering their circumstances.  The point of terminal sedation isn't when somebody's dying but is to make them so that they don't eat or drink. In fact, in the Netherlands, more people die by terminal sedation than die by active euthanasia.  To the point that in an article I wrote a couple of years ago, it seems that about 24% of all Dutch deaths, may be induced by doctors when you include euthanasia, assisted suicide, (euthanasia being lethal injection, assisted suicide being lethal prescription) terminal sedation and so forth.  So I think if we ever learn the full truth of what happened to this 17 year old girl, we will find that doctors were certainly a part of her suicide by self-starvation and dehydration.    JULIE ROYS:  This is, I mean, I'm trying to wrap my head around this.  I mean, one, you have a girl who is 17 years old.  She's not old enough to get the treatment that she so desires but she is old enough to be killed. WESLEY J. SMITH:  Julie she's not old enough to consent to a tattoo! JULIE ROYS:  It's just mind boggling to me.  And then you're telling me that 24% of deaths may be caused, in the Netherlands, to doctors?  I mean that's like a complete violation of the Hippocratic Oath, right, is to do no harm? WESLEY J. SMITH:  Oh yeah, right, of course it is. But doctors don't take the Hippocratic Oath anymore.  And again emphasizing, 24% isn't the number of people lethally injected.  24% includes people who might be sedated so that they die over 2 weeks and this kind of thing.  And in fact, there have been stories out of the Netherlands, the reason that doctors are turning more frequently to terminal sedation, is under the euthanasia law of the Netherlands, the doctors actually have to be present when the patient is killed.  And that's what they're talking about, you know, euthanasia, you're killing the patient—you're giving them a lethal injection.  But in terminal sedation, the doctor doesn't have to be present. And there have been stories out of the Netherlands about how anxiety-causing euthanasia is for the doctor, which one would expect and one would hope when you're killing people that that would be something you'd never get used to. So, when you include all of the types of induced death that can exist and I'm speaking off the top of my head, but it was about 24%.   JULIE ROYS:  Wow, wow.  And this is supposed to be, I mean, this is what the advocates of assisted suicide and euthanasia say, they say this is the compassionate alternative. And yet, we're seeing this being used to really create a society, where if you're not, you know, deemed worthy of living, then we can encourage you, you know, maybe pressure you, maybe just not offer you the help that you need. So that you just going to usher, you know, into that next life. Not very compassionate, Wesley.  WESLEY J. SMITH:  Well, the Netherlands has always had a stunted hospice sector and palliative care sector because they've been allowing euthanasia since the 70's. It was formally legalized in 2002 but before that, it was decriminalized so that if a doctor followed the supposed guidelines, that are intended to protect against abuse, they would not, and they reported it to the coroner, they would not be prosecuted. But I hope your listeners understand that these supposed guidelines, to protect against abuse, are just there to assuage people's fears.  They're really not designed to protect anyone.  For example . . . JULIE ROYS:  One second, Wesley, we have to go to break so I hate to cut you off. But we'll come back to it.  We just have to take a short break.  Again, Dr. Wesley Smith, a critic of assisted suicide and a senior fellow at The Discovery Institute is joining me.  When I come back, I'll have another guest for whom this subject is very personal.  Stay tuned. SEGMENT 2 JULIE ROYS:  Well, euthanasia is increasingly becoming accepted around the world and here in the U.S.  Welcome back to The Roys Report.  I'm Julie Roys.  And today we're talking about assisted suicide and euthanasia and the sanctity of human life. Our show today is recorded, so I can't take your calls. However, I encourage you, you can join the live conversation online by going to Facebook.com/ReachJulieRoys. Or to get to me on Twitter, use my handle @ReachJulieRoys. Also, I want to let you know that today I am giving away copies of Wesley Smith's most recent book: Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine. This is a warning about the dangers of the modern bioethics movement. Great book. Great resource. So if you'd like to enter to win that book, just go to Julie.Roys.com/giveaway. Again, joining me today is Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. And I have another guest waiting to tell a really compelling story about how this has personally impacted her life.  But Wesley, I wanted to give you a chance to sort of finish your thought, that you didn't get a chance to finish at the end of the last segment, about how these laws—they're supposed to be about compassion, they're supposed to be a last resort for suicide and euthanasia.  Yet, that's really not how they're written, is it?  WESLEY J. SMITH:  That's correct and with regard to the 24% of Dutch deaths being induced, it's actually, as I added it up, 25%.   And the people want to see how it came to that conclusion, they can go to National Review online, the corner, my article of January 21st, 2019.  It will be easy to find if people are interested in how I determined that figure.  