Interview with Paul Taylor | Rapp Report Weekly 0008 | Striving for Eternity

Introduction and Ministry Overview

Welcome to the Wrap Report with Andrew Rapoport, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications. This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity. For more content or to request a speaker or seminar for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

Okay, well we have a special guest, someone who I have the privilege of calling friend, which means, of course, that he has a good sense of humor, and this will be a lively show. If you listened to the last weekly Wrap Report with my friend Pastor Jim Osmond, you know that, well, if this is someone who I call friend, we could go anywhere.

But I will have to give you a preference. You may need to have a translator. I can't provide translation, but Mr. Paul Taylor, welcome.

I speak English.

I think you are welcoming me in your thick New Jersey accent. I'm pleased to be here.

Well, I speak English. I don't know what it is you speak.

You must remember a Bible camp in Oklahoma, and one of the teenage girls on the course said to him, so what language do they speak in England then? And he said, well, English, of course. And she said, that's interesting.

She said, say something to me in English.

The lack of education of our youth. For folks to get the history of that joke, you and I were at a conference together in Ohio, and I was being relentless on you about your accent. Unfortunately, this wasn't caught on camera, probably for my benefit.

But just before we started the Q &A, I asked Michael, who was emceeing it, to get us some water. And he, being from the Midwest, said, what? And you quickly grabbed the microphone and said, let me translate.

He would like some water. And everybody was hysterical with that, because clearly I deserved it, asking you. Because every time before you spoke, I was like, does he need translation?

It was great.

The mistake of going up against you with your quick wit, I was doomed to lose. Yes. So, Paul, for folks who don't know you, maybe some know you from, you used to work with Anson Genesis, and you used to work with Creation Today with Eric Hoven.

But you're doing something different now, and they may know you from the past. Tell us what you're doing up at Mount St. Helens, other than trying to create another volcano to explode. What you're doing up there, and how people can know more about the ministry up there.

Mount St. Helens as a Living Laboratory of Genesis and the Flood

Okay, well, I'm very much an apologetics ministry. And we are based very close. So that's great fun in itself. Really, it's a very interesting combination, this ministry, combination of ministry and tourist center.

Because our center really is like a tourist center, and people do drop in. We have signs on the interstate so that people can find us. And people do drop in. Not everybody knows straight away what we're about, because there are a number of visitor centers in the area.

So they may think that we are one of many. But the point is that we are giving people a biblical explanation of what happened at the volcano. And if people are not really aware of what happened at the volcano, in 1980 there was a catastrophic eruption of the volcano, which blew really a large proportion of the top of the mountain off, one cubic mile of rock.

They've estimated that if they were to gather up everything that was removed from the volcano and shared it out among the world's population of 7 billion, everyone would have at least a ton each. There was a lot of material.

And what was interesting is that the land surface around the volcano was changed very rapidly in some rather startling ways. There's a 25-foot high section of sedimentary rock layers, approximately 1 ,000 layers altogether, which was formed in three hours.

There's a canyon, which is over 100 feet deep in many places, looking very much like a 140 scale model of the Grand Canyon. And it was formed in nine hours. An area of land that was so devastated that serious scientists at the time said it would take 1 ,000 years to regrow, has regrown with a vengeance.

And I take people on hikes through it, through thick woodland, with little running streams and diverse flora and fauna, and it's just an incredible place to be. So really I'm showing people that on a miniature scale, in a local area, things happened that are very, very similar to what happened worldwide at the time of the worldwide flood.

And it really helps us to interpret things. It really is like a living laboratory of things that happened just nearly 40 years ago that we can point people to. There was one lady came on an excursion last year, and at the end of the excursion, I take people all around the areas around the volcano to give them all interpretive talks, and she said to me at the end of it, she said, well, I believed in Genesis before I came.

And so I knew it was all true, that's why we wanted to come. But she said, in a sense, I believe it more now, because it's rather as if when you're on an excursion like this, it's just like you are touching Genesis.

And I was impressed with that thought. That's now become the tagline of our ministry, Mount St. Helens Creation Center, the place where you can touch Genesis, because that's what people are doing. They're seeing that the Bible is real.

Not that this proves the Bible in any way. We start with trust that the Bible is true, but we are interpreting everything that we see around the place through the lens of Scripture, and it's just very, very exciting to do.

