[00:00:04] Speaker A: Id the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: Welcome to id the future. I'm Eric Anderson, and today I'm pleased to be joined by Doctor Richard Weichardt, emeritus professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute center for Science and Culture.
Doctor Weichard is author of from Darwin to Hitler, Hitler's ethic, Hitler's religion, and the death of Humanity. Our topic today is his latest book, now available from Discovery Institute Press, titled Unnatural Medicine's descent from Healing to Killing. Richard, welcome back to the show.
[00:00:45] Speaker A: Yeah, thanks for having me on.
[00:00:47] Speaker B: Yes, absolutely. This is an important topic. We're excited to dive into it today. I wanted to start with one of the endorsements of your book by professor and author Nancy Pearcey. She writes, the only way to stand effectively against a harmful social trend is to first understand where it came from and how it developed. And in unnatural death, you help us do this by giving us a wide ranging history of euthanasia and assisted suicide. So let's start with a quick look at how this new book relates to your previous work in the death of humanity. You explore our culture's decline in respect for the sanctity of human life. And then in your books about Adolf Hitler, you examine the connection between his evil actions and the evolutionary ethics, I would say, that inspired him. How does this new book, Unnatural Death, build on the topics that you explored in those prior books?
[00:01:39] Speaker A: Yeah, well, there's a number of ways going back, even my book from Darwin to Hitler, I dealt with the issue of euthanasia actually in there, and looking at how german Darwinists in the late 19th century had promoted euthanasia. So even going back to that, which was published in 2004, that one also did have some of the issues of euthanasia raised already in that. And then when I dealt with the Hitler issue in my books, Hitler ethic and Hitler's religion, the Nazis practiced killing of people with disabilities, what was often referred to as the euthanasia program, but it was involuntary euthanasia, that is, killing people without their consent because they had disabilities. And so I do deal with those issues in those books. And then in my book, death of humanity, I sort of expand the coverage to look at the way that the secular philosophies and ideologies since the Enlightenment period in the 18th century had eroded the judeo christian sanctity of life ethic and thus leading us into issues like euthanasia, assisted suicide. I deal with other issues, too in that book, such as post humanism. I deal with issues of, of abortion and other kinds of issues, too, relating to the sanctity of human life. But I do also deal with euthanasia, assisted suicide to some degree in this book. I take the story back further historically. So I go back to the greco roman world and look at then how they viewed issues relating to the killing of people with disabilities and suicide and other issues related to that, and then move it on up through medieval and early modern times, up until modern times, and deal more extensively than in the current age or age today of how that's playing itself out in the medical profession with assisted suicide and euthanasia.
[00:03:28] Speaker B: Right. Yeah, that's a great history, the really broad clearback from the roman and greek times, and we'll dive into that in a minute. But that's helpful to kind of understand the background there. Now, I do want to mention, because this is kind of a heavy topic, Richard, and I do want to be sensitive. I think probably pretty much all of us have been touched either in our families or with friends or colleagues or coworkers, with someone who has committed suicide and the challenges and the tragedy of that. I just wanted to maybe step back for a minute and let you speak to what we're trying to cover today, what we're not saying, and give you a chance to kind of clarify that for us as we dive in here. Yeah.
[00:04:06] Speaker A: Well, one thing I need to be clear on is that I'm not trying to condemn anyone who has gone the route of assisted suicide or euthanasia or such, but I'm wanting to affirm the value of people's lives to show that all humans have value and to hopefully then stem the tide for the future, because the direction that the western world, United States and Europe is moving at our time is toward greater and greater openness, toward assisted suicide and euthanasia. I'm hoping that my book will do a little bit to stem that tide.
[00:04:41] Speaker B: Excellent. Yeah. And because there are, of course, heartbreaking moments. And as you said, we're not here to cast aspersions on any particular individual or open up wounds for families or viewers, but we do want to step back in an unemotional and clear way, which I feel like you did in this book, and kind of see what's happening in our broader society and the negative impact that's growing ever more prevalent here. So I appreciate that clarification, and I.
