Two terminally-ill patients who refused assisted suicide to help others & show life’s sanctity


(J.J. Hanson/Center for Disability Rights/Facebook)

 

 

 

 

Listen to the 10 min audio

Read the transcript:

TOM LAMPRECHT:  Harry, J.J. Hanson has passed away. He passed away on December 30th, just 36 years old. Many of our listeners probably don’t recognize that name and, for those that don’t, let me just say that J.J. Hanson was a vocal opponent of assisted suicide more than three years after receiving a terminal diagnosis for brain cancer. He is survived by his wife, Kristen, two sons, a 4-year-old and a 6-month-old. His cancer, glioblastoma, was the same aggressive type that afflicted John McCain.

TRAGIC DISEASES 

DR. REEDER: And it is also the same type – in fact, his case pointedly parallels – that same diagnosis that came to one of my best friends this time a couple of years ago who recently went to be with the Lord. He’s an elder in our church and his name is Ronnie Norris. One of the most effervescent Christians you’ve ever met in your life, a very effective leader. His wonderful wife, Nancy, his two sons are very dear to us.

It was very interesting and heart-wrenching I have to confess, to go through that so the last year’s been a little bit of a challenge for me, too, Tom. You know, I lost my sister. I lost my Aunt Peggy, but she came to Christ in the last couple of weeks of her life. Rather challenging and one of those was Ronnie’s homegoing. I rejoice for him but, of course, I hurt for Nancy.

It’s very interesting the parallel here. Ronnie received this same diagnosis and he also had a number of – I won’t say well-meaning because I just have a hard time saying well-meaning to anybody that recommends assisted suicide – but he had people telling him that’s the way to go. Of course, they were not believers or friends in the church or anything, but they were people in the community that said, “There’ll be a time out there that this is what you ought to do.”

TOUGH DECISIONS

And he said no – on the contrary, he made the same decision that this ex-Marine, J.J. Hanson made and that was, “Hey, if I’m going through this, maybe I can go through it in a way to, No. 1, encourage other people and, No. 2, use it as platform to talk about the sanctity of life.”

And the sanctity of life has two main vistas: one is the beginning of life and the other is the end of physical life here. And so, he saw – the culture of death that has engulfed our culture – that culture of death as something that needed to be confronted, not only at the beginning of life – and that is the matter of abortion – but also at the end of life, assisted suicide.

JUDGMENT CALLS

He understood that assisted suicide, it’s one thing for people in their own life to decide, “I’m not going to take anything else to eat. I’m not going to take anything else to drink. I’m not going to do heroic measures,” and that is just letting death take its process when you’ve come to a particular time and I understand.

The sanctity of life does not call us to prolong death. That’s always a judgment call to make. I had to make it with my wife and her father. When they came to us and said, “There’s no chance for his recovery,” we said, “Give it another day,” we prayed over his bed, we looked at the signs, we looked at all the things that were going on and I just said to Cindy, “I don’t think it’s time yet.”

A week later, he walks out of the hospital and he gets to see the birth of another grandchild as he lives another year and a half.

ASSISTED SUICIDE LEADS TO MANDATED SUICIDE

The same thing, this ex-Marine, J.J. Hanson – but you’re really never an ex-Marine, Semper Fi forever – and he also had so many notable things that he went through: two Gran-Mal seizures and other smaller seizures and he came back from them, taught himself to walk, and to talk, and to be able to read and to process.

He became a vivacious and very effective speaker spokesman for the sanctity of life. And he understood that, once you move to the area of assisted suicide, then you put life and death further in control of the government and, as you put life and death further in control of the government, assisted suicide will soon become mandated suicide as we now see in various European countries as well.

GIFT OF SELF

He also used it as a platform to talk about life – not only to deal with the debasing dynamics of assisted suicide and its inevitable move to mandated suicide, but, Tom, he also began to talk about the value of life and how these last weeks and months and years of someone with terminal illness can actually be very productive.

He manifested that, he modeled that and he did the very same thing that my friend, Ronnie, did: he said, “I am not going to go the route of traditional treatments. I’m going to go another route.”

