The callousness of hiding behind the letter of the law.

[SolaScriptura]

Suffering is all around us. Sometimes we are not in a position to do much about it. But sometimes we are.

What sort of actions ought to characterize our response?

Opening with a brief discussion of the events from earlier this week at a Bakersfield, CA, nursing home, I discuss this here: Going above and beyond...

 

[Jeff Burns]

Good article Ben.

This is a question I've been thinking about a lot lately. I used to go twice a month and preach outside an abortion clinic. Thankfully, that clinic has recently closed down. In the last month I have taken a break from trying to find another clinic to go to. But I haven't stopped thinking about the plight of those babies. Instead, it has probably occupied more of my thought than it did before. Namely the question: is preaching enough?

If they were taking in 3 year olds to execute (assuming it was just as legal as aborting the unborn is today), would I still stand here just preaching, or would I do something more? (Proverbs 24:11 comes to mind)

What's the difference between the unborn and the 3 year old?

Why do I feel like I would have to run in and stop the murder of a line of 3, 4, 5 year olds, when I can assuage my conscience that I've done enough by standing on the side-walk preaching when it's a line of 12, 14, and 16 week olds going in to their slaughter?

Am I straining out the gnat of trespassing and swallowing the camel of abortion?

How do we cease hiding behind the letter of the law when it comes to combating our country's greatest evil?

 

[Caroline]

This is actually a very difficult topic. The failure to provide medical aid that you mentioned is alarming--but more so because the nurse involved had some responsibility to care for the woman. A question I have struggled with a lot is: To what extent is it wise or unwise to get involved in things? If you commit yourself to going above and beyond every time there is a bad situation in your realm, you will work yourself to death and go crazy. This is especially true in the internet age. How often I have said, "Too many people know my email address!" That is less so today than it used to be, because I finally just dropped the majority of my correspondents, leaving only those whom I thought I had a reasonable ability to assist or a real friendship with. There may be plenty of lonely people in the world, but I can't fill that void in the lives of 112 people. I may feel bad about homeless people and drug addicts and the insane. I may wish the single people had somewhere to spend holiday dinner. I may think that our VBS program should reach more inner-city children. I may wish I could tutor kids at the local school who are struggling with math. But I can't do everything.

I'm not arguing with the article--but just wondering where that balance is. Yes, we go above and beyond in some cases, but Boaz did not marry every poor woman in the city, if you see what I mean.

I love your blog, though. The name of the blog is truly awesome as well!

 

[SolaScriptura]

I try to focus the applicability in the last sentences of my post.

However, a few comments can be noted:

1. Just because we cannot help everyone does not mean that we can therefore justify helping no one.
2. Our level of involvement depends upon a number of factors. Means, opportunity, relational closeness - you "owe" more care to those closest to you (which is why Paul says that those who don't provide for members of their own household are worse than unbelievers), etc.
3. The uniform teaching of Scripture is that godliness manifests itself in doing more than is minimally required.
4. It must not be missed that Boaz was a good man. As such he clearly appears in Ruth 2 to be impressed - he is not callously unmoved- by Ruth's loving-kindness to Naomi. His actions should be seen more as a demonstration of hesed in response to her acts of hesed. He isn't a mere "do-gooder." He seems to understand that providentially he is the "wings" of the Lord under whom she'd taken refuge. The Lord honors those who honor him, Boaz - acting out hesed - is the Lord's provision and blessing to Ruth (and Naomi). The Lord is restoring Naomi and he's using Ruth's tenacious devotion, and Boaz's gracious loving-kindness to do so.

When you have opportunity and ability, will you show hesed to those nearest you who needs it? God honors it, and you might just be the means of that person's relief and restoration.

 

[jfschultz]

Consider that behind this is a no-win result of today's litigious society that is ready to sue for anything. The bottom line is that the facility might have a lower financial exposure from a resident's death than for injury from CPR. This gets passed to the "nurse" as job or no job.

 

[Rich Koster]

I would help someone with an unknown advance directive/living will. However, I would honor a DNR known to me. I have been in this situation, on both cases, before.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Regarding a DNR - there is a difference between honoring someone's request to not use means to "bring them back" after they have pretty much died. It is another thing to stand there watching a person gasp for breath until they die when all that person needs is a little CPR.

Though I confess that perhaps this situation (which I choose to use as my introduction) may be clouding the larger point of my post for people. This is good to know so that I can modify it before I preach the larger message from which this post was condensed!

 

[Caroline]

I agree with what you said. It is good to go beyond the minimum required. My comments are more just an exploration of the extent to which that is wise. In my own life, I tend to get overly attached to certain causes, trying to help enough to change things, and the cycle usually ends in my health breaking down (my health is very fragile anyway) and succeeding at nothing. And there is a trade-off. If, for example, I adopt a very troubled teenager in the hope of helping that teenager, I may do damage to my younger children, who must suffer from the teen's rages, stealing, etc. I am effectively failing in my duty to those closest to me by attempting to go above and beyond in helping someone else. That sort of thing is always a danger. I once tried to help a suicidal young woman who was very demanding of my time (threatened to kill herself if I did not talk to her every evening for literally hours at a time). I thought she would eventually improve enough not to be so demanding, but she did not. Predictably, my health broke down and when I told her that I could no longer talk to her every evening, she became very angry, made threats, and finally cut me out of her life completely and spread slander about me. I don't care so much about the slander--anyone that knows me well enough for me to care what they think knew it was false as soon as they heard it--but I do regret, looking back on it, the hours I spent on the phone every night for weeks instead of helping my children with their homework, talking to my husband, keeping in touch with more reasonable friends who missed me, etc.