Yeah, and I'm hoping to get out there. I think I'm speaking out in Washington State in the fall sometime, and I'm hoping to actually book my flight so I have an extra day or two to get out to you to see it.

I know you've been doing some new tours, and your season is just opening up there now, right, now that all the snow has melted away?

Yeah, well, actually, a lot of the snow hasn't melted away yet, and this is one of the things that people don't see in the valley. You've got the road ascends 4 ,000 feet to get to the parking lot of the Johnston Ridge Observatory.

Well, they don't open the Johnston Ridge Observatory until the middle of May each year. That's the earliest they open it, and, of course, they can delay it with this snow. There was snow at the end of May last year.

I actually had to abandon one excursion toward the end of May last year in the middle of the excursion because of a very, very bad snow blizzard. So it does happen, and, of course, it was really fine weather down in the valley when we set off Castle Rock where our center is based.

But it is interesting. I take people on these three different approaches to the volcano. So I take people on excursions to all three approaches. The west side is the most popular. That's where we're situated.

That's where they have the best roads and the various other tourist centers. But I also take people around the south side where they can see remnants of earlier eruptions, particularly one very large eruption that must have happened about 2 ,000 years ago, and around the east side where there are remnants of the 1980 eruption because the east side being so remote, they didn't clear it away.

So there are still burnt trees there 40 years after the eruption, just standing, almost looking as if they're still smoldering, though they're not. And, you know, you can see the devastation around the east side, a couple of cars that were damaged that are still there, and, of course, all the logs floating on Spirit Lake just to the northeast of the volcano.

These are things you can see there. So I take people on those, and I also take people just a little further afield into the Columbia Gorge where you can see evidence both of the worldwide flood and of the Missoula flood, which was a sort of outpouring, must have happened because of trapped flood water in the Missoula area in Montana that sort of flowed westward across eastern Washington and then down into the Columbia Valley.

Why Mount St. Helens Matters for Interpreting Genesis

Now, I mean, when we think about, you know, you were mentioning Genesis and we think about Mount St. Helens, there's some importance to Mount St. Helens, right? Explain some of that because, you know, look, you and I evangelize, we talk to people that are lost, we hear all these arguments that, you know, the Grand Canyon had to have been created by a little bit of water over a long period of time, that evolution must be true with lots of time.

What is it that makes Mount St. Helens something that we actually could observe with our own eyes and have recordings of video? What makes that so important in these discussions?

What makes it important is that things happen the way that we would predict from Scripture. We start by believing Scripture, and we interpret everything that way. But there are people around who say, well, you know, is that a valid way of looking at things?

After all, so many scientists can't really be wrong, can they, when they talk about the possibility of millions of years and slow processes? And we show, yes, they can be wrong because they were not able to predict what happened here at Mount St. Helens.

In fact, they predicted it wrong. But we have a very sensible explanation. But, you know, it's also just looking at the volcano is in itself important to the Gospel because we've got to remember that God did not make the world...

Well, I do not believe that God made the world with volcanoes. God made the world to be perfect. There weren't mountains going to explode and kill people. You know, 57 people died in the 1980 eruption.

That was not something that was part of the way that God made the world in the beginning. He made a world that was perfect, in which there was no death and disease. So we think that volcanoes actually came about later than the flood.

And we have all sorts of scientific mechanisms that we like to talk to people about to explain the flood. But, you know, because we can explain the flood by volcanic means, we think that the fountains of the deep that started the flood was volcanic activity on a worldwide scale.

But when we're talking about those scientific principles, we must remember what the main reason was for the flood happening. We can talk about how the flood happened, but let's remember why the flood happened.

The flood happened as the judgment on the sinfulness of men. The whole point is, we read in the first few verses of Genesis chapter 6, that the wickedness of men's hearts was always wicked in God's sight continually, so much so that he was grieved that he had made man.

And it's very difficult to understand how God can be so grieved that he made man in that way, but that's what the Scripture says, so we accept that. But then, of course, you know, we see them, that the volcano is a sign that there was a flood, because if there hadn't been a flood, there wouldn't have been volcanoes.

So the volcano, just looking at the volcano, speaks of judgment. It speaks of a time when God judged the world in a way that we know he will judge the world again, finally and completely. But coupled with that is the fact that we can see the volcano.

