In January 1973, the United States Supreme Court upheld a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, thus allowing abortion on demand. Since then, it has been estimated that over 45,000,000 abortions have taken place in this country, and the sanctity of human life has been attacked. Rather than allowing God to have his say about the sanctity of life, man has decided to determine who deserves to live and who does not.

One would think that this might be the end of the issue; however, man continues to push this issue of the sanctity of life further. In 2005, a woman by the name of Terry Schiavo was starved to death because her husband said that she did not want to be on artificial life support (no written directives were ever found). The court in the state of Florida determined (on the basis of hearsay evidence—which is not admissible under most circumstances) that a feeding tube, which does nothing more than sustain life, is now “artificial life support.” Arguments were made that Schiavo was in a “persistent vegetative state” and would not suffer since her brain supposedly would not process pain in the way everyone else’s would. While many doctors said she was in “PVS,” many others argued that she was not and that the diagnosis of “PVS” is very subjective.

Now, in the most recent issue of The Journal of Medical Ethics, we read about a new argument:

A discussion in the current Journal of Medical Ethics shows that there is a growing interest in using their bodies (those who have PVS—T.C.T.) for medical experiments. They would be especially useful in studying the long-term effects of transplanting animal organs. The patients often survive for years, and if a virus affected their brains or other vital organs, very little harm would be done.

Some bioethicists have even contended that PVS patients are actually dead and can be treated as cadavers. But Dr Steven Curry, of the University of Melbourne, disagrees, partly because they aren't dead and partly because it would be too difficult to persuade the public that they are.

PVS patients are alive, he contends, but they have nothing to lose and they can contribute to the common good:

“Those who are in a PVS will not ever wake up, they feel no pain or discomfort and have no continuing interest in their own survival... these patients must also have a right to risk that life for the common good... The patients will not be able to have children and have no capacity for movement, so that their possible confinement does not violate the interest that underpins the right to free movement... Also, no risk of withdrawal of consent exists.”

Ideally, of course, people should agree in advance to such experiments by enrolling in a register. But it is unlikely that many people will, as few people anticipate living in a comatose state for several years. Hence, says Dr Curry, it ought to be possible to get others to consent on their behalf “with reference to the person's values and stated preferences.”

Living patients in a permanent vegetative state as legitimate research subjects Curry, J. Med Ethics. 2006; 32: 606–607

Read Psalms 139; Genesis 1; Jeremiah 1:1ff; and ask yourself: “Do we have the right to determine who should live and who should die?” Is this not God’s prerogative? And will we continue to go down that slope? We may argue—no, not now! But what about 20, 30 or 50 years from no?

Will we stand for what God says, or will we go down the slippery slope with the rest of the world?