[00:05:03] Speaker A: Do reckon, and I want to also say, I also want to say, too, that I do recognize that there are many very difficult kinds of situations that people face. And, in fact, I'm actually in a situation, I'm a caretaker right now for my mother in law, who has dementia, and it's not easy to do that and to see her in the condition she's in. I understand, you know, how this could lead people to think, well, maybe they're just better off dead. But on the other hand, I'm caring for her because I love her and I do believe that her life has value.
[00:05:32] Speaker B: Exactly. Yeah, that's. Appreciate you sharing that personal experience. Thank you. So diving into some of the definitions here as we start out, Richard, the word euthanasia, you mentioned dates clear back to the mid 17 hundreds, and tell us what that originally meant and how that word has kind of changed over time and what we understand that word to mean today.
[00:05:51] Speaker A: Yeah. The word euthanasia comes from two greek words that mean a good death. And originally it meant trying to bring people comfort in their pain and suffering in the last parts of their life to try to make their passing more comfortable. In the 19th century, however, the meaning of the word euthanasia was going to shift as people began promoting the idea that we should actively intervene to hasten people's death. Earlier, that was not the case. It was simply providing comfort and such.
[00:06:25] Speaker B: Sort of more palliative care.
[00:06:27] Speaker A: Initially, yes, more along that lines. Yes, exactly. But then in the 19th century, people began using the term to mean hastening people's death. Very often in the 19th century, it meant killing people without their consent. It wasn't always voluntary. And so the debate over the past century and a half or two centuries has been also between involuntary euthanasia, that is, killing people without their consent, usually because they have some kind of disability or such, and between voluntary euthanasia, which is the killing of people with their consent. Now, there actually is another.
There's actually another term that's used by medical ethicists between those two, non voluntary, which is a case where you can't determine the consent of the person, for instance, if they're in a coma or something like that, for euthanasia as well. So these are some of the ways that. But then also coming on into the late 19th and early 20th century, then we have the term assisted suicide also being used. And the difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia is that euthanasia is given by a physician or by some other person, whereas assisted suicide is where the person themself has to ingest the poison or whatever it is that's going to end their life.
[00:07:46] Speaker B: Right. So you mentioned assisted suicide there, and I think in your book, you also talk about voluntary suicide. Involuntary suicide. Are you using, like, involuntary euthanasia and involuntary suicide as synonyms, or how are you talk us through those terms? Maybe.
[00:08:01] Speaker A: I don't think I use the term involuntary suicide. I do use the term involuntary euthanasia because suicide would imply that the person has decided to do it themselves.
[00:08:12] Speaker B: Yeah, I was just going to say that.
[00:08:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:08:16] Speaker B: Sounds contradictory. So. Okay. Thanks for the clarification on that.
Okay. And then voluntary suicide, talk us through that. What would that be?
[00:08:25] Speaker A: Well, voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia or suicide would be where a person has decided that they want their life to end, and so then they recovered request that their life would end. And usually in our. In most societies today, this is done through the medical system. Although in Switzerland, it doesn't necessarily have to be done through the medical system. It can be done by private organizations or others outside the medical system, but usually it's done by a physician who will administer a shot of some kind of deadly poison. Or in the case of assisted su, that would be euthanasia. In the case of assisted suicide, would give a pill to the person who then would ingest it later.
[00:09:05] Speaker B: Okay. Okay. That's helpful. So just one last question, and then I want to move on. But between assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, you're drawing a distinction between who's actually taking the action, right. Who's administering the drug or the pill or.
[00:09:21] Speaker A: Correct? Yeah. In the case of assisted suicide, the person themselves is taking the pill, whereas the patient euthanasia physician is doing. Now, interestingly, in the countries that have legalized both assisted suicide and euthanasia, the vast majority of people choose euthanasia. In the United States, however, the states that have legalized it have. There's no state that has legalized euthanasia. Only assisted suicide is legal in the United States. There are ten states that have legalized assisted suicide, and in that case, the person has to ingest it themselves. At least that's what's supposed to happen. Now, there's actually not a lot of.