It seems like there are two ways to go wrong here. One is to stand by callously and do nothing. The other is to sacrifice everything trying to save someone who can't be saved--ultimately, it does more harm than good. It seems like the best thing is to help people to the extent reasonably possible, but know when to say no. And also to keep in mind priorities--that our first responsibility is to our own families, church, etc. The poor (and lonely and crazy, etc) will always be with us, and we cannot save the whole world (difficult for me to remember, but true nonetheless).

The other issue here too is that people who are leeches always represent something as a legitimate need, and they always claim that no one has ever helped them. When you get into it, you often find that many, many, many people have tried to help them. There is a whole history of people trying to help them. So it is hard to know sometimes when something just needs a little extra help and when it is just a sinkhole that swallows up everything.

If this sounds meandering and confusing, it is because it is a very confusing topic for me. I always feel guilty about not doing more. And I always feel guilty for how much I do. It is hard to say no, especially when the whole reason that I am now in a good church is that someone went above and beyond the minimum required to help me.

 

[Miss Marple]

Should the deceased's "Do Not Recusitate" order be ignored?

 

[Miss Marple]

Sorry, I tried to delete the above after I realized you'd addressed it, but, I failed. . .

 

[Scottish Lass]

Miss Marple, I've read conflicting reports about whether there was a DNR. The woman and her family did know that no medical care was provided at the facility since it was independent living, not a skilled nursing home.

 

[py3ak]

I agree with what you said. It is good to go beyond the minimum required. My comments are more just an exploration of the extent to which that is wise. In my own life, I tend to get overly attached to certain causes, trying to help enough to change things, and the cycle usually ends in my health breaking down (my health is very fragile anyway) and succeeding at nothing. And there is a trade-off. If, for example, I adopt a very troubled teenager in the hope of helping that teenager, I may do damage to my younger children, who must suffer from the teen's rages, stealing, etc. I am effectively failing in my duty to those closest to me by attempting to go above and beyond in helping someone else. That sort of thing is always a danger. I once tried to help a suicidal young woman who was very demanding of my time (threatened to kill herself if I did not talk to her every evening for literally hours at a time). I thought she would eventually improve enough not to be so demanding, but she did not. Predictably, my health broke down and when I told her that I could no longer talk to her every evening, she became very angry, made threats, and finally cut me out of her life completely and spread slander about me. I don't care so much about the slander--anyone that knows me well enough for me to care what they think knew it was false as soon as they heard it--but I do regret, looking back on it, the hours I spent on the phone every night for weeks instead of helping my children with their homework, talking to my husband, keeping in touch with more reasonable friends who missed me, etc.

It seems like there are two ways to go wrong here. One is to stand by callously and do nothing. The other is to sacrifice everything trying to save someone who can't be saved--ultimately, it does more harm than good. It seems like the best thing is to help people to the extent reasonably possible, but know when to say no. And also to keep in mind priorities--that our first responsibility is to our own families, church, etc. The poor (and lonely and crazy, etc) will always be with us, and we cannot save the whole world (difficult for me to remember, but true nonetheless).

The other issue here too is that people who are leeches always represent something as a legitimate need, and they always claim that no one has ever helped them. When you get into it, you often find that many, many, many people have tried to help them. There is a whole history of people trying to help them. So it is hard to know sometimes when something just needs a little extra help and when it is just a sinkhole that swallows up everything.

If this sounds meandering and confusing, it is because it is a very confusing topic for me. I always feel guilty about not doing more. And I always feel guilty for how much I do. It is hard to say no, especially when the whole reason that I am now in a good church is that someone went above and beyond the minimum required to help me.

Caroline, I think it ultimately boils down to trusting God. We must trust God to give us strength to do what we are called to do - and we must trust God to do what is best with those whom we cannot assist. Even if we are involved, after all, it is really God helping them, so it's not like we are required. This leaves us free to prioritize our efforts according to the law and the prudence required by providence, asking God to make us both tender-hearted towards those in need and trusting in his provision for them, whether through us or another.

 

[Unoriginalname]

Miss Marple, I've read conflicting reports about whether there was a DNR. The woman and her family did know that no medical care was provided at the facility since it was independent living, not a skilled nursing home.

That and all CPR is good for in 80s is breaking ribs. It is very ineffective for actual resuscitation after a certain age.

 

[jdcart]

To change the gist of the thread, but keeping the same thrust. . .How many times have we passed a beggar on the street (that our conscience has told us that this is real destitution) and we have walked by when we could have given some help with a word about the love of Jesus?