Initiative 1000

This week, Initiative 1000 passed overwhelmingly in Washington State.  It was nicknamed the “Death with Dignity” initiative.  It proposes a fundamental change in civil law that would allow physicians to prescribe lethal drugs to terminally ill patients who request them.   The law provides for some controls to be in place and does not require a patient to notify any family members before requesting death.  As I watched the election night returns, I must admit I was surprised to see the wide margin by which it passed.

The idea of suicide assisted by doctors creates many problems.  When you pass a law like 1000, you have to ask questions about who can be denied such a right.  Why is assisted suicide only reserved for the terminally ill?  Furthermore, we are now putting doctors in a position juxtaposed to the Hippocratic oath, now making life and death decisions. 

But my deepest disagreement is with those that view the terminally ill as less dignified than those who die suddenly or from old age.  And I do want to be clear, that I do not wish to  minimalize the pain or the depression that one can encounter when dealing with terminal illness. Dignity calls for people to be entitled to respect and ethical treatment by others, no matter what the circumstance.  At its core, dignity comes from an unshakable self respect.  I was at a Hopelink luncheon in Bellevue, Washington not too long ago where Edward James Olmos was the keynote speaker.  He shared a story about a legal immigrant woman, Lupe from Mexico who lived in east Los Angeles in abject poverty and did not speak English.  She had been treated poorly by people, thinking her stupid because she could not speak our language and therefore could not get a job.  Lupe’s determination led her to learn the English language and become trained in a trade that would make her a decent living.  At the lunch, she was introduced to the crowd and here she was standing in front of hundreds of people, beaming with pride as she shared her story.  Another anecdote worth mentioning was posted on a blog by one of the founders of GlobalDignity.  Mathumbangel lived in a village in South Africa, in a shack of a house with her father.  She was in the late stages of AIDS, tired and showing the effects of the disease on the skin on her face.  The author went on to share:

When Mathumbangel was diagnosed HIV positive she had all the reasons in the world to become apathetic, depressed and bitter. She chose not to. Mathumbangel become an activist. She organized meetings to inform people how they could take preventive measures to avoid getting infected by HIV. She also organized meetings for people living with HIV to help them talk about their challenges and gain comfort and strength from interaction with their peers. Not only did they need to face the fact that they were living with a deadly disease, they were also confronted with the stigma, exclusion and discrimination they met when people got to know that they were HIV-positive.

We see from these stories that human dignity is confronting despondency, resignation and hopelessness with great faith and fierce resolve.  I reject the notion of dignity as defined by the proponents of an initiative like 1000; that it is a suffering person’s right to commit suicide with the help of a doctor.  Some opponents refer to the slippery slope when talking about this issue. I don’t see that at all.  1000 is a fast slide from valuing human life to resignation and hopelessness.

Our writers want to hear your opinions.  We value your comments and hope that you will join the discussion!

The Bailout

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few weeks about the $700bn bailout that passed through the Congress and was signed by President Bush.  The US government was lauded for their actions by the international community, while some who supported the bill lost their seats in the ‘08 elections.  The American public is not happy about this bill and they shouldn’t be.  I, like many voters saw the government’s response to be more of a reaction than a well thought out strategy.  Some of this is due to the complexity of the problems that exist and the fact that consensus building around a crisis of this magnitude has significant challenges.  Americans need to understand that the bailout has real costs that will affect us today and in the future.  Voters did the right thing in holding their elected officials accountable in this latest round, but there is more work to be done. 

As I see it, there are two problems with the government’s response to the crisis.  First and most important, the elected officials who were in power and led us into this crisis should not be trusted to design and implement the response.  A case in point is Representative Barney Frank, after reviewing a report from OFHEO, told regulator Armondo Falcon that he didn’t “see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems” about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If in fact, he was unable to see the gathering storm clouds, then Representative Frank should be returned to the private sector by the citizens of Massachussetts as soon as possible.  It is some sort of sick joke to see him opposing regulations over the GSE’s before the crisis and then hearing him lecture on how the current Adminstration’s opposition to regulation led to this mess.  Again, for all the time Frank has spent in Washington is still not clear on how thing work.  Congress (of which he was a member) drafts and approve laws, sending them to the president to be signed.  Liberals were opposed to any action tht would have put restrictions on Fannie or Freddie, because they were again engaged in one of their social experiements–this time on home ownership.  These are the same well-intentioned people who think that government collectivism is the solution to many of our nation’s challanges.  On the other hand, conservatives believe that the government should restrain its involvement in areas that directly affect the economy and that government should make common sense rules that maintain fairness in the marketplace.  The media has done a lot to connect conservatives to the failure of the financial sector, but the facts to not bear this out.    

