Dylan Walborn, 2000 - 2005

Little Dylan Walborn, Broomfield, Colorado, was a victim of America's "mercy-killing," euthanasia movement. Judged better off dead by Denver's Children's Hospital, Porter Hospice, a Denver social worker, Dylan's public school teachers, and the Denver Post, four-year-old Dylan was starved to death over a period of twenty-four days.

The eight-page Denver Post article, by reporter Kevin Simpson who witnessed the lengthy process, gave various justifications and reasons for starving Dylan: he had cerebral palsy; he had a few seizures a day some as long as forty minutes; he had more bad days than good days. Morally, it is justifiable to allow a dying person to die; it is wrong to starve to death someone who is not dying. Unlike animals, God made man in His image; and in addition to prohibiting murder by "the law written in their hearts, their conscience" (Rom. 2:15), God also explicitly commanded in Scripture "do not kill the innocent" (Ex. 23:7; Ps. 94:21; etc.) who are not convicted of a capital crime.

The Denver Post article never identified the specific criteria which convinced them that this family could justifiably deny food to Dylan and starve him to death. Obviously, the reporter and the parents (along with relatives and friends, subsequent Post letter writers, Children's Hospital, etc.) were convinced (though wrongly) by some combination of Dylan's particulars that it was morally acceptable to stop feeding him. The Post reported that "national experts on child hospice and palliative care point to a million kids in the United States who live with a serious chronic or life- threatening condition," any number of which now are obvious candidates for consideration for starvation. And Children's Hospital's ethics committee considers starvation for "five [children] each year," whereas "more than half the time - doctors allow death to occur [starvation] without such consultation." As Simpson wrote in his own words, "In Colorado, more than 4,000 families have a child with a life-limiting illness and any of them could ultimately face a choice between prolonging life and ending it." Thus, America's child euthanasia stage has emerged. Yet the Denver Post did not identify exactly which conditions supposedly justified this intentional starvation; therefore, this table lists all the negative descriptions of Dylan documented there, in order of their appearance in the article.

As you read these conditions, notice that none could justify intentionally starving anyone. Of course, losing Dylan to complications from cerebral palsy would be sad, but of course, not immoral; however this boy did not die from cerebral palsy, he died from being starved:

Justifications for Starving Dylan Comments
Dylan had a "lolling head"
Dylan had "open but vacant blue eyes"
Dylan might "want to go"
Dylan had "severe cerebral palsy"
Dylan was "virtually blind"
Dylan was [virtually?] "deaf"
Dylan was [virtually?] "immobile"
Dylan was "unable to communicate"
Dylan couldn't "perform any voluntary function"
Dylan alternated between "expressions of pain or calm" due to "neurological damage"
Dylan had no expressions that "relatives, doctors or nurses could decipher as joy"
Dylan "cried silent tears"
"seizures rattled" Dylan
Dylan "spoke only in heartbreaking body language"
Dylan "spoke" in a "furrowed brow"
Dylan "spoke" by "rigid muscles"
Dylan had "a discolored tongue"
Dylan took "heaving breaths that whistled and gurgled"
Dylan had a "tracheotomy tube"
Dylan achieved "no [annual] developmental milestones"
Dylan never took his "first steps"
Dylan never spoke his "first words"
Dylan never did a "first anything"
Dylan's parents broke their own engagement in "the difficulty of caring for a severely disabled child"
Dylan's "seizures had intensified"
Dylan had "spasms repeatedly" despite medication
A few times daily Dylan's "body would shake" from seconds to "as long as 40 minutes"
Dylan's "energy would… ‘flop him like a rag doll.'"
Dylan would "shiver uncontrollably"
Dylan was "tube" fed from "his first month"
Dylan's "seizures worsened"
Dylan's "bad days began to outnumber his good ones" The Denver Post specifically identified this condition as coinciding with the mother's acceptance of the possibility of starving Dylan
Dylan himself might "choose death over his deteriorating life" Suicide is wrong, and not a moral solution to suffering, and becomes epidemic, with young and old killing themselves to end physical and emotional pain.
Dylan "stares blankly at guests"
Dylan "appears to be [in] a state of semi-consciousness" Denver Post reporter Simpson records his own questionable opinion here, on the day before the starvation begins.
Dylan's "suction pump" makes a "grinding hum" as it "clears his airway"
Other Justifications for Starving Dylan Comments
"The chairman of the ethics committee at Denver's Children's Hospital… estimates he has participated in hundreds of cases where nutrition or other life-sustaining measures were ceased" The intentional ending of life is common by America's medical professionals. Of course, when wrong becomes common, it does not thereby become right.
Children's Hospital's "ethics" committee considers starving "about five [children] each year"
Dylan's "doctors covered all the bases"
"the parents [informed Children's Hospital of] their wish to end their son's suffering" Whether or not killing patients ends suffering, it is wrong to do so.
"they'd explored all known medical avenues"
"The neurologist explained the futility of treatment."
"The pediatrician described Dave and Kerri's commitment to their son as heroic" Over time, of course, the motives of the parents will become decreasingly relevant, for since doctors believe that mercy killing is in the best interest of the child, Children's Hospital eventually will not withhold euthanasia for other Dylans, regardless of his parents motives, whether for relief, insurance, or inheritance.
"the ethics committee… concurred that the hospital could support removal of life support - in this case food"
"Friends and relatives" concur and the day before starvation began, they gathered "to celebrate the ways that [Dylan] had touched so many lives" Effectively, they gathered to say "goodbye" to Dylan.
Maternal "Grandma Vicki," who attends Victory Church [which information is not in the Post article] concurs with the decision.
Grandma " says she has known since her grandson was 3½ that he would not live past age 5. God told her, she says." Superstition: This is the first example of superstition from mother and grandmother, in which they take comfort, rather than looking to Scripture, which is noticeably absent from their thinking.
Grandma says, "I don't want him to suffer any longer" Which is a wonderful sentiment, unless it leads to the intentional ending of the child's life. Millions suffer, countless ones incurably or inconsolably, and God never authorized men to kill as a treatment for pain.
Grandma says, "I know because he's crying that he's hurting. It's not fair to keep him here." Grandma would undoubtedly agree that she is not the authority on what is fair, or unjust: God is. And God has not authorized parents to starve their suffering children.
Paternal grandma "Patricia" notices that Dylan "doesn't have the strength he had before" Of course, if he were dying, they wouldn't have to kill him. Children's Hospital likely believed Dylan strong enough to live on, for if he were dying, they could spare the ordeal of starving him.
At the going away gathering, his maternal step-grandpa Don, who has written poems about Dylan, says he is working "on another piece – ‘kind of the farewell one'"
Dylan's public school "teachers and therapists… all file through, sharing fond memories."