There's actually not a lot of oversight over this. The physician prescribes it, the person gets the pill. No one knows whether they took it themselves or someone else gave it to them or someone put it in their drink or whatever, you know, but the prescription is done by a physician, and the person is supposedly to take it themselves.
[00:10:20] Speaker B: Yeah. Okay. Well, I apologize for diving into that a little bit, but this may seem to it to viewers like a little bit of a unimportant nuance, but it's actually quite important, both because of the legal ramifications that you talked about there and how the laws are written. And secondly, in your book, you talk about this whole question of autonomy, which is a big part of the argument in favor of assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. And this comes up in that chapter as a big distinction that I think is important to draw out.
[00:10:49] Speaker A: I say the autonomy argument is very interesting in this respect with the euthanasia versus assisted suicide, because, interestingly, most people choose euthanasia rather than assisted suicide when they have that option, which means that someone else has to be involved. It's not autonomous in the sense that you're not doing it yourself. You're requiring someone else to do it for you. That is, a physician to give you the shot and such. And also the physicians.
In fact, in both cases of cases where assisted suicide is legalized, as well as where youth and age is legalized, the physicians are the ones who have to determine whether the person is qualified to get it. So it's not really autonomous either, in that sense, in any case.
[00:11:33] Speaker B: Yeah, good point. Okay. All right. Yeah. Appreciate you going through that. That's super helpful. Now, you had mentioned back to sort of the greek and roman times, and you write in the book that in matters of life and death, we're going backwards to a more brutal time. Talk to us a little bit, Richard, about some of the historical context about the devaluation of life in antiquity. Yeah.
[00:11:54] Speaker A: In the greco roman times, they didn't have euthanasian assisted suicide as we know it, but they did have infanticide, especially killing infants who had disabilities of various sorts. And so if a baby was born that had disabilities, very often in greco roman society, they would be what was called exposed. And what that meant was they would be just placed out on a hillside or outdoors in a field, and then they would die of either malnutrition, probably dehydration first, or be killed by some wild animal or something. And so that would be the way they would dispose of people that they considered disabled, that were disabled. And so that was the way that people with disabilities were treated in those days. And once again, we're coming back to a situation with assisted suicide in euthanasia, where people with disabilities are once again being targeted.
Again, very often in our society, it's. The claim is that it's being done voluntarily. But still, there's actually, and as I show in my chapter on the autonomy argument as well, there's actually a lot of pressure, both social pressure and sometimes direct pressure from physicians or other social workers or whatever, telling people, hey, you ought to consider this. You ought to consider getting assisted suicide because of your disability that doesn't allow you to do things that you want to do or whatever. And so we're back in a situation where we're coming to full circle where people with disabilities are being treated as though their lives have no value. On the one hand, interestingly, and we're sort of, we're sort of in a situation where we sort of play both sides. On the one hand, we claim that we're being more humane toward people with disabilities. We have the American with Disabilities act, and we have other kinds of ways. We're trying to treat people with disabilities with greater value. But on the other hand, we're saying, okay, you can just kill yourself if you decide that your disability is such that you don't want to live with it anymore.
[00:13:54] Speaker B: Well, and also, yeah, I mean, there's that aspect. I mean, I've just been watching the Olympics, and there's a lot of lead up to the Paralympics, and there's so much time and effort that we put into helping people that may have physical disabilities or other disabilities. So that's a real investment by society and tremendous value that we place on everyone's life, regardless of their particular physical circumstances. And yet we have this other side of the road, as you mentioned, that seems to be going the other direction. And it's true with suicide as well. Right. I mean, we have a lot of efforts to prevent suicide. Suicide hotlines, I'm in the San Francisco Bay Area. They just spent a ton of money to put up some netting on the Golden Gate bridge to prevent suicide. So there's all this effort going into preventing suicide. And yet on the other side of the coin, you have this movement that's pushing to say, well, maybe your life's not valuable.