In terms of, I was going to get into domestic assisted suicide advocacy. It is always sold as an issue of to be a kind of a safety valve, a last resort to prevent an agonizing death when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering. But that's not how the laws read at all.  There is no objective requirement that there be nothing else done, that can be done to alleviate suffering. In fact, if there was it would be a zero rate because there's always something that can be done to alleviate suffering. Even if it means that cognitive sedation that I discussed. So what happens is these laws say, as cited by the patient, so the patient may not have any actual symptoms at all. But if they have the diagnosis of a terminal illness, likely to cause death within 6 months, they're able to get the legal prescription. So all of the advocacy that you hear about requiring suffering isn't true because the laws are not written to so require it.  JULIE ROYS:  Well, thank you for that distinction. That's really helpful. I want to introduce us now to Kimberly Kuo. She's someone I became familiar with because I heard her speak at a conference and her story was so compelling that I was like man, I want people to hear this story of how through her experience. Her husband was David Kuo. He was the former Deputy Director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush. Kimberly says watching her husband live his life to the fullest, while suffering from this terminal illness, led her to advocate against assisted suicide. So Kimberly, I'm just thrilled to have you join me. Thank you so much for taking the time. KIMBERELY KUO:  Oh, thank you so much, Julie. I appreciate the opportunity to share.   JULIE ROYS:  Yeah, well, so tell, I mean, I know your story but our listeners have never heard about it. Tell me a little bit about David and his terminal illness and how that impacted your view of this issue. KIMBERELY KUO:  Sure, well, I had no view of the issue honestly before David and I's experience. So, we were in Washington D.C. many years ago. Both of us working in politics.  David was 34 years old when we were driving home from a big Washington party. He was working in the White House at the time and he had a grand mal seizure while driving home. So if you don't know what that is, his eyes just rolled back in his head and his foot launched on to the gas pedal and we went flying out of control. And so, at about 4:00 in the morning, in the ER, we survived the car crash thankfully. He was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer—Glioblastoma—and that was the first time that he was given 6 months to live. As Wesley mentioned, that's about all it requires, at that moment. He could have been given lethal drugs to kill himself, saying, you know what, you only have 6 months to live. It's going to be a terrible, painful illness and way to die. And we certainly didn't take that path. Although, about 2 years after David actually died, a woman named Brittany Maynard, who I'm sure you've heard of, in California, started this whole debate, was diagnosed with the same exact same brain tumor and did set out to take the drug 6 months later. Thankfully, our story continued.  David and I had only been married for 3 years at this point and so David had seizures. He had trouble walking because his left side was impaired after that point. You know, having 5 brain surgeries over the time. But about 2 years after David was given 6 months to live, we had our daughter Olivia. And because we decided we were going to live. And that's a tough decision to make in these circumstances. But you really have to decide whether you're going to wait to die or you're going to live. And 4 years after David was given that 6 months, we had my son, Aiden. So we built a family and we lived, in about, as I mentioned, David had 2 years of chemo after the kids were born. And about 6 years in, the tumor is growing again and he was given 6 months to live again. He had had radiation at this point. It looked on the MRI's like it had just blown up. They had several doctors look at it—6 months to live.  And we decided to continue using new weapons at our disposal:  medicine, and prayer and fasting and everything we could do.  And then he, of course, lived another few years. Nine years after his first 6 months diagnosis, he was given a third diagnosis of 6 months to live. So he ended up living about 10 years which kind of proves what Wesley was saying, you know. We went through hospice for example for the last 10-11 days of David's life. And I could tell you story after story of our friends and family who came, flew in across the country over the years of taking us to doctor's appointments. And seeing miracles of David actually getting another year to live, another 2 years, another 3 years to live. We had people fasting for us around the world. And the faith that was built in our community over this time was enormous. Including the last 10 days of Aiden, Aiden that's my son, of David's life when, you know, some people would say, “okay well end it then because it's painful.”  Honestly, the hospice system in America – the last 10 or 11 days of David's life were some of the least painful, the least suffering.  