The other problem that I see with the bailout is that no clear exit strategy has been identifed.  This allows for public intervention into the marketplace on an indefinite basis that will stymie the economic activity necessary for a strong long-term recovery.  Congressional leaders could not resist the opportunity to get their hands in your pocket when they should have forced themselves to enact a plan with reference points for withdrawal.  Josef Ackermann, chairman of the Intstitute of International Finance recently said in a letter to President Bush that long-term involvement of the public sector will result in “widespread inefficiencies” that would hurt long term economic growth.  The man knows his economics and his history and both President Bush and President-Elect Obama should heed his advice.  One can to refer back to the New Deal to see that expansive government involvement into the economy will provide a short repreive from any economic challenges the country faces.

Americans need to demand that the government provide us with an exit strategy for this unprecendented bailout–and they need to demand it now.  We also need to hold elected officials accountable who were in positions to address the problems and for whatever reason did not do so.  Write Representatives and your Senators, make your opinion’s known.  This is still a government by the people for the people.

Our writers want to hear your opinions.  We value your comments and hope that you will join the discussion!

Letter to Dr. James Dobson

Below is a copy of a letter that I sent to James Dobson last summer.  I am a supporter of the ministry of Focus on the Family and have friends who work for the organization.  FOTF,  like any organization must maintain its relevance in changing times, which is the nature of my letter to Dr. Dobson.  As of the date of this post, he has not responded. 

July 13, 2008

Focus on the Family

Attn. Dr. James Dobson

Colorado Springs, CO 80995

 

Dr. Dobson,

 

I recently vacationed in Colorado Springs with my family.  While there, I managed to pick up the local paper and turned to a story that detailed your recent disagreement through the media with Barack Obama.    As I read, the story rubbed me wrong.  In the piece, you made a couple of statements about Mr. Obama’s ‘fruitcake’ interpretation of our Constitution and his ‘distorting’ of the Bible.  Jim Daly later went on to validate some of your comments to another media outlet by stating that “Dr. Dobson speaks for millions of Americans.”   

I believe that Mr. Obama’s comments about faith betray the views of a man who sees the Bible as a very compelling collection of stories— which should not be taken too seriously.  Honestly, I have admired his authenticity and the deftness of his campaign so far. But when he stated that we (presuming “we” as all Americans) need to develop a common language to talk about religion in our country, I became alarmed.  If he is a Christian, he should know that the common language to be used in the discourse about Christianity is the Bible.  It seems that he is suggestion Christians prepare a revisionist work to make the faith more palatable to others.  While I do not think it glorifies God to be disagreeable, there are Biblical truths that will be just plain unacceptable to people.   But I digress, I wanted to share some concerns I have about yours and Focus on the Family’s relevance now and in the future.  I grew up listening to Focus on the Family and have admired your writings like Dare to Discipline and Bringing up Boys.  In these efforts, it is clear that you and Focus are in your full stride.  I know of several other initiatives and programs that Focus heads up or participates in where people are coming to know and growing in Christ. 

Your efforts to influence the political process are where I see you losing your way and becoming less effective.  The kingdom of God grows only when men see the need for salvation and hearts are changed—nothing more and nothing less.  Jesus Christ never sought political influence and was harshest in his criticism with the religious establishment.  Focus on the Family resembles that establishment, which will cause it to lose what is most important; the authenticity that changes lives for Jesus Christ.  The evidence of this slide is the tit-for-tat media exchanges with Obama, your ‘questioning’ of John McCain’s political conservatism and threatening to “stay home” if he wins the Republican nomination.  These matters have nothing to do with the Gospel.  The Focus Mission statement is well grounded in the sharing of the gospel of Jesus Christ with a vision of lives changed.  However, political influence and posturing resemble the position of the Pharisees not the Gospel of repentance and grace.  Furthermore, Mr. Daly’s comments seem to demonstrate that he believes validation comes from the amount of follower’s you have, rather than the truth itself.  This is treacherous ground. 

In closing, I would encourage Focus on the Family to do just that.  Continue to help families with the challenges they face and continue to share the truth about social issues like abortion, divorce and sexual addiction.  Stay away from activities like presidential campaigns which lead to the temptation to play kingmaker.

 

Respectfully,

 

Brad Toft