Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Isaac Stacey
Denise Goldman
Language Arts B2
On February 25, 1990, Terri Schiavo, a 27 year-old woman, suffered a cardiac arrest
resulting from an eating disorder. Several months later, she was clinically stabilized into what
several doctors declared “a persistent vegetative state:” Computed tomography showed a lack of
cortical activity in her brain, and her daily life was lived in open-eyed unconsciousness, unaware
of herself and her surroundings (Weijer). Terri remained in this state for 15 years. Despite the
severity of her condition, however, Terri was not terminally ill. In 2005, her husband requested
the discontinuation of her food and water, but her family protested to such action and disputed
the diagnosis. After further examination from medical experts, claims arose that Terri was able to
respond to attempts to communicate (Pearcey 26). The dispute was elevated to several court
cases receiving heavy publicization, and after the intervention of the US Congress, Terri’s food
and water were cut off. Left to the slow, dying process of either starvation or dehydration, a form
of passive euthanasia, Terri passed away later in 2005 at the age of 41.
Though this dispute was portrayed by the media as a right-to-die case, this was not the
heart of the issue. Such a case would imply that the patient was either terminally ill, in serious
pain, or well on their way to death. Terri’s case does not fit into that criteria.
So what was this really about? If Terri was not already dying, what lead to the decision to
euthanize her? Essentially, the reasoning behind Terri’s euthanization lies in what is called
Stacey 2
Personhood Theory. Personhood theory, which most of secular society has adopted within the
past century, challenges modern endorsers by questioning their confidence in their own
personhood and of those around them (Pearcey 26). It is these practices, with regard to all forms
of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia collectively, that have effectively changed how
The rising ethical debates revolving around the topic of euthanasia and physician-assisted
suicide were not always as prevalent as they are today. The attitudes of the Ancient Greeks for
the most part were consensually in favor of the concept; as the teachings of Plato suggest, under
certain circumstances, suicide is morally justified (Amundsen 5). Furthermore, within a hundred
years of Socrates’ death in 399 BC, the Stoics had enforced the perception that suicide was the
“most reasonable and desirable of all ways out” (Amundsen 4). This view also aligns with that of
Ancient Rome; suicide was not viewed fearfully and was a well considered escape in the midst
of certain unfavorable circumstances (i.e. sickness, weariness of life, fear of dishonor). If one’s
decision to end their life was rational, then their choice was not punishable. Among these two
societies, the Pythagoreans were the only minority group who expressed an explicitly different
opinion on the subject (Amundsen 5). Their beliefs stood in opposition to voluntary death as life
Modern Christian ethic agrees with the distaste expressed by the Pythagorean school of
philosophers, but these teachings are not the exact doctrine of early Christianity. No trace or
obvious mention of the immorality of suicide is specifically included in the Old or New
Testament; although, some interpret that the commandment “thou shall not kill” addresses this
issue. However, further debate arises from this proposition (Amundsen 7). Instead, patient
suicide, euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) are never mentioned in ancient,
Stacey 3
patristic medical texts due to the consistent stress of faithful endurance in the midst of suffering.
The concept was purely alien to them; even in the hardest of circumstances, the presumption of
the sovereignty of God still remained (Amundsen 26). The historical distaste for PAS, suicide,
and euthanasia that we see expressed by the modern Christian community is in part derived from
Augustine’s assertive denunciation of suicide as a sin and its rising relevance beginning in the
This tolerance of suicide and euthanasia/PAS, shown by some early mindsets, did not
individual autonomy, a value that is not lost overtime and is still expressed by modern advocates
Even among the tolerant, however, suicide and PAS were not widely popular practices
during the time of historical philosophers such as Plato and Socrates (Frey). The earliest methods
of suicide were most often either violent, painful, barbaric, and/or uncertain. Some common
forms included the killing of infants with serious, permanent birth defects; the voluntary
starvation of the elderly; and the mercy-killing of fellow soldiers in combat, who were either
dying or too seriously injured to be assisted (Frey). Scientific and medical advances in the 19th
century, like the discovery and invention of reliable painkillers, anesthetics, and analgesics,
brought changes to both the methods and attitudes toward euthanasia and PAS (Frey).