[00:14:45] Speaker A: Yeah, and so we're encouraging suicide actually, in some cases, while, yeah, as you're suggesting, we're doing everything we can to stop suicide in other cases, it is a sense in which we are saying that some people's lives have value and some people's lives don't have value. And the argument that I'm trying to make is that all people's lives have value, no matter what kind of disability they have, no matter what kind of problems they may have, their life has value. And we need to try to affirm that.
[00:15:12] Speaker B: Excellent. Excellent. So also in antiquity, though, you have, say, the hebraic tradition and then later Christianity. What was their take on suicide, assisted suicide and infanticide?
[00:15:24] Speaker A: Yeah. The jewish and christian traditions generally had a negative view of suicide. There are some cases of suicide in the Bible, but they're generally negative. They're generally people who were considered evil people. In the New Testament, for example, we have the character of Judas, who was the one that betrayed Jesus. He committed suicide. So it's not ever affirmed, and it seems pretty clear. And many of the church fathers in the early church also made very clear that they believed that suicide was covered under the prohibition of you shall not kill, that that included not killing yourself. And so suicide has generally been prohibited in the christian churches until fairly recently, when churches have become more liberal in the mainstream in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
[00:16:16] Speaker B: Right. Okay, so talk us through a little bit of this modern history, maybe, say, the last 100, 150 years. So you write that under the influence of secularization, the euchthanasian movement began its first tiny steps in 1870. So, just putting my other hat on, that's a little more than a decade after Darwin published his theory of evolution by natural selection. What was happening in the decades following the publication of Darwin's on the origin of species that influenced attitudes in this direction?
[00:16:45] Speaker A: Well, even before Darwin's origin of species came out, there was an increasing secularization that was going on in the european thought that started with the enlightenment period in a big way. I mean, there were roots even before that. But the enlightenment really brought this to the fore, where people were becoming less, less entrenched in the judeo christian worldview, which included ideas about the sanctity of human life. And so David Hume, for example, in the Enlightenment period, wrote an essay on suicide in which he thought that suicide was okay and thought that it was morally legitimate, and that broke with christian tradition relating to suicide. But after Darwin published origin of species, secularization just increased all the more.
And also, Darwin undermined the distinction between humans and animals. And he, very forthrightly, he even said this. He said that there was no qualitative distinction between humans and animals. He thought there was just a quantitative distinction between them. That is, humans have just a little more rationality, a little more social sense, a little more aesthetic sense, a little more of different things that animals have anyway. And so Darwin blurred the distinctions between humans and animals, which then undermines the idea that humans have special worth or special value, which the christian tradition had taught. So in many of the, many of the people who were promoting euthanasia in these early days, in fact, one of the earliest persons in Germany to promote euthanasia was a darwinian biologist, Ernst Haeckel, who was the leading german biologist in Germany. He was one of the first people to promote killing. And his kind of euthanasia was involuntary euthanasia. That is, he wanted to kill people with disabilities to try to advance the evolutionary process.
[00:18:34] Speaker B: Okay, that's interesting. Yeah. Haeckel's very well known name, of course, in that side of the debate. So that's interesting. And I guess it's fair to say, right, Richard, that if someone believes that there was an evolutionary process in the history of life, that certainly does not mean that they would necessarily support euthanasia or assisted suicide. And certainly nothing, you know, involuntary euthanasia. But there seems to have been, and you quoted a number of people in those early years that were using Darwin's ideas as support the scientific rationale, if you will, for their views. Did you see that as kind of a trend as you look back at some of these early proponents of euthanasia?
