THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DR. DEATH

                       by Diane Sabom, Ph.D.

What do Derek Humphry, an avowed atheist, and Dr. John Pridonoff, a
Christian theologian, have in common? Both have been exceedingly
dedicated to the mission of the Hemlock Society, cofounded by Humphry
in 1980 and led by Pridonoff, its executive director since October
1992. Headquartered in Eugene, Oregon, Hemlock is the first and most
powerful of all the contemporary "right-to-die" organizations. Its
main calling is to gain public acceptance of euthanasia, or as they
say euphemistically, physician aid-in-dying. 

Hemlock spearheaded the November 1994 victory of Oregon's Measure 16.
This law, the first of its kind anywhere in the world, allows
physicians to prescribe lethal doses of medicine to "qualified"
patients who desire to end their lives. Because of the radical nature
of this bill, a preliminary injunction against operationalizing the
measure has been issued, while the Oregon courts study its
constitutionality for a year. Hemlock is strategizing to bring
assisted suicide legislation to a vote in other states as well.

For Christians, one ethical question is especially relevant in light
of Hemlock's change in directorship and the recent success of Measure
16. Does a theologian at the helm, instead of an atheist, now signify
that Christians can "keep the faith" and, at the same time, follow
Hemlock in legalizing and in practicing euthanasia? After a brief
review of the history of Hemlock, I address this question by
examining aspects of several of Dr.  Pridonoff's talks (including a
"first-ever" forum with Mrs. Rita Marker, executive director of the
International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force [I.A.E.T.F.]), his writings
and my interview with him, with special emphasis on certain of his
philosophical and theological statements. In the process this article
dramatizes the clash between post- modern and theistic truth which
shapes the culture war over euthanasia. Highlighted is the danger of
allowing post-modern truth and an ethic of self-determination to
forge public policy, especially in such crucial issues as that of
euthanasia.

THE HEMLOCK LEGACY

In 1980, under Derek Humphry's leadership, the Hemlock Society began
rather timidly by discussing living wills and the withholding of life
supports, but ended with great temerity by publishing drug tables and
practical tips for those who commit suicide in its journal, <Hemlock
Quarterly.> A letter to the editor entitled "Suicide at 88 Ends
Pointless Life" (April, 1991) even appeared to openly condone
assistance in the "self- deliverance" of the elderly who were bored,
depressed but otherwise not terminally ill.  ("Wasn't my father
considerate to feel that he was going to become a burden?" quipped
the "assisting" daughter following her father's suicide described in
this letter.) Humphry's own assistance to his second wife, Ann, in
the double suicides of her elderly parents and his subsequent
legitimization of this act in Hemlock's <Double Exit>, appeared to
substantiate the radical turn taken by this organization.

In 1991, Hemlock published Humphry's best seller <Final Exit>, a how
to manual of suicide. Here Humphry clearly stated his atheistic
underpinnings in a first chapter instruction: "If you wish to
deliberately leave this world, then active euthanasia is your only
avenue. Read on, carefully. If you consider God the master of your
fate, then read no further." Later that same year, Humphry stepped
down as executive director of Hemlock and the search began for his
successor.

Of the three finalists vying to replace Humphry, two were
theologians. One of these two, Dr. John Pridonoff, a man of
apparently impeccable credentials, was selected. He holds a Ph.D. in
psychology and has been an ordained congregationalist minister for
thirty years, with most of his experience having taken place as a
pastoral counselor "in the trenches"; that is, at the actual bedsides
of terminally ill and dying patients. He is unmarried and, unlike
Humphry, no scandals of a personal nature taint his background.
(Humphry allegedly had smothered his first wife, Jean, while
assisting in her "self-deliverance" and reportedly had abandoned his
distraught second wife prior to her suicide.) 

JOHN PRIDONOFF VERSUS RITA MARKER

I first met Dr. Pridonoff at a conference sponsored by the Physicians
Advisory Council (an arm of Focus on the Family) and attended by
generally skeptical, southern conservative Christian doctors and
their wives in Birmingham, Alabama in August, 1994. I found him to be
personable and well-spoken, with a kind, pleasant face; the kind of
face in fact that a sick person might welcome at his bedside. Sharing
the podium with Pridonoff for the first time ever was perhaps his
most formidable opponent, Mrs. Rita Marker. The dialogue among
Hemlock's new Christian leader, John Pridonoff; a Catholic
anti-euthanasia advocate, Rita Marker; and conservative Christian
physicians regarding issues relevant to euthanasia was both lively
and informative. 

Marker spoke first. Despite her petite size and soft-spoken warmth,
she aimed with deadly precision to unmask, to demystify, and to
expose the seemingly innocuous and harmless ideas in the strategy of
her opposition. Her solemn warnings of the nuts and bolts
consequences of passing euthanasia into law resonated harmonically
with the forebodings of her audience. Quoting professor of moral
theology William B. Smith, Marker emphasized that "Social engineering
is preceded by verbal engineering...." She warned, "The right to die,
death with dignity, and physician's aid-in-dying are really about the
right to kill." Charging to what she regarded as the heart of the
matter, she added, "Euthanasia is not about plumping someone's
pillow. It means <making> people die, <doing something> to make them
die. This is a debate about whether doctors are to be given the right
<to kill> another group of people." Furthermore, "We are talking
about drafting into law a medical procedure that would soothingly,
painlessly, guiltlessly and eternally end the life of a qualified
patient." She paused ever so slightly after each word to allow the
gravity to sink in.

Following Mrs. Marker to the podium, Dr. Pridonoffs voice evoked the
tension of the moment, as he spoke of "a humorous note" that fell
flat. No one laughed as he remarked that on that same day 2000 years
ago, Cleopatra killed herself with an asp.  He then began what Marker
had identified as verbal engineering: "First of all, the right to die
is not about the issue of killing people. Killing is really a
misnomer. It is an inappropriate word to use. We're not talking about
euphemisms here but of what words mean in the understanding of the
general public but also in the law." Pridonoff implied that the
consensually agreed to killing that occurs with acts of euthanasia
lacks the imposition of one's will upon another. He pointed to the
biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill" as denoting in the Hebrew
that "Thou shalt not <murder.>" The killing accomplished by one's