ODM Daily Inspirational Devotional Messages Bible Verse and Prayers ODM
Is Medicine Losing Its Way? Abortion, Euthanasia, Gender Medicine and the Purpose of Healing
For most of history, the answer seemed obvious: to heal the sick, relieve suffering and, where possible, save lives. But a recent commentary on The Daily Declaration by Sarah Holliday, republished from The Washington Stand, argues that this purpose is being quietly redefined. In her view, abortion, euthanasia and gender medicine increasingly present death or irreversible change as “care,” and the people most at risk are the most vulnerable: unborn children, the very ill and elderly, and young people in distress.
It’s a strong argument, and it touches issues on which Christians hold deep convictions. It also touches issues on which the facts are contested, the language is heated, and real people, including patients, parents and doctors, are carrying heavy burdens.
This post takes the question seriously. It looks at the Christian tradition of healing, goes through the three areas the commentary raises, sets out what the evidence shows and where it’s disputed, and offers some thoughts on how to speak and act in ways that are both faithful and kind.
A Long Christian Tradition of Healing
Christians have a distinctive history in medicine. In the early centuries, believers became known for caring for the sick when others fled. During plagues in the Roman world, Christian leaders such as Cyprian of Carthage and Dionysius of Alexandria described believers tending to the dying, often at great personal risk. In the fourth century, Basil of Caesarea established a large charitable complex that included care for the sick, an early forerunner of the hospital. Much of the later development of hospitals and nursing in Europe grew out of monastic and church-based care.
Medical ethics has a similar heritage. The classical Hippocratic Oath includes a pledge not to give a deadly drug to anyone who asks for it, and not to give a woman a means of causing an abortion. Modern medical ethics has moved away from the original wording, but the principle of respect for human life remains at the heart of declarations such as the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Geneva. The WMA has continued to oppose euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
At the same time, it would be wrong to suggest that medical bodies speak with one voice today. Many national and state medical organisations have shifted to neutral or supportive positions on assisted dying, and mainstream bodies such as the World Health Organization treat safe abortion as part of essential health care. The question of what medicine is for has become contested, and the contest is happening inside the profession as well as outside it.
The Three Areas the Commentary Raises
1. Abortion: Is It “Health Care”?
The commentary describes abortion as the intentional killing of a baby not yet born, and says it’s wrong to call it health care.
The difference here is mainly about moral status. If the unborn child is a human being with the same fundamental right to life as any other, then deliberately ending that life is not a medical treatment in the ordinary sense. If, as many supporters of abortion rights hold, the moral status of an early embryo or fetus differs from that of a born person, and a woman’s bodily autonomy and health must carry great weight, then abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Both sides can state their position sincerely, and neither can settle the question by pointing to a definition alone.
Some facts are worth knowing, whichever side you’re on:
- In Victoria, abortion is available on request up to 24 weeks, and after that if a doctor reasonably believes it’s appropriate in all the circumstances and has consulted a second practitioner who agrees. Other Australian states vary.
- Studies in several countries have found that a large majority of pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of conditions such as Down syndrome end in termination. Disability advocates, including some who support abortion rights in general, have raised concerns about what this says about how society values people with disabilities.
- Supporters of abortion access point out that many abortions involve very difficult circumstances, including risks to the mother’s health, serious fetal abnormalities, rape and domestic violence, and that restrictive laws can push women toward unsafe options.
The commentary asks, “How many children would be alive if a doctor hadn’t been the first to offer abortion as the ‘answer’ to a disorder or an abnormality?” That’s a fair question to ask of the way medicine presents choices. It’s equally fair to ask how doctors and the health system support parents who choose to continue a pregnancy after a hard diagnosis, through perinatal palliative care, disability support and honest information.
2. Euthanasia: “Mercy” or Abandonment?
The commentary’s strongest example is the case of Jennyfer Hatch, a 37-year-old Canadian woman who died by medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in October 2022. According to reporting she gave to CTV News under a pseudonym, she had lived for a decade with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a painful genetic condition, and felt the health system had repeatedly failed her. She said it was easier to let go than to keep fighting. The commentary highlights that the approval form stated that no other treatments were suitable to her needs or to her financial constraints.
Whatever one’s view of assisted dying, cases like this raise a hard question: when death is available faster than good care, is the choice truly free? Critics of Canada’s law argue that this is exactly the risk. Supporters respond that individual cases don’t capture the overall picture, in which more than 95 per cent of Canadian MAiD cases involve people with terminal illness and who are receiving other care.