Now, J.J. Hanson went the route of immunotherapy as a number have done. My friend, Ronnie, went the route of a process that has been used in India. His willingness to go through the experimental treatments in India became a part of the process whereby this is now being moved to the United States of America – even Johns Hopkins Hospital is looking at it through the work that’s done and his engagement has become a part of that.

By the way, Ronnie had developed a friendship with Laura Ingraham who is with Fox News – who is also a cancer survivor and has become an advocate for various new treatments of cancer – and she told Ronnie about it and that’s how he was exposed to it and that’s how he used it. It was by his willingness to go through it that it’s now going to be perfected further and, very likely, will become a treatment process offered now in the United States of America.

In other words, he used this opportunity for the benefit of others.

I remember sitting with him at a breakfast and he told me, “Harry, I want you to do two things for me. No. 1, I want to die well. This is a moment that Jesus has given to me. Don’t let me waste it — I want to die well. I know that I have a cancer and it thinks its job is to kill me, but I want you to know that I have put my trust in Jesus. You know that. You’ve seen that. Help me now to live that out all the way to the end.

No. 2, I want to do something with this that may benefit others,” and that’s one of the reasons he chose this treatment, Tom.

WITNESS-BEARING TO GOSPEL POWER

And so now others are going to benefit because he didn’t go the way of assisted suicide, which, by the way, will lead to mandated suicide. He went the way of helping others and using the process as an opportunity for people to see the power of the Gospel in the life of someone who not only lived well in Christ, but died well for Christ — living by faith and dying in faith.

And that’s the way he saw this, for Christ, and that life was something to be embraced as a gift from God and something to be cherished even as you trusted in the Lord for the everlasting life that He gives to you.

Tom, that’s the way he saw it and that’s the way countless others do. We have seen people like Joni Eareckson Tada with the adversity of her quadriplegic condition.

We’ve seen it in the lives of many others as they see it two ways. No. 1: “Here’s a platform in life and death where I will honor Christ. We’re following what the apostle Paul pointed out to us: ‘Whether by life or by death, I want Christ to be honored in my life.’ And then the apostle Paul said, ‘That is my greatest desire is that Christ would be honored in my life and by my death, that He would be exalted.’

And, No. 2, how many other people can I help in this process?” As J.J. Hanson, Ronnie Norris and countless others have said, “Let’s use this to benefit others in the future.”

Tom, I would say it’s not only the fact that we need to speak on the matter of policies that affirm the sanctity of life — it is the opportunity for believers to embrace every moment in life to honor the Lord who gives life, who takes life away and who is our life.

And, therefore, in the midst of moving to eternal life to be with him, we can honor him throughout our life, even to the point of death which, for us, is the beginning of forever.

Dr. Harry L. Reeder III is the Senior Pastor of Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham.

This podcast was transcribed by Jessica Havin. Jessica is editorial assistant for Yellowhammer News. Jessica has transcribed some of the top podcasts in the country and her work has been featured in a New York Times Bestseller.

print

11 hours ago

Conservatives should stop using the phrase ‘fake news’

Liberals have overused the word “racist” so much that the adjective now lacks any commonly agreed upon definition, and that’s a shame because we need words — especially that word — to mean something.

Conservatives have now done the same thing with the phrase “fake news.”

And we need to stop.

261

Are there racists? Of course, and where they are found, the label should indeed apply. The Alt-Right’s Richard Spencer is a racist. So is Jared Taylor.

But you’re not a racist if you believe our country should have borders. Or if you support law enforcement. Or if you believe in school choice.

Calling you a racist for supporting those things is the left’s attempt at shutting off debate and banishing those who advocate for such ideas.

Is there fake news? Of course, and just like the word “racist,” when it’s found, the label should apply. Dan Rather’s infamous story about George W. Bush’s record in the Air National Guard is a perfect example. It wasn’t true.

But news isn’t fake if it’s simply something you don’t like or would rather not hear. Or if it challenges your perspectives. Or if it, heaven forbid, says something unflattering about the president.

A racist is someone who actually hates people of another color and wishes them ill. Most people called ‘racist’ today are nothing of the sort.