However, he continued to influence people incredibly. He was witnessing to his ICU resident and telling him to read Mere Christianity. In the last two weeks when he was in ICU, he challenged his oncologist to start a ministry for homeless cancer patients. Because in their discussions, they realized homeless people don't have health care, how does a person with cancer be served? So she did so after his death. And so, my message to people, first of all, is this whole debate is predicated on suffering and doctors trying to predict how long you can live or how long you can suffer and what not. And no doctor we every talked to, which were the best doctors in the world: National Institutes for Health, Duke, UCLA, whatever. None of them could predict with any degree of reliability how long David would live, what his suffering would be like, any of those things. And the second thing that I found so interesting is Brittany Maynard, the poster child for this whole compassion and choices argument is that there was purpose in every day that David lived. He would speak to people; he would influence people. And there is no purposeless suffering. And you'll always having the opportunity to live fully and to influence other people. And so that's the short version of our story and I'm happy to talk about it more. But I never imagined even being in this debate until I heard some of the arguments for this. And then, of course, as a caretaker, who struggled for 10 years to take care of David, I can tell you that if you had a caretaker who was not, didn't have the best intentions or just couldn't do it anymore. It scares me greatly that caretakers can now make that decision for the patient. There's numerous examples where the patient has not given their own consent. But a caretaker who's just tired or a caretaker who might inherit money or something could make that decision for a patient. JULIE ROYS:  Wow.  Well we're going to have to go to break.  When we come back—Kimberly, thank you so much for that story—but when we come back, let's talk about the laws in the United States.  What is sort of on the front lines in this assisted suicide and euthanasia debate?   Again, you're listening to The Roys Report.  I'm Julie Roys.  Joining me today Kimberly Kuo also Wesley Smith.  We will be right back after a short break. 3rd Segment JULIE ROYS: Welcome back to The Roys Report, brought to you in part by Judson University.  I'm Julie Roys.  And today, we're discussing euthanasia and assisted suicide.  Is this something that we should support as a compassionate solution to suffering? Or is it kind of a Trojan Horse, which really ushers in this culture of death and justifies killing anyone that we deem a burden?  Our show today is recorded, so I can't take your calls. However, I encourage you to join the conversation live online right now at Facebook.com/ReachJulieRoys. Or to get to me on Twitter, use my handle @ReachJulieRoys. Also, I want to remind you that today I am giving away copies of Wesley Smith's most recent book: Culture of Death: The Age of “Do Harm” Medicine, which is a warning about the dangers of this modern bioethics movement. If you'd like to enter to win that book, just go to JulieRoys.com/giveaway. Again, joining me today is Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. Also joining me is Kimberly Kuo, an outspoken advocate against assisted suicide and euthanasia. And Wesley and Kimberly, I just looked this up recently, 2018 Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans support euthanasia or assisted suicide. So the view that you bring to the table is becoming more and more a minority view in this country. Wesley, why don't you speak to what's happening with these laws and kinda where the front lines is here in the United States when it comes to euthanasia and assisted suicide. And maybe, can you distinguish what's the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia? WESLEY J. SMITH: As used in this issue's parlance, assisted suicide is when a doctor gives you a lethal prescription so that you can take an overdose of pills to kill yourself. So the last act that causes death is taken by the person who dies. In Euthanasia, as generally used, the doctor administers a lethal injection, so the last act to cause death is from the doctor. So in Netherlands, Belgium and Canada, this is three examples, that permits euthanasia, they call it “medical aid and dying,” because they love their euphemisms. They don't want people to think about what's really happening. But in those three countries you have doctors literally killing people with a lethal injection. And I always find it ironic that these are countries that are against the death penalty by lethal injection. In Belgium and the Netherlands and in Canada, sometimes euthanasia is conjoined with organ harvesting. And so that a person who would not be dead, except for being killed by a doctor, will then have their organs harvested within minutes of succumbing. In Belgium and the Netherlands, and the reason I'm bringing this up is because it shows you once you decide there are killable people, then you decide there are exploitable people. So in Belgium and the Netherlands, not yet in Canada, although it may happen someday, people who are euthanized are sometimes mentally ill. And it does not require in any of those countries a terminal illness. But in Canada, I'm sorry, in Belgium and the Netherlands, mentally ill people are euthanized. That is people who are not physically ill are experiencing the terrible anguish of mental illness, go to a hospital, are killed, they're wheeled into