[00:19:14] Speaker A: Just about all of the early proponents of euthanasia, assisted suicide in the late 19th century, were promoting it based on ideas that were drawn not only from Darwinism, but certainly from Darwinism. And they were very forthright about that. I mean, they spoke very clearly that they believed that darwinian evolution was supposed to be producing greater progress in the evolutionary scale and such and biologically, disabilities and other kinds of things were driving against that. And so they saw euthanasia as a way to actually improve the human species, to drive evolution forward. And they were very forthrightly darwinian. In fact, interestingly, many of them. And this, by the way, fits right into the eugenics movement, because eugenics, which is the idea that we need to promote human heredity or improve human heredity, was very closely tied in with the euthanasia movement in its early days. They basically saw euthanasia as being a means of eugenics. That is, euthanasia was a way of trying to improve human heredity.
If you look at the eugenics movement, just about all of the eugenicists, whether they approved of euthanasia or not, and not all eugenics proponents approved of euthanasia. But whether they did or not, eugenics movement was based on Darwinism. In fact, Darwin's cousin Galton was the. Francis Galton was the originator of the eugenics movement. And he said that he came across the idea while he was reading the origin of species. So, you know, it was very forthrightly based on Darwinism. And all the eugenics proponents related that same idea. They claimed the same thing, that Darwinism was sort of the basis for many of their ideas about trying to improve human heredity. So euthanasia built upon that and sort of drove it in a more radical direction and grew over time, but they still were based upon sort of darwinian roots of trying to improve human heredity.
[00:21:14] Speaker B: Yeah, very clear intellectual thread there. And as it goes over time. Take us now into the beginning of the next century, in the 1920s, when we have this controversial book called permitting the destruction of life unworthy of life, and how that led into the attitudes in the nazi regime and their euthanasia program.
[00:21:34] Speaker A: Yeah. The authors of that book, Carl Binding and Alfred Hoche. Carl Binding was a legal scholar. Alfred Hoche was a psychiatric professor.
They were arguing that people with disabilities did not have any value to their lives, and thus they should be eliminated. And this was going to stir up a discussion within Germany. Of course, there were many people who disagreed with them, and so it did create controversy, but it was going to also win over a lot of people as well, including people within the nazi movement, such as Hitler and other leaders, who were then going to try to implement that once they came to power. And Hitler didn't implement it at the very beginning of his dictatorship. What he started first with was sterilization. He started with a sterilization program in July 1933, implementing that which was part of eugenics program. But then in 1939, he expanded that into a program to kill people with disabilities. And again, the whole purpose behind it was to try to advance the human species, get rid of people that they considered negative biological people, and replace them then with vigorous Germans who they saw as healthy and such. And so there was a clear darwinian thread there. And this was very forthrightly argued, not just by Hitler and other Nazis, but by the leading scientists and medical professors in Germany at the time.
[00:23:05] Speaker B: But you quoted Hitler and scientists in Germany who talked about this importance of improving the stock, and also that by caring for people with disabilities with mental challenges, we were actually violating the laws of nature. They talked about, we're violating the law of natural selection, and we need to stop this and let natural selection take its course. By which they meant kill off the unfit. Right. And improve the stock. So it was pretty interesting to see some of those direct quotes.
[00:23:35] Speaker A: Yeah. One thing a lot of people need to understand is that Hitler and the Nazis were actually implementing what many scientists, professors, medical professors and professionals were saying. In fact, there were american eugenicists who were very excited about the nazi sterilization program. Now, they weren't as excited about the euthanasia program, but still they thought that the Nazis were doing something good by promoting the sterilization of people with disabilities. And then the Nazis sought it just one step further, just to take it to the euthanasia program as well. And again, it's not just Germany either. There were people in the United States who were promoting similar kinds of ideas, too. It was considered radical. Certainly there's not like it wasn't mainstream, but there were some people promoting similar ideas as well.
[00:24:25] Speaker B: So am I misremembering that there was already some sterilization going on in the United States when Hitler rolled out his program? Or if I got the timeline wrong there.
[00:24:33] Speaker A: Oh, yeah, you're right. In fact, the United States had the first sterilization programs in the world. 1907, the state of Indiana had the first sterilization program to try to promote eugenics. And over half the states in the United States had compulsory sterilization programs to try to improve human heredity. Usually it was targeting people who were institutionalized.