Fake news means the story is a total fabrication. A lie. Complete fiction. Most stories called ‘fake news’ are also nothing of the sort.

In both cases, people making the charge simply want to delegitimize their opponent’s argument rather than make the mental and emotional effort to challenge their ideas.

The casualty of such total weakness is not just words, but thought itself.

As our fellow Alabamian Helen Keller wrote in her memoir, she wasn’t able to really think until words entered her mind that day at the water pump.

Words opened Helen Keller’s mind.

Don’t allow words to close yours.

12 hours ago

Grand jury considers Alabama woman’s stabbing of husband with sword

A grand jury in Alabama will hear the case of a woman accused of fatally stabbing her husband with a sword.

Authorities say 50-year-old Jeannette Hale stabbed her husband, Mark, in the chest while he played a guitar in their home on April 2.

60

Lawrence County Sheriff Gene Mitchell tells AL.com that responding deputies found Mark Hale bleeding on their front porch. The sword was in the yard.

Mitchell says the husband later died at a hospital. An autopsy released Wednesday said the cause was complications of being stabbed.

The sheriff says Jeanette Hale was arrested on charges involving domestic violence and drugs.

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)

13 hours ago

Poly Sci 101: Gov. Ivey’s monument ad is a prime case of political framing

“Special interests” and “politically correct nonsense” are responsible for efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces, Gov. Kay Ivey says in a recent campaign ad.

At a campaign appearance earlier this week in Foley, Ivey made similar statements on the issue.

“We must learn from our history. And we don’t need folks in Washington or out of state liberals telling us what to do in Alabama,” she said, according to Fox 10 News. “I believe it’s more important that if we want to get where we want to go, we’ve got to understand where we’ve been. And I believe that the people of Alabama agree with that decision and support protecting all of our historical monuments.”

478

The conversation about Confederate monuments raises some intellectually and morally stimulating questions: What is their function? Do they function as objects of praise or as objects of historical memory? Who ought to determine whether they stay or go?

I’ll leave those questions aside for now because I want to address how Gov. Ivey has articulated the monuments issue.

George Lakoff is a cognitive scientist who has done a lot of research examining how politics and language intersect, particularly how language is used by individuals and groups to present their opponents in ways that welcome easy refutation. Usually, this means the misrepresentation of those ideas or opponents or, at the very least, a simplistic representation of them.

Lakoff refers to this as the act of “framing,” calling “frames” the arguments or scenarios set up by framing.

Here are a few assumptions that Ivey’s frame makes: Monuments are not only a way to learn from our history, but they are central to learning from our history; non-Alabamians and political enemies are trying to tell us what to do in advocating for monuments’ removal; monuments are a way to ensure that Alabama gets “where it wants to go,” politically, socially, culturally; that Alabamians are opposed to monument removal.

There are obvious political benefits to framing the issue this way. Knowing our history is clearly important. Who could argue that? Alabama is a sovereign state. Nobody wants outsiders tampering with decision-making.

What the frame excludes is an argument demonstrating why monuments are central to learning from our history, and how their removal would prevent us from learning from our history. It also excludes names of individuals or groups who have come from afar to tell us what to do.

It’s undeniable that folks from all around the country want Confederate monuments removed all around the country, and some may even be funding that effort from afar, but the major weakness of Ivey’s frame is a failure to acknowledge the Alabamians who are arguing for monument removal.

Birmingham City officials have advocated their removal.

Tuskegee Mayor Tony Haygood said the city has considered the removal of a Confederate soldier monument in the middle of town.

A Tuskegee graduate wrote a petition last year to the have the same monument removed. The petition garnered more than 1,000 signatures.

City officials in Selma have shown a similar resolve over the years, if not to have a monument removed then to cease the city’s contribution to its maintenance.  

Obviously, Ivey doesn’t have time in a 30-second ad to deconstruct the monument debate’s complexity, and I understand that, but her frame doesn’t accurately articulate who is representing the monument removal view in Alabama.