The commentary also describes the case of a Dutch child under two who was supposedly euthanised because of a disability. This claim needs care. Here’s what’s publicly known:
- In 2024, the Netherlands introduced rules allowing doctors, under strict conditions, to end the lives of terminally ill children aged 1 to 12 who are suffering unbearably, with parental consent. Infants under one are covered by a separate protocol, known as the Groningen Protocol.
- In June 2026, the Dutch Health Minister reported the first case under the new rules for children aged 1 to 12, which took place at the end of 2025. Public reports said the child was seriously ill and under 12, and gave no further details about the age or medical condition.
- The Dutch government has also reported that more than 10,000 euthanasia deaths occurred in 2025, around 6 per cent of all deaths.
So the official record describes a terminally ill child, and does not say the child was euthanised because of a disability. That’s a significant difference, and anyone repeating the claim should be careful about it. It doesn’t remove the ethical questions about euthanasia of children, which are serious and which Christians and many others find deeply troubling. But accuracy matters, especially when we’re speaking about grief and about people who can’t speak for themselves.
3. Gender Medicine for Young People
The commentary describes the medical treatment of gender dysphoria in children as part of the same pattern. This is probably the area where the evidence is most actively under review, and where language is most heated, so it’s worth being careful and fair.
What’s established:
- In the UK, the Cass Review, published in April 2024, found the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors to be weak. Following it, the UK has banned the routine prescription of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria and announced a clinical trial.
- New Zealand paused new prescriptions of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria.
- In Australia, Queensland paused new public-system prescriptions of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for under-18s in early 2025, and following an independent review (the Vine Review) has extended the pause until at least 2031. The Northern Territory has announced a similar halt.
- The federal Health Minister asked the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to develop national guidelines. Interim advice on puberty suppression has been due in 2026, with draft advice reportedly going to public consultation in November, and full guidelines expected around 2028.
What’s disputed:
- Some clinicians and professional bodies argue that the evidence for these treatments is limited but not evidence of harm, that puberty blockers are generally reversible, and that for some young people they relieve distress. They also warn that restricting access can harm young people who need care. Others argue that irreversible consequences, uncertain long-term outcomes and the high rate at which young people on blockers go on to hormones justify great caution.
- Professional bodies, such as Australia’s RANZCP, have said that the Queensland review reflected established principles of evidence-based practice, while others have criticised the pause and the Cass Review itself.
- The Chief Medical Officer has called for “robust but respectful engagement,” acknowledging how toxic this debate can be.
Christians can hold a firm view on the importance of caution with children’s bodies, and still acknowledge that transgender and gender-diverse people are made in God’s image and deserve dignity, compassion and protection from mistreatment. Many young people in this area are in real distress, and many parents are anguished and trying to do the right thing. Treating them as villains or as pawns does neither them nor the truth any good.
Words Matter: When Language Hides the Reality
One of the commentary’s central claims is that harmful acts are being “dressed up” in the language of care. The prophet Isaiah warned of those who call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20), and Paul says Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14). The point deserves attention: euphemism can obscure moral reality, and Christians are right to insist on plain speech.
But the principle cuts both ways. Honest language means:
- Defining terms. What exactly is being done, to whom, at what stage, and with what evidence?
- Using the same standards for everyone. Slogans like “health care” and “mercy killing” can mislead, and so can labels such as “murder,” “culture of death” and “experiment” when used without explanation. Each persuades before it informs.
- Naming the facts that support our case, and the ones that complicate it. As the Dutch case shows, a rhetorical claim that’s stronger than the facts will eventually undermine credibility.
Speaking the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) means both parts, truth and love.
Christ the Physician
The commentary ends with hope centred on Christ, and that’s a note worth emphasising.
Jesus described himself as a physician: “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Mark 2:17). He healed the sick, touched the unclean, restored the outcast and raised the dead. Isaiah says that by his wounds we are healed (Isaiah 53:5). The New Testament speaks of caring for the sick through prayer and practical help (James 5:14–15).
That vision of healing shapes the Christian approach to medicine:
- Every life has worth, from conception to natural death (Psalm 139:13–16).
- Suffering is not meaningless, but neither is it to be ignored. We’re called to relieve it with compassion.
- The weak and vulnerable have a special claim on us (Psalm 82:3–4; Proverbs 31:8–9).
- Our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12). Doctors, nurses, patients and families who find themselves on the other side of these debates are not enemies, and many act out of compassion and conscience.