Leading up to the 21st century, moral acceptance of euthanasia and PAS began to spread
across the US. Mindsets began to change with further technological advances and inventions
including respirators, intravenous feeding, and dialysis machines. These advances made it
possible to further prolong the life of a dying patient, which in turn dramatically increased the
elderly population and the average human lifespan throughout the 20th century (Frey).
Stacey 4
Social changes within the US began to occur as well; a greater universal value of
emphasis on familial and community membership (Frey). This contributed to the transition of
mindsets towards euthanasia and PAS, and supporters gained greater power with the founding of
the Euthanasia Society of America, which was established in 1938 and still exists today (its name
was changed to its current title in the mid 1970’s: Society for the Right to Die). Once rapid,
painless solutions like opioids and barbiturates were introduced, people showed less revulsion
towards the idea of physician-assisted suicide. Consequently, euthanasia and PAS began to
receive much greater consideration among those suffering either mentally or physically,
A major catalyst for the shift in secular mindsets was the publishing of Charles Darwin’s
theory of evolution in 1859. This caused a wide adoption of materialistic mindsets by secular
society and a major conversion from previous religious world-views (Pearcey 23). However, the
concept of life evolving randomly from the process of natural selection in a material machine,
purposeless and with zero intention, brought forth serious considerations: “For if nature was not
the handiwork of God––if it no longer bore signs of God’s good purposes––then it no longer
provided a basis for moral truths” (Pearcey 24). The reality of a morally neutral universe that
could no longer bear a reflection of God’s will left humans with the opportunity to impose their
own will. This materialistic approach to reality allowed secular society to perceive the world as a
“realm of value-neutral facts” (Pearcey 24). Nancy R. Pearcey, a professor and scholar at
Houston Baptist University, and critically acclaimed author, claims that the modern,
These conditions consequently laid way to the birth of three, crucial ideologies that have
monopolistically swayed the mindsets of modern, secular culture. The first of which, dualism,
comes from the logical processes set into motion by the Darwinistic ripple effect which naturally
led a change in how humans began to perceive themselves in relation to nature: “Because the
human body is part of nature, it too is demoted to the level of an amoral mechanism, subject to
the will of the autonomous body” (Pearcey 24). This implication caused a separation between
mind and body that is still very present today. This is where the term dualism originated: the
theory that reality consists of two substances instead of one (Pearcey 20). Dualism proposes the
coexistence, or dichotomy, of a human’s material, mechanic body and their morally conscious,
autonomous mind. Interestingly, dualism is not exclusive to the secular world-view. Christianity
and Judaism both exhibit their own forms of dualism, however, in their two-piece reality, there is
no dichotomy between body and person; instead, “the two form an integrated psycho-physical
unity” (Pearcey 23). Reciprocally, the dualism presented in secular ideologies often portrays the
autonomous mind working against its material body to impose its own will upon its physical self
(Pearcey 21).