They were not nearly as radical as the german program. The german program was far more radical than the american program in terms of the numbers of people that they ended up sterilizing in a very short period, too. The Germans only were doing it, like, six years, from 1933 to 39, before they began their euthanasia program, killing people with disabilities. So the United States had over several decades and sterilized far fewer people. But yes, there was a sterilized program in the United States as well. And of course, in the United States, there also was a euthanasia movement as well, too, as well as in Britain and other places, too. So this wasn't just a german phenomenon. There were people promoting killing people with disabilities in Britain, the United States, and other countries as well.
[00:25:44] Speaker B: Right? Right. Yeah. It's just that the german example kind of shows you the logical conclusion, if you will, of where this could go.
So now there is. Let me step back and play devil's advocate a little bit, Richard. So a lot of us wrestle, and you mentioned your own personal experience at the beginning here, with the desire to escape suffering, particularly, even more so maybe for our loved ones than for ourselves if we're watching them go through that. So walk us through the thinking there a little bit. What are some of the justifications that people give for euthanasia and assisted suicide?
[00:26:18] Speaker A: One of the biggest one is the autonomy argument, which I deal with in one whole chapter of my book, in which person shouldn't be able to make their own choice. We make our own choices about all sorts of other things in life. And, of course, this appeals to a lot of people because we do like freedom we do like to be able to make choices about our own lives, but here we face the issue of, you know, what to do relation to pain and other kinds of things. And one of the problems here is that, interestingly, a lot of the times when people try to sell euthanasia and assisted suicide and the legalization of it, they sell it based on thinking about pain and agony, that people are suffering and other things like that. But what actually interestingly happens is that most of the people who elect to get assisted suicide are not in pain.
In fact, less than half of them list pain as a major factor in their getting assisted suicide. A lot of the times people who elect for assisted suicide do so because they don't have loving family relationships. They're lonely, for example. And this is a very common thing. And so there's been surveys done, for instance, in the state of Oregon, which was the first state to have assisted suicide in the United States. When they do surveys about why people get assisted suicide, a lot of times it has nothing to do with pain. It has to do with, they feel like they're a drag on society. They feel like they're a drag on their relatives.
It costs a lot of money for their upkeep. And so they feel like they should stop. I'm a burden, stop being a burden to other people or whatever. So there's these kind of issues that get brought up very often in the relationship with assisted suicide. And to be clear, obviously, I don't think pain is a good thing. I'm not trying to promote people go through as much pain as they can. We should be promoting palliative. But what's interesting, too, is that when assisted suicide and euthanasia become legalized, there actually is less incentive to try to find ways to do palliative care. And Canada's been wrestling with this, in fact, since they've legalized euthanasia, that there's actually been complaints of some people that they're actually neglecting palliative care, trying to take care of people and reduce their pain and suffering. So I believe we should be doing everything we can to reduce people's pain and suffering and try to keep them as comfortable as possible and as happy as possible in their lives. But interestingly, one of the things we can do that is to start developing relationships with people and have loving relationships with people. And this is where family relationships, where friends and colleagues and other kind of things can step in and try to make the life of someone else better and happier rather than just dismiss them and, okay, let them pass on.
[00:29:17] Speaker B: Right. Yeah, exactly. So I want to recap here just for a second, since we've been sort of talking about the history. So we've got a number of people who are starting to propose this, who are starting to push for this. We've got organizations in the United States and Britain who are pushing for legal changes, but there's still quite a bit of public resistance coming into the 20th century, and in particular, after the nazi regime. Right. People could see the clear connection between what the Nazi was, Nazis were doing and the arguments in favor of euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Excuse me. So what's changed over the last few decades in response to, I don't know. I'll ask you, Richard, just leave it there. What's changed in the last few decades? And who are some of the key figures that are kind of shifting attitudes today?
