Book Review: A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide

Just yesterday I was able to finish this short book by pro-life activist and apologists Jonathon Van Maren and Blaise Alleyne. For those who are not familiar with the two, they are directors at the well known Canadian Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, and Jonathon is the host of the radio-show/podcast The Bridgehead, which hosts activists, intellectuals, and authors on a variety of subjects in the ongoing "culture wars" in the modern day West. Subjects covered include sexual ethics, pornography, abortion, human trafficking, pro-life history, religious liberty, and other hot topics.

The book A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide is a great expansion of the role that The Bridgehead plays in training pro-life advocates to successfully and persuasively communicate their views in the public square. The book is short(about 90 pages) and can be read through in a single sitting. In the introduction, the authors point out that many people who hold pro-life views on the issue of assisted suicide have been left challenged and frustrated when it comes to communicating a pro-life ethic on the issue, which the books hopes to alleviate. Personally, I have found myself in this category, without much understanding of assisted suicide and what the underlying philosophies and arguments are. With the culture gradually becoming more accepting of the practice, Christians and pro-life advocates need to be able to graciously engage on the topic, while acknowledging common ground with those who disagree.

This short work accomplishes just that. Van Maren and Alleyne do a good job of framing the issue of assisted suicide, by pointing out early on that the key issues aren't choice, autonomy, or dignity, but is instead the issue of suicide itself. They break down the views on the issue into three areas: The Split Position, the Total Choice Position, and the Pro-life Position.

Starting with the Split Position, they point out that many of those who hold that assisted suicide is a morally acceptable and even preferable response to human suffering will in fact support limits on the ability to choose to commit suicide. They come up with a handy tactic to highlight this hesitation, called "Trotting out the teenager", an expansion of the trotting out the toddler tactic used in the abortion debate. By pointing out that many people would NOT encourage a teenager who was suffering depression to engage in suicide, the issue then isn't choice or autonomy, but instead whether or not there are people we should protect and offer help to, instead of letting them engage in self-harm.

This leads to a "reduction ad absurdum" by the authors, who point out that if we would stop one person(say, a teenager) from choosing suicide, but not someone else, then we are engaging in a form of arbitrary discrimination, by assuming that some lives have more value, and are therefore more worthy of our care and attention. When this is pointed out, many begin to see the radical implications of a "right to suicide" ethic. Personally, I had never considered this angle before, and it was a great way to get myself thinking on the issue.

The second view, "Total Choice", is a bit more radical, in that it assumes that any person, at any time, may choose suicide for any reason whatsoever. While relatively few hold this view, some do, and the authors give a way to respond to this. One way is to, again, take the view to it's logical conclusion, and show that many will try to prevent suicide in one group pf people(say, a broken-hearted teenager) but will allow or encourage suicide in another group(the terminally ill). They highlight that many, even Peter Singer, who has advocated for "involuntary suicide" will make sacrifices to aid an ailing family member or loved one.

Before presenting the pro-life ethic as the preferred ethic on the issue, the book gives a brief but shocking look at the incidents and escalation of the acceptance of suicide in countries that have endorsed the practice. From horrifying stories out of Europe, to the gradual acceptance by the elderly of thinking they have a "duty" to their children to kill themselves, so as to prevent future burdens, Jonathon and Blaise highlight the dangers of a cultural acceptance of assisted suicide, or suicide in general.

Lastly, the authors present the pro-life ethic on suicide, in that suicide should not be endorsed or presented as a valid option, but instead both compassion and loving care are the obligations we owe to the suffering. The authors highlight several medical institutions to aid those who are suffering, such as palliative care, dignity therapy, and other methods of healing from suffering.

Overall, the book is a handy resource for anyone who wants an introduction to the issue of suicide and assisted suicide, and in learning how to communicate their views on the issue. I'd say the book can easily be considered the "Case for Life" of the anti-suicide pro-life movement, and should be recommended reading for pro-life ethics courses. The emphasis on tactics and common ground is especially important; with methods, stories, and thought-provoking scenarios taught through the book.

Koukl's "Tactics"-- Simply Stellar [SK]

Gregory Koukl, Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009,) 207 pp.