This dualistic separation of mind and body leads to further theological implications in the
second of these three ideologies. Secular society makes a distinction between these two
“substances” and places greater significance upon the mind as what gives us personhood
(Pearcey 24). Personhood is what exercises autonomy and control over the material body, which,
as asserted by materialism, is merely matter. This elevation of mind over body suggests that it is
not the material, human body that gives personhood, but the ability to exercise conscious,
deliberate control over our lives (Pearcey 85). So, the human body is no longer what gives legal
The third of this ideological trio that aids in the understanding of personhood is called the
used by those holding materialistic and/or secular world-views to portray personhood as a two-
story process, one that includes an upper and lower story. Personhood, our ability to have
autonomy and conscious control over our lives, is the upper story. It has the greatest significance
in relation to the lower story, which is our human body: a part of nature and therefore disposable
as a natural resource (Pearcey 24). Traditionally, “human being” has been assumed to have the
same meaning as “person.” However, a distinction was made by the US Supreme Court in the
1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision, “which ruled that even though the baby in the womb is
human, it is not a person under the fourteenth amendment” (Pearcey 19). This suggests that in
the womb (or out, perhaps during birth or sometime later), some change happens psychologically
and/or physiologically where the infant changes from just a human (lower story) to a person
(upper story). However, there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of such drastic,
physical development, naming this “promotion” purely theoretical and neither scientific nor
Personhood theory and the two-story concept present even further implications so serious
that they affect every single human being on a personal level. The declaration of personhood
theory implies that personhood is something that is gained, or even earned. How does one
qualify for personhood? Pearcey proposes that with the acception of personhood theory and the
two-story concept, personhood is most commonly perceived to be gained with the ability to
make decisions, exercise self-awareness, and plan for the future (27). But perhaps this criteria
isn’t universal. In society, couldn’t whoever is in power describe these sets of qualifications
themselves? We’ve seen it happen before: the Holocaust, 20th century eugenics in America,
Stacey 7
race-based slavery. This also raises the question that if personhood is something to be gained, is
it something that can be lost? Looking back at Pearcey’s default criteria, she states it certainly
can: “According to personhood theory, if you are mentally disabled, if you no longer have an
arbitrarily prescribed level of neocortical functioning, then you are no longer a person––even
though you are still obviously human” (26). This suggests that there is the possibility of human
non-persons.
The idea that human membership does not guarantee personhood is one that is well
embraced within today’s circle of modern bioethicists. In a televised debate in March of 2005,
Wesley Smith of the Discovery Institute inquired of Bill Allen, a bioethicist from the University
of Florida, whether he thought Terri Schiavo was, in fact, a person. “‘No, I do not,’ the
Allen’s statement is just one realization of personhood theory in the real world. Bioethicists like
Daniel Callahan assert that once a patient has lost “the capacity to reason, to have emotions, and
to enter into relationships,” they cannot “be called a ‘person’ any longer…It is a mere body”
(Pearcey 86). Peter Singer, another bioethicist, distinguishes membership of the human race from
personhood saying that “it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in
determining when it is wrong to end a life” (Pearcey 86). Modern bioethicist and philosopher
Tom Beauchamp goes even further, writing that once these human non-persons “lack properties
of personhood or are less than full persons… they must be aggressively used as human research
subjects or sources of organs” (Pearcey 87). The implications of personhood theory are
embodied in statements like these. Ultimately, personhood theory allows for one’s personhood to
be trimmed from the bookends of their life. Expendability, or disposability, becomes a reality for
The concept of human non-persons and indefinite personhood is not compatible with the
values of mainstream Christianity and Judaism. These religious communities lay heavy stress on
the assertion that, even from the very beginning, it is God himself “fashioning” and “knitting
together” the infant in the mother’s womb, and that every human being is made in God’s image
(The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Gen. 1.27, Plm. 139.13-14). Likewise, it is almost
universally accepted in those communities that human life begins at conception. Virtually all
bioethicists, even those holding secular world-views, agree with this statement as well, mainly
due to recent advances in empirical science. However, they tend to disagree with the second
assertion: With human life, undoubtedly, comes personhood (Pearcey 25). These religious
communities believe that it is impossible to be a human being yet not a person. They also reject
both the two-story structure and secular society’s materialistic portrayal of the body; their
version of dualism gives the mind (sometimes described as the “soul”) and body equal
significance, though they are separate: “Body and soul form an integrated unity––that the human
being is an embodied soul” (Pearcey 21). These worldviews conclude that personhood is
something that cannot be obtained, nor can it be lost; it is inextricably bound to the condition of
human life.