Our Take
Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.
1. Medicine’s purpose is worth defending.
At its best, medicine is a commitment to the good of the patient in front of you. Many doctors share that commitment, whatever their views on these issues. Christians should support the many medical professionals who do the quiet, faithful work of healing, and defend conscience protections for those who can’t, in good conscience, take part in procedures that end life.
2. Good care is the best answer to bad options.
Each of these debates has a care gap behind it. People turn to euthanasia when palliative care, disability support and mental health services are inadequate. Women consider abortion when they lack support, housing or safety. Young people and parents grasp for medical answers when mental health services have long waiting lists. If the church wants to challenge the options on offer, it must also help build better ones.
3. Hold the line on accuracy.
The Dutch child case is a good example. Where a claim goes beyond what the evidence supports, correct it, even when it’s on our side. Credibility is hard to win and easy to lose.
4. Don’t treat different issues as identical.
Abortion, euthanasia and gender medicine have different moral structures, evidence bases and affected groups. Grouping them can show a common concern about the vulnerable, but treating them as the same risks sloppy thinking. For example, the debate over puberty blockers is partly a scientific question that is still being answered, while the moral status of the unborn is a more fundamental philosophical and theological question.
5. Speak with the people involved, not only about them.
Women who’ve had abortions, families who chose assisted dying for a loved one, and trans young people and their parents are not abstractions. Some of them are in our churches. The way we talk about these issues will determine whether they feel they can ever talk to us.
6. Hope is not optional.
The commentary rightly insists that despair isn’t the answer. Christians have been in worse cultural situations than this and have won hearing through courage, service and love. That’s still the way.
The Other Side of the Argument
In fairness, here’s how supporters of these practices would respond:
- On abortion: They argue that it is a legitimate and often necessary health service, that bodily autonomy and the health of the woman matter, and that criminalisation causes harm. They would say that calling it “killing a baby” ignores differences in development and circumstance.
- On euthanasia: They argue that competent adults facing unbearable suffering should be able to choose how they die, that safeguards exist, and that rare failures should lead to reform, not prohibition. They note that most cases involve people who are terminally ill and who have received palliative care.
- On gender medicine: They argue that for some young people, treatment is a form of care that reduces distress and the risk of self-harm, that “low-quality evidence” doesn’t mean “no benefit,” and that withdrawing care can itself be harmful. They are concerned that political decisions are overriding clinical judgement.
- On the language of the commentary: Some will say that describing doctors as part of a “culture of death” is unfair to the many who act in good faith, and that such language shuts down conversations.
These are serious objections, and they deserve a fair hearing. Christians who disagree with them will be more persuasive if they can state these arguments in a way their holders would recognise.
What Christians Can Do
- Support palliative and hospice care. Give, volunteer and advocate for better access, including in regional areas.
- Support pregnancy and parenting services, adoption and foster care, and families caring for children with disabilities.
- Care for people in distress, including young people struggling with identity, and their families, with patience and without judgement.
- Encourage Christians in health care. Pray for doctors, nurses and pharmacists, and support those who face pressure to act against conscience.
- Learn the facts from primary sources, and share only what you’re confident is accurate.
- Take part in the public conversation, including writing to your MPs, in ways that are respectful and informed.
- Pray, for the vulnerable, for those who care for them, and for a culture that values every life.
If This Topic Affects You
These subjects can touch deep pain. If you’re in distress, please reach out. In Australia, Lifeline is available any time on 13 11 14, and in an emergency you can call 000. Kids Helpline (1800 55 1800) supports young people, and QLife (1800 184 527) offers peer support for LGBTIQ+ people. If you carry grief connected to an abortion, a loss, or the death of a loved one, a GP, pastor or counsellor can help you find support.
Questions to Reflect On
- What do I believe medicine is for, and where did I learn it?
- Have I repeated a claim on these issues that I haven’t checked?
- Who in my community might feel unwelcome in my church because of the way these topics are discussed?
- What practical help could my church offer to people facing a hard diagnosis, a crisis pregnancy or a difficult family situation?
- How can I hold strong convictions and still treat people with gentleness and respect?
A Short Prayer
Lord Jesus, you are the true Physician. We thank you for everyone who devotes their life to healing. Protect the unborn, the sick, the elderly and the young, and give us courage to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. Give wisdom to doctors, legislators and parents facing impossible decisions. Heal those who carry grief and regret. Keep us faithful in truth and in love, and let your church be known as a place of mercy. Amen.