If we're looking at the volcano, that proves that our ancestors somehow managed to escape the flood. Well, how did our ancestors escape the flood? And the answer is in probably the most beautiful verse in Genesis, which is Genesis chapter 6, verse 8, which simply says, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

So why was Noah saved in the ark? Noah was saved because of grace. And, of course, we read in Hebrews 11 that Noah had the righteousness that comes by faith. So what we're reading is that Noah was saved by grace through faith.

It wasn't something that came from him that was given by God. And, you know, what I like to ask people at that point is, do you know anybody else who was ever saved by grace through faith? And those people are keying into what I say.

We'll get their hands straight up because that's my testimony and that's your testimony. We were saved by grace through faith. There was nothing about us that made it that enabled us to be saved. Nothing that we did.

We were not nice people. But God has decided to save us because of his sovereign will by grace through faith.

Amen. That is so true. So let's take a quick break and then we'll be right back.

Did you know that Striving for Eternity provides speakers and seminars that we would come to your church and disciple your people? We have seminars on the Bible interpretation made easy, creation science, evangelism, presuppositional apologetics, even on sexual abuse.

These are just some of the many things that we can provide for your church. Consider inviting one of our speakers to your church. You can contact us at speaker at strivingforeternity .org.

The good news is Striving for Eternity would love to come to your church to spend two days with your folks, teaching them biblical hermeneutics. That's right, the art and science of interpreting scripture.

The bad news is somebody attending might be really upset to discover Jeremiah 29 11 should not be their life verse. To learn more, go to strivingforeternity .org to host a Bible interpretation made easy seminar in your area.

Literal Interpretation of Genesis and the Authority of Scripture

Okay, so Paul, Genesis comes under attack. We just heard Todd talk about the importance of Bible interpretation. Why is it important to interpret Genesis literally versus saying that it's a polemical work or that it is just a, at least especially Genesis chapter one, that it was just a story or some would say that it was not literal, it's figurative.

Why is it important to interpret that literally?

Scientists would take over and they would think, you know, and scientists would clearly tell us that you cannot turn H2O into C2H5OH, you know, water into wine. Scientists have told us all those things that a man can't heal the sick, can't raise the dead, cannot be raised from the dead.

But, you know, I believe all those things. And they're written, they're recorded for us in the witness of scripture. And here's the issue. There are many people who say, well, look, it doesn't affect your salvation, what you believe on Genesis one.

If you believe in millions of years, you know, it doesn't stop people going to heaven. You don't have to believe in a literal six-day creation to go to heaven. And there is a truth in that. That is true.

It tells us that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved, not whoever calls on the name of the Lord and believes in a six-day creation. That's true. But, of course, we can say that about some other doctrines, too.

And here's the issue. It's an issue of authority. It's an issue of authority. You know, if you're going to say, well, I don't believe that God has worked in this way, this is mythological, then you're opening the door to saying that everything else is mythological.

You're opening the door to, you know, I was told by my scripture teacher at school, because they used to have scripture teachers in public schools when I was... I was told by my scripture teacher at school that when the people of Israel, the children of Israel, were led across the Red Sea by Moses, that was just the Sea of Reeds, you know.

And I was told when there was manna in the desert, well, that was a particular special plant that grew in that place that was very convenient for them. And things of that sort. Scripture is always being undermined.

People are prepared to believe anything. But, you know, we're supposed to accept what God says. This is the eyewitness account that we have. And if you're going to undermine scripture at Genesis, you will open the door to scripture being undermined elsewhere.

And after all, Jesus came to save us from our sins. Well, why are we sinners? What does that mean? Where does sin come from? You're not going to know where sin comes from unless you believe and trust what it says in Genesis chapters 1 to 11.

You know, Jesus comes to give us life because the wages of sin is death. So by forgiving our sins, he's come to give us life. He's come to conquer death. Well, you know, if there was always death in the world because we evolved over millions of years from eight men dying, then what hope is there for the future?

If you're expecting in the future there to be a world where, as Revelation tells us, there will be no more death and no more curse, then there must have been a world in the past where there wasn't any death and wasn't any curse.

Otherwise, the one depends on the other. If you believe in a world where death was only ever figurative, only ever spiritual death, curse was only ever figurative spiritual curse, and for millions of years there was actual real death, real physical death, then maybe we should expect that in the future.