[00:30:03] Speaker A: Well, I think there's a number of things that our society has become more secularized. I think that's one key factor, especially in the last couple decades of the 20th century and on to the early 21st century, that has certainly changed attitudes of people as they have less belief in the judeo christian sanctity of life ethic based on their rejection of judeo christian ideas altogether. So I think the increased secularization of our society has been one of the key driving factors in and promoting that. But I think another issue, too, is that as the medical system has been able to keep people alive longer and longer and longer, I think this has also contributed to it to some degree in a backhanded kind of way. And so people are wondering if that's really worth the time that we've. And especially case when they're keeping them alive on machines. And one thing that actually has brought about confusion over this particular issue, and I think has helped proponents, is they confuse the issue of ending a person's, you know, dependence on a machine, for example, to keep them alive, with giving them an injection to actually kill them. And many medical ethicists, in fact, today are saying, those are equivalent. Those are the same thing. And it's. And I don't. I do not believe those are equivalent, and they're not the same thing. Ending someone's dependence on a machine is not the same as actively injecting them with something. And the reason why it's not the same. See, people say, well, it's the same thing. You know, their life's gonna end. And so, you know, you're actively ending their life by taking them off this, you know, heart lung machine or whatever it is that they're on, but it's actually not the same. And here's why. When you're taking them off a machine, you're not doing it because you want them to die. You're not doing it. You're, you actually would be very glad if they didn't. You'd be very glad if they didn't die. You'd be very glad if they take them off the machine and then continue living.
But you just realize it's futile to just keep their body going when it can't support itself. But when you're giving them an ejection, that's the whole point is to kill them. The whole point is that it's supposed to end their life, and you want it to end their life at that point. And so there's an issue of intent that is quite different, that makes ending someone's life who's on a machine, say, medically, or someone who is then getting assisted suicide or euthanasia.
[00:32:31] Speaker B: Well, Richard, it's a pretty, as I mentioned at the top, it's a pretty deep topic and pretty heavy topic, and it's sobering to acknowledge some of the prevailing attitudes today that we see. But you don't end your book on a down note, so to speak. You provide us some hope and some ideas to help combat a culture of death. Maybe to wrap up here, Richard, tell us some of your ideas or some of the things that we can do to uphold the sanctity and value of all human life.
[00:32:55] Speaker A: Well, again, I think we need to try to do everything we can to affirm the value of people's lives, and not just in a, not just in a vague kind of way. I mean, I already suggested it, that some we, in a very personal kind of way, we need to interact with people. We need to have relationships with people. Again, a lot of people that are lonely. That's one of the, you know, if you go to any nursing home or something, people, a lot of times they're just lonely there because they don't have people to visit them, they don't have people to interact with them. And that's really a lot of what I think we need to be doing. I mean, one thing I'm doing in my own personal life, again, is taking care of my mother in law. She lives with us in our house. We haven't put her in a nursing home, and we could, you know, but we haven't. We made that decision because we think she needs personal interaction. I take her out for walks every day around the neighborhood, and everything so I think that's the kind of way that we can have an impact on people in a very concrete way to try to affirm the value of their life and to show that their life does have value and that then it's worth still living.
[00:33:58] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think all of us can, you know, I know in my own life, I've got multiple examples, including a brother of mine who's physically and mentally handicapped. And I think most of us can look around and see people who are in this situation who have blessed our lives, who have made us grateful and stronger and given us opportunities to serve. And all of these kinds of things that we love and appreciate that would be gone if we didn't have, if we didn't take the time to interact with them and be with them and support each other, as you say.
[00:34:31] Speaker A: Exactly.
[00:34:33] Speaker B: To learn more and to order your copy of unnatural death, visit Discovery Press. That's discovery pr e s s discovery Press. Keep an eye out for a future episode where Doctor Weickert will read an excerpt from his new book, Unnatural Death for Ied the Future. I'm eric ndhdem. Thanks for being with us.
[00:34:54] Speaker A: Visit
[email protected] and intelligentdesign.org. this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