a surgical suite, and their organs are harvested. And then these experiences have been written up in organ transplant medical journals without an ounce or an iota of criticism. It's just stunning to consider what we're doing. And in fact in one of those cases, one of the articles, I looked it up and read it extensively, I looked deep into the heart of the data, you know what the person who was killed and harvested, you know what their mental illness was? Self-harming. So the quote treatment to self-harming was to kill and then harvested. I can't think of anything more cruel than letting people believe, who are having a terrible time getting through the night, that their deaths have greater value than their lives. JULIE ROYS: Well this is the slippery slope, isn't it? I mean it's . . . WESLEY J. SMITH: Well yes.  JULIE ROYS:  . . . one where you let it in, this is where it heads. WESLEY J. SMITH: It's not just a slippery slope. What I'm discussing are facts on the ground. And this is not what I project will happen. It is what is happening today. And this happens not because the Dutch or the Belgians or the Canadians, and the Canadians are our closest cultural cousins, it's not because they're worse human beings than Americans. It's because they have excepted the premise that underlies euthanasia. That killing is, that we can eliminate suffering by eliminating the sufferer. And once you accept that logical, that premise, logic will take you to places where we've gone. Some go slower than others. The United States is going much slower than the Netherlands did because there's still a robust pushback here in this country. And by the way, one of the reasons why 72% of the people told Gallup that is because they never hear the reasons for opposing it. The media has gone all-in on supporting assisted suicide. They turned Brittany Maynard into a heroine because she committed assisted suicide.  CNN named her one of their “Extraordinary People” of, I think it was, 2015, because she killed herself. JULIE ROYS: Yeah, it's unbelievable. Let me . . . WESLEY J. SMITH: Yet Kimberly's husband didn't get the notice that Brittany Maynard received. And there was another young woman, named Lauren Hill, who had the same illness. She fought for life with dignity instead of quote death with dignity.  And she got a little bit of notice in People Magazine because she raised money for cancer research and continued to play basketball, college basketball.  189 page, word, I'm sorry, word obituary in People.  Brittany Maynard got 1,000 words in People. KIMBERLY KUO:  Front cover. JULIE ROYS:  Yeah.  Let me throw this to Kimberly because I want to give you a chance to weigh in on this as well.  I mean, we talked, you, I had you on a radio show that I had on a different network a couple years ago, you know.  And we talked about that, you know.  Since we've talked about this issue, New Jersey has passed assisted suicide law. Maine just passed it.  It's going to go into effect in September.  Are you surprised to see how rapidly this is beginning?  I mean, like you said Wesley, it's a little bit slower than in Europe but are you surprised to see how it's getting root here in the United States. KIMBERLY KUO:  Not really because as I said, I never thought about it and when you talk to people about it, it's not sort of a happy issue.  It's not like cutting your taxes.  And the arguments against it are complex.  So I try to raise simple things to people, like someone has to decide who's going to die.  And basically, the governments are deciding who can die now.  Is that a good thing?  You know, people just don't think through that and certainly I believe Christians don't because it's the exact argument that they use for abortion.  The language is pro-choice.  It's about women's health and freedom and doing what you want, but very similar mirrored issues.  No one talks about the fact, to add on to what Wesley was saying about organ harvesting, insurance companies have huge monetary incentives not to treat cancer but to give people $50 worth of lethal drugs.  And I'm a political person so if you look at the California law, what that did was help them fill a 60 million-dollar hole in health care for poor people. JULIE ROYS:  All right, pause on that.  We need to go to break.  When we come back—I love that you brought up, Kimberly, you know, as Christians how should we think about this?  You know, the arguments for abortion very similar.  We're going to talk about that when we come back from break.  Again, you're listening to The Roys Report.  We will be right back after a short break.  Segment 4 JULIE ROYS:  Well, is euthanasia the answer to chronic suffering or simply a means of ushering in a culture of death?  Welcome back to The Roys Report. I am Julie Roys and today we are tackling this difficult topic of euthanasia and assisted suicide.  As you may know, assisted suicide is legal now in 8 states and the District of Columbia.  