Why Euthanasia is Not the Answer: A Conversation with Stephanie Connors

Why do people want to prevent suicide, but then make an exception when the word "assisted" is put in front of it? In this interview, I talk with Stephanie Gray Connors about her latest book in which she makes a biblical and non-biblical case that assisted suicide is not loving.
READ: Start with What, by Stephanie Gray Connors (amzn.to/3buTvlm)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell

[@cherylbertucci8167]

She needs to go and learn what assisted suicide actually is. Her premise is off. Also I would like to hear her address Lou Gherigs disease

[@laputasuiteable]

What is it? Because that’s our understanding of it. Can you shed some light?

[@Venaloid]

45:42 - 46:30, 'If assisted suicide is accepted as a medical solution, then we will lose our motivation to come up with a real solution, or a better solution.' Having a solution doesn’t remove our motivation to try and find better ones. This is why we're still working on an HIV vaccine, even though we've developed amazing treatments for AIDS. Assisted suicide may be the best option for ending a person’s pain *for now*, but we can imagine better, more desirable solutions which reduce or eliminate these conditions in the first place, which is why we are still working on them. I'd rather no one be in a situation in the first place where suicide is the only way to end their suffering. This is why, in 1995, we finally got a varicella vaccine, even though we already had a standard practice of exposing children to chicken pox to reduce their risk later in life. Merely having a solution doesn't mean we stop trying to find better ones.

[@heidiklick9444]

Great interview! I read Martin’s book @Ghost Boy”. Truly inspiring and also horrifying the experience he had. As a nurse I have had to remind fellow nurses and other staff to be kind in all they do and say because you do not know what or how much the person they are caring for is aware of or understands. Stephanie’s book is now added to my read list.

[@Venaloid]

Why do I try to prevent only some suicides and not others? (34:40 - 37:28) There is a very standard answer to this question from people who support assisted suicide, which Stephanie seems to be completely ignorant of. This is the person's prognosis, and their potential for having enough happiness to offset their suffering. When you come across someone standing on a bridge threatening to jump, we know that, 99% of the time, this is a person whose problems can be solved, and who can get better and live a happier life in the long run, so in these cases, it is rational to try and prevent their death for their own long-term happiness. Indeed, these people typically end up thankful for the person who prevented them from dying in that moment. This is the same reason we would implore our friend to not punch holes in their wall just because they're angry in the moment, even though it's their house. Compare this to someone who we know will NOT get better, like someone dying from cancer, or someone with a painful degenerative disease. This person has basically no chance of being happy again, so in these cases, suicide makes sense, if it can be done safely, hence the word “assisted” in front. Indeed, if I knew that the person standing on the bridge was in horrible pain, which would only get worse until they died in a horrible manner, I wouldn't try to stop them from jumping. *The key factor is the person's prognosis.* The fact that Stephanie seems completely ignorant of why supporters of assisted suicide think these two situations are different tells me that she did very little research, and very few interviews, in writing her book. If someone wants to burn their house down because they’re angry in the moment, we try to stop them. But if someone wants to demolish their house in order to rebuild it, or even just to repurpose the land, we *don’t* stop them. By Stephanie’s logic, there’s no qualitative difference between these two situations because the person wants to do it, so why should we stop them in the former instance and not the latter?

[@heidiklick9444]

A prognosis is not necessarily a death sentence. I am a nurse and I have known people, including family members, who were informed that death was looming and went on to live months or years beyond said prognosis as well as the other end of the spectrum. Complete elimination of pain is not realistic but improving comfort is. Supporting the person through these horrible situations is vital…. Assisted suicide is not a loving answer to the persons physical or mental suffering.

[@drakesmith2492]

I find it unfathomable that someone can believe that there should literally be no exceptions to the restriction of euthanasia. Especially a Christian. It seems her entire view on this is based on incorporating an atheistic concept of death into Christianity. Around the 53:00 mark she is talking about the meaning of life being love and says, "If we are not alive we cannot love." That isn't the way Christians view death. In fact, it isn't even how she views it because she told the atheist who lost his sister that she was now free of pain and with God. So, which is it? We never end a life even if they are in pain worse than anything you can imagine and no painkillers dull it and they have no hope of recovery because when they die they cease to exist and cannot love? Or does all their suffering end and they go to be in loving communion with God when they die but we still have to make sure they suffer in unimaginable hopeless agony until they naturally die anyway? I understand wanting to avoid a slippery slope but frankly it's horrible for someone to demand the continued hopeless suffering of others when you know some people are suffering dozens of times more than anything you have ever experienced. If you are empathetic at all you have to admit that there should be some exceptions. Personally, considering how she brushed off someone with fibromyalgia because "a lot of people would say that's not serious enough" makes it seem like she isn't very empathetic at all. She can sound caring most of the time but she just writes people off without knowing how terrible their individual condition is. In reality, fibromyalgia has varying levels of severity and you cannot know that this individual isn't suffering that bad just because most are not. Just like how I personally suffer serious nerve pain throughout my body and partial paralysis from spinal cord damage in my neck yet others may have less pain. It is my choice to bare this pain, disability, and loneliness (because I cannot have a romantic relationship) for the sake of serving and being faithful to God and not cruel people like her who do not know or care about me and write me off while feeling good about themselves because they supposedly are loving others and valuing human life. Life isn't just breathing and our purpose isn't to keep breathing for as long as possible. To value and love a person includes showing them mercy.