In which case, what's your hope for the future? A new world where death will continue, but somehow we don't have spiritual death? Well, what sort of hope is that for the future? It's not a hope that I have.

I have a hope in a world to come where there is no more death, no more curse, period, literal, because that's the way things were in the beginning. So you see, it's an issue of authority. When we fail to believe what Genesis says, we are undermining the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So if there was no literal Adam, would there be a need for a literal Christ?

Two places in verse 15 that Jesus is compared to Adam. Jesus is the last Adam. Well, what sort of comparison is that? The comparison is being made because, you know, Jesus has represented us on the cross in the way that Adam represented us in the garden.

Adam failed, and sin was imputed to us. Jesus has conquered death so that his life is given to us. He has undone the errors, the sins, the mistakes that Adam made. And without believing that those events and that that person, Adam, were real, then it strikes me that what we believe about Jesus is not real.

You know, you cannot have a Savior bringing a literal life and conquering literal death. If death was never literal in the first place, it was simply a spiritual death. If Adam died a spiritual death, the physical death was already in the world, then why did Jesus have to die a real death on the cross?

It doesn't compute. It doesn't make sense.

Yeah, I mean, there's so many problems with it. I mean, then you have death before sin. If there was no literal Adam, you have sin that was brought about who knows how. So all of the arguments that Christ had to be the second Adam is just a figurative thing.

So then is his sacrifice really literal? In other words, would we really have a payment for sin? Could we make that claim from Scripture if we ignore a literal reading of Genesis 1? Well, Genesis 1 through 3 in this case.

We read in the New Testament that the second person is within the Trinity from all eternity past. You know, so this is not something that was accidental. If you're not going to believe in a literal death of Adam, you're not going to believe that if literal sin brought literal death into the world, then you have a problem in that area.

You make everything figurative, and you have a problem in that area. It's more as if then everything turned out badly so that God has to have a plan B. His plan A has failed, so his plan B is let's send Jesus to die.

And that is not the way that Scripture works. I don't fully understand, none of us fully understand the measure of what God was doing, why he planned this in all eternity. But I'm very thankful that he did, and I believe he did, because that's what Scripture says.

You know, this was his plan of salvation for us right from, I was going to say right from the very beginning, but clearly from before the beginning. This was in all eternity, this plan.

Yeah, even when we say before eternity with God, there was no before anything, let alone before eternity. That's language for us to understand.

We don't have the proper words, do we here? It's wise trying to use the word, I think he uses the word process at that point. He's saying there's a process of things that, but none of us have the right words to describe.

But nevertheless, it's there, it's true in Scripture, but it works. This is literal history. And you know, there are many people who want to say, well, it's poetic, you know, it's literature, it's poetic.

But, you know, I do not understand Hebrew like you do. You know, I have to rely on experts like yourself on the subjects of Hebrew. But I am told, and you will probably tell me if I'm wrong at this point, but I don't think I am.

I am told that the word order in the early chapters of Genesis indicates that this is narrative history. It is not the sort of word order or grammar that you get in Hebrew poetry.

Yeah, well, for the record, yes, I have like 10 years of Hebrew school. And when I was 15 years old and could stop going to Hebrew school, I did. And unfortunately, I gave up Hebrew as quick as I could, which I regret now.

I've been so far away from it. I used to be able to at least read it years ago. Now I struggle with the reading. But, you know, I did an interesting study. I'm teaching right now through the book of Genesis.

And there's phrases that we hear, things people, claims that people make, especially in Genesis 1 when it comes to the word yom, the word for day. And I've heard people make the argument that everywhere that we have morning or evening, with the word yom, it always means a 24-hour day.

Or any time we see a number before the word yom, it's always a 24-hour day. Now, being the way I am, looking to do original study, and I've said those things, and I've said them incorrectly, actually, because what I wanted to do, now that I was studying through Genesis, I was looking at that, and I ended up looking at every place in the Scriptures where we have morning and evening and yom.

And I discovered there are some places where morning and evening are not used in a literal sense and neither is the word yom, so the day isn't a 24-hour day. So I like how Jason Lyle had put it, that everywhere where morning and evening is in historical narrative, it always is a literal 24-hour day.

That would be accurate. However, with the numbering, we would have to say everywhere, and this is true everywhere in Scripture, where it's an ordinal number before the word yom, it is always a 24-hour day.