In September, it will be legal in 9 states when a new law goes into effect in Maine. Here in Illinois, assisted suicide is not legal however in Illinois, it is legal to withhold food and fluids from a patient who is not dying otherwise. And now that Democrats have a super majority, I just wonder if this is going to be another push here in this state, to do something that is absolutely shocking. So, we'll be jumping back into that discussion in just a second. But I do want to let you know that next week, we're going to be talking about just an incredible move of God that's going on right now in Iran. Joining me will be Joel Richardson, a New York Times bestselling author and filmmaker, and an internationally recognized expert on Biblical prophecy and Islam. Joel has just produced a film on Iran telling the story of how the Iranian regime is actually losing control of the Iranian people. And it's in large part due to this sweeping movement, interestingly of women, who are following Jesus as their Messiah.  I'm so excited about this show, and to have Joel who will be getting back from the Middle East shortly before the program and can report to the seeing this first hand and what's going on there.  So, I really hope you'll make a point to join me next week as I talk to Joel Richardson about that. But returning to our topic today.  Joining me is Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute and Kimberly Kuo, an advocate against euthanasia. And Kimberly I know, for you, Scripture played this huge role in what you said.  You know, initially, you didn't really have a view on euthanasia and assisted suicide but as you and your husband walked through his terminal illness, you really relied on Scripture and God began to speak to you through it. So, tell me how Scripture informed your view of this topic. KIMBERLY KUO: Well, let me run through a couple of things on that. First of all, just searching the character of God. So we definitely leaned on specific verses. But I would challenge everybody to understand the character of God because I think sometimes you can pull specific verses out of context. But one of the ones I always use in explaining the issue is Job 2. It's the first time assisted suicide, that I could find, was mentioned. And that's when Job had already lost his family, he lost his herds, and his wife came to him and says, you know what, give up just die. Now you're afflicted physically and there's something especially hard about that. So just curse God and die.  And what Job says to her is, “don't be foolish.”  “Don't be foolish,” you know, “we can do this, God gives us good, God will carry us through this.”  So that's the first thing I would say.  And then if you jump to Job 28 when God finally fires back, “You know what? Where were you when . . .?” And he goes through, “where were you when I hung the stars?” Right?  We have to trust in a God that Isaiah said is far above our ways.  If he gave us breath, there's purpose in the breath.  If he gives you a breath today, it means you can live with that, right?  And certainly 1 Cor 6:19 where he says, “your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.  You were bought with a price.  Honor God with your bodies.”  To me, that doesn't mean until we feel like we can't anymore.  You know, like I said, David's body was broken.  He lost his ability to walk, he lost his ability to turn over in a bed and he still honored God as much as he could in every way that he could.  And so I don't think that charge to us, to honor God with our bodies, ends.  I think, you know, Julie I mentioned this in the conference, I get asked a lot this Catholic view that, you know, suicide in any way, shape or form is just an unforgiveable sin.  But to me, it's the original sin to say, “you know what, I will handle this, that and the other but man when it comes to suffering physically and dying, I'm taking over. God must have made a mistake. I'm going to control this, right? I'm not going to honor God anymore. I'm just going to control this whole thing.” And I think that the fundamental, you know, unfaithful position, if we believe God is the good Father and perfect in all of His ways, then He's perfect in all of His ways and we have to submit to that.  JULIE ROYS: And our suffering happens under his sovereignty.  And I think interestingly, we follow a Savior who endured suffering to the end. Who said, you know, I want, Father, take this cup from me and yet He didn't bow out at that point he said okay, “this is legitimate suffering. This redemptive suffering. I'm going to do it in faithfulness to the Father.” And so what an example Jesus gave us. KIMBERLY KUO:  Exactly, and he says in the end, “I will honor you, God. Right? I see what suffering is coming before me, and I hate it, please no, but, in the end, not me but you, God and I will honor you no matter what.”  JULIE ROYS: Amen, it's so powerful, the example of Christ.  And it helps us, you know, as we face these things. Wesley, you were saying as we were talking in the break, that this issue, you know, a lot of us think, well okay, so when our state is going to, you know, if there's a law that we're going to be considering, then we'll think about this issue. You're saying this could hit you very personally. You need to think about it now and think about what you're going to do. Tell me about that. WESLEY J. SMITH:  Right and I would also point out based on what Kimberly said “compassion,” the root meaning is to suffer with. Assisted suicide isn't suffering with anybody, it's discarding. And it certainly does not reflect—and the Hippocratic oath, 500 years before Christ, understood that—it prohibits doctors from participation. But I want your listeners to consider. They may think, well, this will never affect me, will only happen if I get sick or somebody in my life gets sick and I won't have to think about it otherwise. I don't think that's true. You see in the media today a lot of promotion of what are called suicide parties. That is people who are going to commit assisted suicide or euthanasia, for example in Canada, have a party which culminates, either at the end of the party with the killing, or the party ends and then the person commits assisted suicide. It is being normalized in the popular culture. And your listeners could receive a call one day from, let's say, sister Sue.  