[@Venaloid]

She says that people cannot give or receive love unless they are alive (52:58- 53:32), but this implies that people who have died, and who are now in Heaven with God, cannot give or receive love. Surely that's not the case. Surely, the people in Heaven love God, and God loves them, right? I don't think Stephanie realizes the theological can of worms she's just opened. And surely you can still love a friend who has died, and that friend can still love you, right? It's not like, as a Christian, you think they cease to exist after death, right Stephanie?

[@drakesmith2492]

@J Lo No offense but what does a statement like that even mean? I seriously don't know what you're trying to express. I mean, to be a Christian and say that it looks like you're trying to say that atheists don't have any thoughts or ideas about what death is. To be an atheist and say that looks like you're trying to say the "atheist concept of death" is just real death and other people's thoughts about death aren't even death but are something else. I honestly just can't figure out what you're trying to express outside of these very obviously false ideas. Maybe you are just trolling. I don't know. Best wishes either way.

[@drakesmith2492]

@J Lo Oh, you're one of those people. Well, forgive me but my education and work has been in biology and chemistry in the US and in these circles naturalists, which is where I fit for a large portion of my life, dominate atheism. Over 90% of the atheists I have known, including my former self, do not consider worldviews other than naturalism to be atheism. The reason is obvious and follows from your own reason for rejecting gods. That is, every worldview other than naturalism requires belief in something that has equal or less evidence of existing than any god. Think about it. Name one worldview other than naturalism that doesn't believe in a spiritual dimension, supernatural force, or something like that. You holding such a strict definition of atheism as "disbelief or lack of belief in gods due to insufficient evidence" is just stabbing yourself in the foot if you think about it for longer that two seconds. Naturalists are the only real atheists. All others "atheists" are just "diet theists". They are "atheists" who just have an issue with any god, usually especially the Christian God, but don't want to admit that the issue is complicated and involves an emotional aspect so they say it is only a "lack of evidence" problem while continuing to hold on to other religious beliefs with the same, if not worse, "lack of evidence" because those beliefs are comforting. It is the ultimate crutch. A big level of comfort without the boss to boss you around. Anyone trying to play semantics by pointing out that "theos" literally means "god" and so an atheist can believe in other things that "lack evidence" while saying that atheists don't believe in any god because of a "lack of evidence" hasn't really thought the whole thing through very clearly. Even if a person falls for that technical definition anyone who rejects a god due to a "lack of evidence" yet accepts other stuff that "lacks evidence" is applying an intellectually unsound double standard and is following a totally hypocritical and irrational worldview. I respect my atheist friends, who I have known and loved since I was an atheist, too much to lump them into the same group as people like that. Therefore, the naturalist concept of death, aka the atheist concept of death, is that consciousness ends upon death and "you" totally cease to exist.

[@jeremys.2451]

@drake. .... did you completely ignore her admiration for the paralytic at marker 55? So why do you believe Stephanie would discard you?

[@oliverhug3]

@@jeremys.2451 this horrible person discards all terminally ill people.And she discards all pets.

[@sebasticus9167]

This lady is comparing continuous pain and suffering for years from, let’s say bone cancer, to her high school like heart ache. I’d dare her to go to one of my cancer patients and say to them that they need to live with their constant pain because it’s somehow meaningful and pleasing to some god. I don’t remember who said it but and I’m going to paraphrase it : without religion good people do good things and bad people do bad things but it takes something like religion for good people to do bad things and this lady is the embodiment of that.

[@chunchunli5181]

Yes, you’re right, world views are at stake here. Let me ask you how do you define ‘good people’? Is good relative or absolute?