That's something that then when we look at this and go back to Genesis chapter 1, we have morning and evening used in a literal sense. Why is it literal? Because we have the sun and the darkness, or the light and the darkness to separate morning from evening.

And so we have those being used in a literal sense with yom. We also have an ordinal number second day, third day, fourth day, an ordinal number being used. Both of those together, I think, is pretty strong evidence that the writer of Genesis, which would be Moses, wanted it to be known that these days were a literal 24-hour day.

And we see this same pattern outside of Scripture in Jewish writings. It's hard to do an extensive thing to look at everything written in Judaism to make that argument, but looking at some Hebrew, I was able to confirm that, at least in some Jewish writings.

I think that becomes a strong point to say that God was trying to not write a science textbook for us, but to make it clear to us that these were 24-hour days, and it was accepted. I mean, even today, the Jewish calendar is based off what they assume as the day of creation, and they have it at 57 ,000.

I think we're in 5775, I think, is the year. But it's about 6 ,000 years that the Jewish calendar would be.

It's close, and it's within the sort of margin of error. Yeah, I mean, it would be interesting if we could find anywhere else that Moses had talked about days with numbers in. And then I like to tell people, well, let's turn to Numbers chapter 7.

Or in fact, I'm usually a little bit naughty person and say to them, well, you're all familiar with Numbers chapter 7, and I'm sure many of you can recite it off by heart because it's one of your most familiar subjects in Bible study.

And then I say, just in case you can't remember what Numbers 7 is talking about, it's when Moses is sitting down waiting for the gifts for the tabernacle. And for reasons best known to them, the tribes of Israel brought their gifts one day at a time.

And so it tells us in Numbers chapter 7, verse 12, that on the first day, it was the tribe of Judah that came. Then in verse 18, on the second day, it was the tribe of Issachar. On the third day, it was the tribe of Zebulun, and so on.

This took 12 days, and they're numbered. First day, second day, third day, fourth day, and so on. They're numbered like that. Well, poor old Moses obviously was sat there waiting for these gifts for 12 ,000 years, because a day with the Lord is like 1 ,000 years, you know.

Yeah, and that's how they try to argue it.

Yeah, and here's the thing. You know, I'll be clear that that's ridiculous. It's obviously 12 literal days. But I know that Douglas Kelly, in his book Creation and Change, points out that if you are going to interpret Numbers 7 literally, then to be consistent, you must interpret Genesis 1 literally.

Secular Questions, UK Culture, and the Alfie Case

Yeah, yeah. And so let's do this. I want to get into some secular discussion with you. So let's play a commercial, and then after that, I want to ask you about some things going on in the UK right now.

Okay.

It all started with a small-time dream. Hold a conference in a church. With a small budget, could we afford to bring in a Christian celebrity speaker? And with an ear to hear more than just the same canned messages?

Do we want to? With these two questions, the mentionables were born. We found the best under-the-radar Christian apologists that we could find. Writers, podcasters, and bloggers. Their voice was small, but their message was huge.

On May 18th and 19th, the mentionables will be appearing in Greensboro. Head out to Greensboro Christian Church and hear this grassroots phenomena in action, featuring talks and a great debate. Head over to thementionables .org to get your tickets, or call Greensboro Christian Church at 336 -621 -5226.

The mentionables. Small-time voices. Big-time noise.

A friend of mine, Tyler Villa, will be debating the issue of suffering, I believe with an atheist at that. So that will be one to go to and check out. So, Paul, you're from the UK, although you're now, I know you're suffering, you're down in having come to the United States and living in nice, sunny Florida.

You decided to move to Washington State to be able to experience the extremes of American weather.

I miss the rain.

You miss the rain? Yeah, you had all that rain growing up and you came to sunny Florida and you said, Yeah, let me get sun. That's more like precipitation. But what's this white stuff?

Oh, God bless my friend. I'll tell you what I don't miss. I don't miss leaving the house, walking down the drive to get the mail, getting back to the house and thinking I need a shower already. I don't miss that, the heat and the humidity.

I have lived in America for quite a long time. Of course, I was privileged just a few weeks ago to be able to go back to the UK and also to the Republic of Ireland. And I was able to travel around and I spoke in a few churches, too.

And that was a great blessing. So it's nice to be able to reconnect with a few people over there. It was also nice to be able to get back home here to Washington State.