Sister Sue calls and says, “you know, Grandma has cancer.  She's expected to die within six months. But she's decided it's next Tuesday.  She wants you come. She wants you to be here when she takes the pills.”  What do you do?  If you say, “yes,” you are complicit in Grandma's suicide. You are validating Grandma that she perhaps is a burden. Maybe her fear is she's a burden. Or she's worried that she will be loved less if people see her go through the decline that can be experienced in a terminal illness. Brittany Maynard said that one of her two reasons for committing assisted suicide was she didn't want her family to have the bad memory of her going through the decline caused by the brain cancer. In other words, she put herself out of her family's misery. This is really frightening. So, if you say yes, you're complicit. You're validating and it may be the thing that pushes Grandma over the final ledge. “Well, I guess if my family says I should do it, I should do it,” right?  But if you say, “no,” you could end up losing your family. For example, you say, “no.”  Sister Sue says, “how dare you impose your Christianity on Grandma, on us.  If you don't come and if you're not part of her—she helped put you through college, you're out of the family.”  And don't think that won't happen. Christians are now facing increasing persecution for being faithful to their faith. Doctors are actually in Canada being forced to choose between euthanizing patients or getting out of health care. A court ruled in Ontario, Canada that a Christian doctor who refuses to euthanize, and refuses to procure a euthanasia doctor who will euthanize, can actually face professional discipline because of that decision not to kill. So, there's going to be—any one of your listeners could end up facing this situation. And I think pastors, if you have pastors listening to your show, they need to bone up on this so that if somebody comes into their study and says, “Pastor I've got a problem. You know they want me to come out and participate in a suicide party.”  The pastors' need to be able to counsel those parishioners in order to do what's right both by Grandma and by the parishioner. JULIE ROYS:  Kimberly, I am curious in your advocacy, have you talked to many pastors and, you know, if so, how did they respond about getting involved on this issue and speaking out about it? KIMBERLY KUO:  Almost all said to me, even at the conference I was at where you attended Julie, is, “oh my gosh, I never thought about this.” And that's kind of what happens in these social issues and you know that. And I hate to say this but it is, you know several Republican governors and legislatures defeated these and then a Democrat came in and they were approved. So this is more of a liberal agenda item. They're organized, they are pushing this, and we're just not even paying attention. And so almost all of them have either asked me to come speak, or “what do you say?” or, “are there resources?” Nobody is thinking about this. I'm thrilled to read Wesley's book. But even among my friends, no churches or pastors are talking about this at all. And if I could just play on one thing he said there, about the word compassion. One thing I always bring up for Christians to look at. Look at Mother Teresa. She's like this icon of compassion. Even the Pope said, you know, this assisted suicide is misdirected compassion. Let's own what compassion is. She's not killing off people suffering in Calcutta. She's comforting them, staying with them, loving with them. And people like that, they understand that that's good. Well then that's the model we should be following, right? We need to understand and claim what compassion is because David and I experienced compassion. We experienced the Body of Christ. And it was certainly not anyone sleeping in a hospital bedroom with us saying you know, just get this over with, end this. It was someone sitting there, you know, bringing supplies or holding his hand. I once stayed up for 36 hours clicking a morphine clicker every 5 minutes to keep his pain under control, right? That's compassion. JULIE ROYS:  And it changes you, doesn't it?  KIMBERLY KUO:  Oh, forever, yes and everyone around you. Yes. JULIE ROYS:  The character that's formed in us, I think, as we walk with people in their suffering; it develops something in us. And yet I think we don't want to suffer even though as Christians we know, part of being a Christian is taking up your cross, following Christ, imitating him, you know. Following His example. And yet we want to just sort of get out of that process.  And who likes suffering?  It's tough, it's really, really tough.  WESLEY J. SMITH: Obligation, if people weren't suffering, how would anybody ever provide the succor that people do?  