[@Venaloid]

​@@chunchunli5181 - We can generally use the term "good" in the colloquial sense, which is more or less something like basic human empathy and the reduction of suffering for as many people as possible. However, there is no objective definition of the word "good"; it's just a word. Philosophically-speaking, neither atheists nor Christians can rationally jump the is-ought gap, and claim that any normative statements are actually "true". This means we simply have to pick some definition of "good" things that we "ought" to do (normative statements), and most people in the world generally make "ought" statements based on their basic human empathy and whether an action causes unnecessary suffering (Should you trip random people as they walk by? Should you call people names all the time? Etc.) The meaning of the quote Sebastian is repeating is that religion (or a religious-like ideology such as fascism) is a great way to make "good" people (in the colloquial sense of the word) support extreme and unnecessary cruelty. Normal, well-adjusted people do not want others to suffer in such a horrible way as dying from cancer over a period of months with no hope in sight. It is only because McDowell and Connors have their religion that they have become such sociopaths in practice.

[@leeerickson4574]

Yes, I agree. When SGC plainly stated that her personal introduction to the vast topic of suffering was getting dumped, I had to rewind and listen again. I was speechless (and that's rare). In her wonderful one-woman show, "Letting Go of God," Julia Sweeney describes what her brother Mike went through dying of cancer. That is suffering. I believe that emotional suffering can be very real, but seriously, a break-up?!?!?

[@sarahsays194]

The point she was trying to make with that is how it's is easier to empathize with someone who has suffered loss of some sort when you have also suffered a loss of some sort. Her breakup with her fiancé had her suffer the loss of someone that she was close to, loved, and wanted in her life. A person that experiences the loss of a family member because of cancer suffers because they were close to them, loved them, and wanted them in their life. Yeah the levels of loss are different, but they both feel and go through those same three things. It's not about whose loss was worse. It's about putting oneself in another's shoes because personal experience makes it easier to do so.

[@sebasticus9167]

@@sarahsays194 I dont know what point you were trying to address but it wasnt mine. My point wasnt about the loss of the family of my patients but the gain of meaningless pain by the cancer patient, just to spare the feeling of a god.

[@davidvalenta9394]

an aspect of this is something I've seen a running thread for : is the older generation having a role-based mindset (vs 'feelings' based of the younger generations); that being tied to: If my role is no longer viable, then what is my identity (or use, in that case). That ties in to the thread of the last century: of the elements of eugenics in it's inception America, and how that's tied human value to an economically quantifiable amount. Those not productive, were institutionalized for most of that time, while the average person was able to be productive to the social system. Eugenics in American history should be something that people of faith should look into, now that faith in popularity is waning, at least in visibility or effective viability to influence culture and especially social policy and legislation. We've got to get better at reestablishing the value of human life in addition to a religious value, of one of inherent value. and there's plenty of debates that are good exercise on that. The same economic or self-interests on the abortion issue apply here as well. With the layers of division so tightly cross-strung across society: political affiliation, sex, age, income; anything that is not identified with becomes polarized and an instinctive 'enemy' of sorts, trained by media, etc. People of faith & conscience need to start being a surprising difference to see value in life, to be present (and needing divine help to do it) in places where deepest care is needed. we'r approaching hard times again, and the most dependent & vulerable could once again be state-approved to be eliminated to conserve resources for the productive. Yes: it's happened here & abroad in the last century, due to the effect of eugenics and economics. Love has to win.. the error of compassion to stop pain must be surpassed by the practiced God-capacity to endure along with: the real definition of 'compassion'...God sources where human compassion's options are openly shown to be shallow or limited; it's also where divine grace & God's glory will shine.

[@Venaloid]

52:32 - 52:47 - Stephanie seriously thinks that the reason we put down dogs is because the dog no longer "functions", it no longer amuses us, it no longer does what it says on the box. Wow.

[@joebriggs5781]

That was straight up disturbing. I hope nobody ever lets her have a dog.

[@Venaloid]

43:30 - 43:40, when Stephanie's father was suffering from a mysterious condition, and the nurses were helping other patients, she remembers thinking, "Don’t you see my dad is suffering? What are you going to do right now to fix it?’" - Well, if God exists, why should anyone help your suffering dad? Maybe your dad's suffering is part of God’s plan. Maybe your dad's suffering will bring about some greater good. Clearly, God wanted your dad to suffer, so why are you trying to reduce your dad’s suffering? Do you know better than God?