Well, you know, I understand you have to realize, though, for many of us, we enjoy showering every day, not once a month or so. It's good for us to have you down in Florida for that reason. But, hey, look, over in the UK, there's been a big brouhaha going on with this young child, Alfie.

I think it was his name if I mispronounced it. I'm sorry. But over in the UK, there is nationalized health care. And here you have a child who has a terminal illness. The parents were petitioning to try to keep him on life support.

That petition failed. The government had ordered the, I guess, the hospital to basically pull the plug on the machine. He started breathing on his own. The parents actually got the Roman Catholic Church or the Vatican to approve making him an Italian citizen and bringing him over there.

Everything would have been paid for. In my view, the issue there is there's, you know, you can't argue this is for financial reasons that the hospital was going to put this child to death because they could have let him go.

They could have let him go to Italy, given him some comfort there and with the parents. The issue that I guess I saw with it is that after he got off the machine, he started breathing on his own. And the hospital's reaction was then to stop feeding him.

And that became an issue I saw is that why stop feeding him? I mean, if you're saying that, you know, he's going to die anyway, you know, the hospital could have ended it very quickly. But they starved him to death, as far as I understand.

And I see an issue here. I see an issue where England, even though many of the professing atheists are saying, hey, look, England is a religious nation. We have a state religion. And therefore, you know, this is being done by religion, not atheism.

And I see England having removed God from culture, removed God from society. Clearly, they may be religious in name. But if they were truly a religious nation being run by the Anglican Church, I don't think abortion would be legal.

And many of the other things that are going on over in England. Do you see a because you're more familiar with the UK than many Americans. Do you see a changing in basically, you know, a changing of religion from Christianity or some form of Christianity to atheism in England?

And do you think that that could be what brings about kind of a lack of empathy for the parents going through this with their child?

It's a difficult situation than a lot of people realize, you know, and I'll perhaps say at the outset, so you don't start getting hate mail straight away, that although it's a difficult situation, I think, and I when I sort of come down eventually on one side or the other, I'm going to come down on the same side as you is to say that this should not have happened this way.

It was wrong. But I think there's a little bit more to understand than that. A lot of people do not fully understand the difference between the UK and the United States, the similarities and the difference that they make a lot of knee jerk comments for a start.

The United Kingdom is not an atheistic society. It's a godless society. The influence of Christianity is very small. The Church of England is largely, though there are some good churches there, but it's largely an apostate church.

Certainly structurally, it seems to be an apostate church. So when you look at the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury and so on. However, the majority of people in the United Kingdom, not as big a majority as in the United States, but the majority of people, I think it's the last research that did it said 66 percent would consider themselves to be Christian.

Now, I do not accept that they are Christian. The number of Christians is very, very small. But I'm saying this is not an atheistic society. Percentage of atheists is something like about 20 percent. So it is, again, probably a larger percentage of atheists than in the United States.

But it is not actually at its heart, therefore, an atheistic nation. In many ways, there are certain structures in the society that are more Christian than the United States. For example, the ability to be able to pray in schools.

The fact that it is not against the law to share your faith in certain circumstances. The Bibles are allowed in schools and, in fact, encouraged in many places. Issues like that. I've heard people bandy around the word socialism, saying, well, you've got a socialized health service in Britain.

That is, to some extent, true. It's not as if Britain is a socialist society. And, in fact, on many areas, has more free market than the United States. For example, the United States has a socialist postal service.

Britain does not have a private enterprise system. The United States has a socialist monopolistic system of electricity and natural gas and water distribution where there is absolutely no competition in the area.

Whereas in the United Kingdom, there's always a minimum of two in every place, a complete free enterprise. So, society, in fact, is generally a free enterprise society. But when you come to this particular issue with this boy, one of the difficulties is that there are many people who suggested, and I've read comments from Christians in the United Kingdom looking at this, who said, well, you know, this was a boy who was definitely dying.

And what, therefore, has happened is simply prolonging life. The issue of the possibility of going to Italy was not a realistic one, really not a realistic one. And there was a duty of care there for his doctors to say that really should not happen because it was certainly not in the child's interest to do that.

Then the child would suffer a great deal. Now, I don't know. And I read what friends of mine in the United States say that there's clearly a moral imperative here. The idea of allowing a child to die is abhorrent.