society have effectively engraved the concept of conditional personhood into their own minds,
elevating their fear of being stripped of autonomy and ultimately losing personhood (Pearcey
91). A study orchestrated in 2014 examining the paperwork and death certificates of patients
who sought lethal treatment provides proof of this fear. Results showed the number one reason
for dying given by the patients who were polled as “losing autonomy (91%).” Next on the list
were “less able to engage in activities (89%)...loss of dignity (81%)... [and] loss of bodily
Stacey 9
functions (50%)” (Barone). Emily Barone, an author at Time Magazine, confirms the
implications of these statistics and addresses the infectious fear behind them: “Most people seek
a lethal prescription because they worry about becoming a burden or losing autonomy––not
because they are experiencing pain from illness or because they can’t afford treatment.” Another
study from the state of Oregon posed a similar inquiry to physicians, who described the number
one reason for requests for a lethal prescription as “severe discomfort other than pain (78%)”
(Meier).
This fear of losing autonomy, and essentially personhood, is the foundation of advocates’
arguments for euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Advocates claim that death-with-dignity
laws allow patients, who may already be terminally ill, “to die on their own terms” (Barone).
They argue that “aid in dying provides patients with autonomy” (Barone). This mindset makes
the decision of death one of a struggle for control rather than a struggle for life. Even for those
who are not physically ill, but still feel as though they have lost control over their lives, death has
Personhood theory places incredible value on the ability to have control over one’s life,
but once someone feels as though they have lost that control, they, along with other adopters of
this mindset, begin to perceive their life as worthless, or even disposable (Pearcey 91). They are
perceived as falling from the upper story to the lower story. Once they have fallen to the lower
story, materialism demotes their value to mere matter. As matter, they are not unlike the rest of
the material world. Therefore, with the acception of personhood theory, it is suggested that the
rest of society is free to use them the same as they would any other natural resource.
suicide and euthanasia, has a personal effect on every human being in existence. Consequently,
Stacey 10
because membership of the human race and the condition of personhood have recently been
distinguished from one another, secular society is presented with a serious question: Who are
people? While religious groups such as mainstream Christianity and Judaism answer this
question by clinging to more idealistic approaches to the value of human life, secular society is
left with a decision to make in regard to PAS and euthanasia. It is not simple by any means; for
some, it is hard to accept the heavy ethical baggage that guaranteed, unquestionable personhood
carries with it, though the other extremity of disposable humans and conditional personhood is
equally as repulsive. Unfortunately, for those pondering this ethical enigma, unless one shares a
set of moral truths held by either extremity of stances, there are no definite solutions nor
compromises that cover all cases. This subject of discussion is one that effectively surfaces the
moral relativity within ourselves, and one that often causes us to question how we value those
around us: Who are people? Our answer to this question can mean the difference between the
Works Cited
Physician-Assisted Suicide, edited by Robert F. Weir, Indiana University Press, 1997, pp.
3–32.
Barone, Emily. “See Which States Allow Assisted Suicide.” Time, November 3, 2014,
Frey, Rebecca J., PhD, and Amy Hackney Blackwell. "Euthanasia." The Gale Encyclopedia of
Nursing and Allied Health, edited by Jacqueline L. Longe, 4th ed., vol. 3, Gale, 2018, pp.
com.ezproxy.hclib.org/apps/doc/CX3662600428/HWRC?u=hennepin&sid=HWRC&xid
Meier, Diane E, et al. “A National Survey of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199804233381706.
Papadimitriou, J. D, et al. “Euthanasia and Suicide in Antiquity: Viewpoint of the Dramatists and
Philosophers.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 100, no. 1, 2007, pp. 25–
28., doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.1.25.
Pearcey, Nancy R. Love Thy Body: Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality. Baker
www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/personhood-theory-why-contemporary-
The Holy Bible. English Standard Version. ESV Text Edition ed. (2016), Crossway Bibles, 2001.
Weijer, Charles. “A death in the family: reflections on the Terri Schiavo case” CMAJ : Canadian
2018.