[@phoenixlegend2921]

Well what is the utility or reason for having a prefrontal cortex or what do you think is "God's plan" of giving you one , you can say what you want but this kind of irresponsible and frankly insane rhetoric is why we have unnecessary suffering in life , in my opinion whether you are a Christian or an atheist , you prescribe to whatever the fuck you want to believe or disbelieve one must not forget the utility of suffering , one nature or God (whichever you prescribe to) wants it's creations to grow strong , because strength not only produces capacity to overcome but also produces the necessity of compassion to understand and emphasize - Simply put I believe without suffering there is no need for compassion , to understand or even a need to grow in any manner shape or form . So I believe suffering is a necessity of human condition one without which there is no reason for humanity to evolve.

[@ezbody]

Take religious mindset, mix it with no empathy, and you have this strawman book. 🙄 The number of people without empathy and compassion are reaching epidemic proportions within the Evangelical community, that's where the focus should be.

[@Venaloid]

Something tells me you would not be singing this same tune if you had FOP (fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva), where your muscles and ligaments are slowly replaced by bone, which typically causes death when the person's ribcage becomes solid can no longer expand, and they suffocate in a desperate, panicked, and prolonged struggle for life. If you were in this situation, you would just want the pain to end, and you'd consider it inhumane torture if someone forced you to endure this until you finally died. The idea that you would allow a person to suffer like that, when you could easily stop it, is disturbing, and it betrays such a profound lack of basic human empathy that I am genuinely disgusted by both of you. The idea that you could stand over another human being, who is screaming out in pain every day, struggling to breathe, knowing that they are going to die like this, and tell them that they need to stay like this until their body physically gives out, is beyond disgusting.

[@apracity7672]

"The idea that you would allow a person to suffer like that..." In others words, youre implying its a moral obligation to euthanize people who are suffering

[@Venaloid]

@@apracity7672 - In those circumstances where the person wants to die, and where they will only get worse until they die anyway, yes, absolutely, 100%. I'm not implying it, I'm demanding it. If you would stand over someone, listening to them scream out in pain, as they beg for the death that will eventually come anyway, and you force them to continue suffering like that against their will, when you both know that their pain will only get worse until they die anyway, you are a sociopath and a monster.

[@apracity7672]

@@Venaloid idk, your deep-rooted yearning to murder sounds more sociopathic to me

[@Venaloid]

​@@apracity7672 - Yes, that's exactly what I said: I just love murder. /s. Obviously I wish it didn't have to come to assisted suicide, but I think it's obvious that, in some cases, that is the better option. Choosing the much-lesser of two evils in a specific situation doesn't mean I have a "deep-rooted yearning" for that option across the board. Come back when you have a real argument.

[@apracity7672]

@@Venaloid Just to be clear then, what would be the criterion/criteria that would make it ok ? Is it: A) They are suffering B) They want to die C) They want to die and they are suffering D) They are going to die soon anyways? E) something else?

[@nategraham6946]

Your dust analogy seems overly optimistic, would the painting still be as valuable if it was rotting and falling apart?

[@rosamenchen9084]

Yes, as it was done by a master in a time gone by

[@rodrigogomes3422]

I think you can use gold instead of a painting and the anology works. What you think? The point is the inherent value.

[@nategraham6946]

@@rodrigogomes3422 You are suggesting that which is getting coated is even of any value.

[@rodrigogomes3422]

@@nategraham6946 It is an anology that assumes value of the item. She was not trying to justify why the item has value.

[@nategraham6946]

@@rodrigogomes3422 My point exactly, sometimes analogies have some issues.

[@chunchunli5181]

Sean - I’m Christian and I’m glad about this interview. Great arguments....however, i have the impression you’re removing comments that are not sympathetic to the topic and the arguments ...not sure if I’m mistaken on this impression, but do you think that removing these ‘unfriendly’ comments is right?

[@SeanMcDowell]

I only remove comments that are demeaning or uncharitable (although, admittedly, I probably misjudge some). I don’t mind, and even invite, disagreement. I’ll remove christian comments that are this way too. Thank you for asking about this.

[@TheAaronChand]

@@SeanMcDowell the problem lies with the theolog of Christianity which states that humans are created in the image of God. And the fact is there is no reincarnation transmigration of souls that we have in Hinduism this problem is solved due to reincarnation transmigration of souls .

[@johnnahdalfonso3606]

Also good to make yourself a DNR (do not resesitate) or no intubation with your doctor so if you get to that point, your wishes have clearly be stated.

[@jeremybentham3313]

Why should anyone take the bible seriously?

[@helenakonjir4402]

May God bless both of you ❤

[@robertalust5466]

Clearly, Stephanie has never experienced, or seen severe physical pain and suffering. For me, if I can’t think, if I have no purpose…I choose to die And for me my personal definition of dignity does not include certain things.. I get to make that choice….period Suffering is a part of life, and has a purpose, but terminal illness is a different thing. I deal with chronic pain now…but life goes on… However, ppl in worse pain…that are going to die can’t wait around for a future pain management science… This conversation minimizes suffering…still a good conversations to have though

[@anthonymbate3187]

This conversation is so profound... I have learnt alot be blessed both of you.