@jeremywbeaman is a contributing writer for Yellowhammer News

13 hours ago

Alabama legislators should follow Iowa’s lead in protecting the unborn

“If we conservatives truly believe abortion is what we say it is — the butchering of an unborn person — then ending the practice must be our top priority.”

Those were the words of Yellowhammer’s very own J. Pepper Bryars last week in an article he wrote after Congress failed, once again, to ban Planned Parenthood from receiving federal dollars.

Bryars couldn’t have been more accurate in his criticism, but I believe his words are also an indictment of the entire pro-life movement. For far too long we have played defense on the issue of abortion, attempting to hold the status quo while never really producing any substantial legislation on the issue. Not since Casey in June of 1992 have we attempted to make any real challenge to Roe v. Wade.

It’s for that reason that Alabama should follow in the footsteps of the lawmakers from our sister state of Iowa, who last month passed one of the strongest pro-life bills we have seen in decades.

594

Iowa Senate bill 2281 (the text of which can be found here), known as the Heartbeat Billwould legally prevent all abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat has been discovered, except in the very rare case of a medical emergency.

In other words, only when it is concluded by medical personnel that the life of the mother is in danger can an abortion be performed. Not only does it not make the exception for rape and incest as pro-choice legislators like to commonly reference, but it would also charge any doctor that performs an abortion after a fetal heartbeat has been detected with a Class D felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison.

Why this matters: The earliest fetal heartbeats can be detected is 5-6 weeks after conception, which is right about the time most women are initially discovering they are pregnant. However, new research from the University of Oxford suggests that a fetal heartbeat may be detected as early as 16 days after conception. With the risk of women dying during childbirth decreasing significantly since the 1970s and the recent trends in fetal research, it is clear that a bill such as this could effectively end 99% of abortions statewide.

Also, by creating legislation that defines life as beginning the moment the first detectable heartbeat is discovered we will be using the same red line that is already in use by most professionals in the medical community.

If I were driving home from work one night and had a terrible car accident, medical personnel after arriving on scene and finding me unconscious would immediately check for a pulse indicating whether I had a detectable heartbeat. If a detectable heartbeat is found, I would be considered a living person. If a heartbeat can be used by the medical community as a means of declaring when a person is living after birth, then it makes no sense why we wouldn’t use the same scientifically backed means of declaring life prior to birth.

For far too long the pro-life movement has focused on arguments surrounding fetal viability and gestational timelines, allowing our opponents on the issue the opportunity to define the terms of the debate for us.

Finally, simply passing a bill such as Iowa’s heartbeat bill would only be the beginning of the fight. There is no doubt that the ACLU, SPLC, and every pro-choice organization in the country would descend upon our state capital like locust filing every legal challenge to the bill imaginable. They would organize large protests where people in hats resembling female genitalia will gnash their teeth, but the resulting legal challenge would finally give us the opportunity to eventually stand before the Supreme Court and reargue the merits of the worst decision it has produced since Plessy v. Ferguson.

So, it is incumbent upon our legislators to truly reflect on the very pointed philosophical question Bryars raised regarding what we truly believe as conservatives on the issue of protecting unborn life.

Do you, Governor Kay Ivey, believe as you so eloquently stated that “fighting for our freedoms means fighting for the unborn”?

Do the members of our State Legislature and the pro-life community believe this as well?

If so, then the time has long since passed for us to stand by our words and attack Roe at its very core.

@dannybritton256 is a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and lives in Athens.

13 hours ago

Alabama forward Braxton Key says he will transfer

Alabama sophomore forward Braxton Key is leaving the team and plans to transfer.

Crimson Tide coach Avery Johnson said Friday Key has been granted his release. He says Key “certainly has a bright future, but he has to do what’s best for him.”

85

Key started 17 games last season after missing the first 10 with a knee injury. He averaged 7.0 points and 5.3 rebounds per game.

He led the Tide in scoring his first season and was named to the Southeastern Conference’s all-freshman team. Key averaged 12 points and 5.7 rebounds as a freshman while ranking second on the team in assists.

He says it wasn’t an easy decision to make.

The Tide is also expected to lose point guard Collin Sexton, who declared for the draft.

(Associated Press, copyright 2018)