You know, when you're receiving care, you're allowing other people to plant seeds of love. If nobody was willing to receive care, how would those seeds of love ever be planted? And if you take a look back at the early church, why did the church become popular among the poor? Because the people of the early church picked up the children that were exposed on hills, took care of the elderly who were being abandoned and so forth. So, when you show that—I'll bet that the incredible love you gave your husband, Kimberly, touched more people than you will ever know on this side of eternity. Because, you know, when people claim to be Christians, I'm a little stepping outside my parameter here, but people watch to see how you act.  JULIE ROYS:  Yeah, they do.  I hate to do this.  We're running out of time. I'm going to have to bring this to a close. But Wesley I so appreciate what you said. And Kimberly, I so appreciate what you said. And I'd love to have you both back and talk about this again sometime because I feel like it's much larger than we're able to deal with in this time. But you're absolutely right, Wesley, people are watching us. And I think it's very clear in Scripture.  Deuteronomy 32:39, says, “There is no god besides Me.  I put to death and I bring to life.  I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of My hand.”  The right to life and to death is God's.  That's not just my view, that's Scripture's view.  Thanks so much for joining me for The Roys Report.  Have a great weekend and God bless. Read more

Officially, the Netherlands is a safer country to live in than the United States. Its gun homicide rate is about 4 percent that of the United States, and its official murder rate is less than one-fourth that of the United States. The key word in that statement is “official.” Because, as a recent report in the Guardian tells us, there's a lot of killing going on in the Netherlands that doesn't involve a gun and isn't classified as murder, although it should be. An article in the January 18 edition of Britain's Guardian newspaper asked the question “Death on demand: has euthanasia gone too far?” Now to be clear, the Guardian is the British Left's paper of record. It's a far more liberal publication than any mainstream American newspaper. So for the Guardian to ask whether euthanasia has “gone too far” suggests that things could be a lot worse than the public has been led to believe. And the area of focus for the piece was The Netherlands. The Guardian found that in 2017 “well over a quarter of all deaths… in the Netherlands were induced.” “Induced” means that the person died at his or someone else's hand, instead of by illness or accident. By way of comparison, during the same period in the United States approximately 65,000 deaths out of more than 2.7 million were “induced.” This includes approximately 17,000 homicides, 45,000 suicides, and 1,300 deaths via physician-assisted suicide. That's only 2.5 percent. So, which one is the more dangerous country again? As I noted, the Netherlands official homicide rate is one-fifth that of the United States, and its suicide rate is about a third lower. So, who's “inducing” all these deaths? The troubling answer is… doctors. We've talked a lot on BreakPoint about the ever-expanding euthanasia-industrial complex. We have told you about how the so-called “right to die” eventually becomes, in effect, the “duty to die.” We've also told the stories of doctors so eager to end life that it isn't clear in some instances if it was what the patient actually wanted. Still, even in the context of all of those realities, what the Guardian found was shocking. For example, Dutch doctors commonly practice what's known as “terminal sedation.” This is “a slow-motion euthanasia wherein patients not in the active stage of dying are put into artificial comas and denied all sustenance until they dehydrate to death.” This is different from “palliative sedation,” which is “a rarely required procedure in which patients near death are sedated to control pain or other symptoms such as severe agitation or air hunger that cannot be alleviated in any other manner.” While approximately 6,600 Dutch were officially euthanized and another 1,950 people killed themselves in 2017, the Guardian found that “the number of people who died under palliative sedation – in theory, succumbing to their illness while cocooned from physical discomfort, but in practice often dying of dehydration while unconscious [that is, terminal sedation] – hit an astonishing 32,000.” Add it all up, and in 2017 more than 40,000 of the 150,000 deaths in the Netherlands were induced. While the Guardian was astonished, Wesley J. Smith wasn't. He's among those telling anyone who will listen that in places like the Netherlands the line between palliative sedation and terminal sedation has been blurred for some time. As he wrote in the National Review, “Since euthanasia was first decriminalized in the Netherlands, the country's doctors have traveled a very dark road.” The category of people deemed candidates for induced death has steadily grown. And while a theoretical line has been crossed, Dutch officials do nothing. It could hardly be otherwise. As Smith put it, the Dutch aren't “horrible, ghoulish people.” But they are logical. Once they “accepted the premise that killing is an acceptable answer to suffering,” they're now simply taking “that belief precisely where it leads.” Which makes the Netherlands a lot more dangerous than official stats suggest. And which makes me ask, “Americans, is this what we really want?”     http://www.breakpoint.org/2019/02/breakpoint-assisted-suicide-turned-homicide/