[@natinhapoe5481]

Very well explained!!!

[@onlinetruth9979]

How? She is pure evil

[@natinhapoe5481]

@@onlinetruth9979 why??

[@onlinetruth9979]

@@natinhapoe5481 for example, she claims that someone should live for the sake of others. Why should someone be trapped and used for the sake of others? She accuses us of objectifying humans, meanwhile, she sees humans as something to preserve. She literally compares humans to paintings with dust, which is a literal object.

[@onlinetruth9979]

@@natinhapoe5481 there is a KZbin called “Venaloid” who made an in depth response to this video. If you want a full explanation as to how she is evil, you should watch his response video.

[@natinhapoe5481]

@@onlinetruth9979 thank you for your explanation.

[@nann-xu9ik]

Although I agree humans are above animals Her views of animals as disposable and ok to abuse is DISGUSTING

[@nann-xu9ik]

Her views of animals are horrible. She makes it sound like it's ok to abuse animals like at people in concentration camp It's Not Okay. Makes Christianity look bad

Such a great conversation! I love hearing Stephanie's views! Btw, Nancy Pearcey's book "Love Thy Body" talks about this topic also!

[@chunchunli5181]

Beautiful - the person in suffering clinging to life because of the love of Jesus Christ is somehow witnessing to people around them... actions speaking greater than words...i know some people in suffering clinging to life and their example propelled me to seek and find Jesus as my personal saviour and Lord.

[@seekingtruthandcompassion1707]

Would of been nice to see stephine go more into detail re pets ie there ability to hope, not connect to God and spiritual strength ect. As maby dint see there pets as subjects. But otherwise great video

[@CezzyHaag]

Beautiful conversation. I do however disagree with the assumption being made that the worth of animals/pets is in their function...

[@rosamenchen9084]

Human beings are the only living things that reflect the image of God; fellow images were created to fellowship with the creator, and experience relationships with each other and our creator. Lower animals were not created to do so. Therein lies the difference. The function of human beings are to be imagers of God, an inborn value/status that is given by the creator that no one, or anything can take away

[@oliverhug3]

@@rosamenchen9084 , I hope you and Stephanie don`t have pets.

[@renier4415]

What a great interview. Thank you for not holding back on the stickiest hardest topics. Keep on keeping on Sean. May the Lord Jesus Bless you and your family.

[@PeterPyo]

@Dr. Sean McDowell I am disappointed that I am 20 minutes into this video and hear statement after statement with an ethical implication or an assertion of biblical truth with zero verses or theological principles to back up WHERE you are building this biblical ethic from….what the H man :) come on man! we want the meat! Also, why the constant focus on “legality?” legality has no causal link to morality as is on full display in the myriad patchwork of disjointed laws with competing ethical frameworks underlying the different laws. give us your assertion, then show us how the assertion is the best interpretation if biblical truth. thats what you usually do. this lady missed a prime opportunity to show the incredible hope and truth of scripture on the dignity of human life!

[@SeanMcDowell]

This video is not a biblical defense of Pro life. There’s is a way to do that, but not here. Pro life can be defended even to those who don’t accept the Bible. That’s the point here.

[@PeterPyo]

@@SeanMcDowell 27:58 she says “you can only go so far (without gospel) but with a Gospel-centered message….” and then she goes on to make a biblical statement. thats where i am talking about. she just got done making an explicitly biblical statement and gave a biblical interpretation but then didnt say anywhere that came from. and your follow-up didnt push her or make her defend at all that that actually is a biblical statement. i am just pointing out, there are a variety of biblical views and whenever the topic intersects with a biblical perspective, your questions should make the person defend their statement that its actually a biblical view and where she comes from on the Christian theological spectrum.

[@steph-anie1448]

1:03:18

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

Stephanie is the best pro-life speaker.

[@kayaosou468]

It’s easy to say this when you aren’t abused. Terrible podcast!

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

_Forced Exit_ by Wesley J Smith completely dismantles the assisted suicide movement by providing actual evidence of what legalisation has done for various countries like Netherlands and even in the US in states like Oregon. He has a lot of evidence in his book. Anyway, I'm glad to hear Stephanie wrote a book on this. I've been waiting for a pro-life expert to write a book on this subject. Looking forward to getting her book.

[@thereseshuler2170]

The Catholic bioethical tradition has alit if wisdom to offer in this area.