Have you ever been in the hot seat? Next time you hit a roadblock in a conversation with a critic of the Christian worldview, ask a good question. The results might just transform the discussion and put you back in the driver’s seat—where you belong.

That's the thesis of Koukl's newest offering, a literal training manual for engaging the toughest critics with meaningful discourse.

In part one of the book, Koukl focuses on three simple questions, which, if graciously asked, can make a world of difference in you next conversation. He calls them “Columbo Questions,” named after the famous TV detective played by actor Peter Falk.

At first glance, Columbo doesn’t impress. His wardrobe needs a definite upgrade and eloquence isn’t his strong suit. He comes across bumbling, inept, and completely harmless. The crooks are sure he’s too dumb to figure things out. They don’t realize he is dumb like a fox. He just keeps asking questions and building a case—until he nails them! Vintage Columbo soundbites include:

“I got a problem. Something about this t’ing bothers me. Maybe you can clear dis up for me.”

“I was talkin’ to da wife the other day…. Do you mind if I ask you a question?”

“Just one more thing.”

“Hey, I’m sorry. I’m making a pest of myself. Yes, yes, I am. I know it’s because I keep asking these questions. But I’ll tell ya, I can’t help myself. It’s a habit.”

Koukl says it’s a habit you should get into. He describes the key to the Columbo tactic as follows: “The Christian goes on the offensive in a disarming way with carefully selected questions to productively advance the conversation.” The tactic can be used to:

1. gain information and keep you out of the hot seat
2. reverse the burden of proof
3. indirectly exploit a weakness or a flaw in someone’s views

There’s nothing dirty or tricky about it. The goal is clarity, not domination. So the next time you’re in a tight spot, ask a good Columbo question. Here are the three that are most useful:

1. What do you mean by that? This is a clarification inquiry that tells you what your opponent thinks so you don’t misrepresent his view. At the same time, it forces him to think more clearly about his own statements. Your tone should be mild and inquisitive. Consider the following objections and note the Columbo response that’s in parenthesis:

“The Bible’s been changed many times.” (Oh? How so?)

“Pro-lifers force their views on others.” (In what ways?)

“Science and faith exclude each other.” (What do you mean by science and what do you mean by faith?)

2. How did you come to that conclusion? This is the most important Columbo question and it can be asked a number of different ways. Why do you believe that? How do you know that? What are your reasons for thinking you’re right? In each case, you’re reversing the burden of proof and putting it back on the person making the claim—where it belongs:

“The Bible is full of fairy tales.” (Why would you believe a thing like that?)

“Thousands of women died from illegal abortions.” (How do you know that?)

“No one can say which beliefs are right or wrong.” (Then why should we believe you?)

“No single religion or person can see the whole truth. Each sees only a part.” (How could you possibly know that each sees only a part unless you can see the whole, something you just claimed was impossible?)

3. “Have you considered…? then finish the sentence in a way relevant to the issue at hand. Here you are offering an alternative view that gently dismantles your opponent’s case or, at the very least, exposes a serious flaw in his reasoning. It’s critically important that your tone remain gracious. Otherwise, your opponent will become defensive.

“Everything is just an illusion.” (Have you considered that if that’s true, we could never know it?”)

“Fetuses have no right to life because they are not self-aware.” (Have you considered that newborns aren’t self-aware either?)

“You shouldn’t judge people!” (Have you considered that you just did?”)

In part two, Koukl shifts to detective mode. How can Christians recognize flaws in a critic's reasoning? The good news is that you don't need a graduate degree in philosophy to get started. Koukl lists a number of common mistakes, including arguments that self-destruct, arguments that contradict one another, and assertions that disguise themselves as arguments, but have nothing supporting them.

All of this is great stuff, but what sets Tactics above other apologetics offerings is Koukl's insistence that Christians function as ambassadors--that is, gracious communicators of biblical truth. We must be winsome and attractive, not merely right, if we are to make an impact on culture.

If you buy only one apologetics book this year (and shame on you if it's only one), get this one. It will transform your thinking and your manners.

SK