On Euthanasia

This section:

Here we define euthanasia and its stages, showing where Dylan's death fits in; and reminds the world of the euthanizing of 200,000 Germans, which practice prepared Germany for the slaughter of millions of Jews.

Euthanasia is the "mercy" killing of a human being, whether active or passive and ranging from voluntary to involuntary. In Dylan Walborn's story... [more]

On the Matter of Food

One common form of "mercy" killing is by starvation. Denver Post reporter Kevin Simpson wrote that 4,000 Colorado families could "face a choice between prolonging [the] life [of a diseased or disabled child] and ending it." The euthanasia movement attempts to blur the distinction between food and water, and sophisticated medical treatment, and thus sometimes refers to starvation as "cessation of treatment." Since all human beings require food and water for survival, these draw a clear line of delineation between dying, and killing. Little Dylan clung to life through 24 days of starvation; many healthy children so starved would have died sooner.

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, "...I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink..." Then they also will answer Him, saying, "Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty... and did not minister to You?" Then He will answer them, saying, "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me."

Jesus, Matthew 25:41-45

Scripture repeatedly teaches man's obligation to feed the hungry. See also James 2:15-16; Acts 20:35; Mat. 25:35; Luke 3:11; [14:13]; Rom. 12:20; Ezek. 18:7; and Isa. 58:7 (which includes your "own family"). The Left often reverse God's principles of righteousness. Leftists (liberals, etc.) support the killing of the unborn baby of a rapist, yet will oppose execution for him, thus protecting the guilty, and killing the innocent. Likewise with food, through the Apostle Paul, God commanded that we should NOT feed those who refuse to work (like homeless drug addicts), for hunger is God's merciful mechanism for overcoming laziness and drunkenness. For, "we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" (2 Thes. 3:10). Yet liberals and unwise Christians will feed those who "will not work," and deny food to those who cannot feed themselves, thus destroying both groups, the lazy through food, and the helpless through starvation.

Active euthanasia (suffocating Dylan or giving him a lethal injection) would be a sin of commission (doing wrong), and starving him, because of its intent as "mercy killing," in reality is also a sin of commission (intentional killing). However, for those who disagree or can't understand this, realize that the Bible also condemns sins of omission (not doing a necessary good), as an apostle James wrote:

Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin.

James 4:17

Feeding handicapped children is a necessary good, for Jesus takes it personally when you do not do so to the little ones. Pastor Conn should have provided these simple principles, and shared such scriptures, with his congregant, Dylan's grandma Vicki Saiz. Eleven days into Dylan's starvation, his mother pressed "her mother for a clarification: Does she support what they're doing or not? And grandma said, "I guess ... I just don't understand." And this, after supporting the "mercy" killing of her grandson. Very possibly, this grandmother would have understood the most simple counsel and Bible teaching from Victory Church against euthanasia, had it been offered her. Instead, she relied on a superstition, that Dylan "would not live past age 5. God told her, she says." Tragic. In the absence of solid Bible teaching, even on the most crucial matters of life and death, Christians become superstitious.

Of course, it is morally justified to allow a dying person to die. That is, when disease or injury has so harmed someone's body that food alone cannot keep the person alive, but mechanical replacement of vital organs is needed to keep blood pumping through a virtual corpse, then of course it is morally justified to allow a dying person to die. But it is immoral to kill someone who is not dying. And Dylan was disabled, but not dying, otherwise his parents could have avoided the emotional trauma of ending his life by the "mercy" killing of starvation. Therefore, Christians must teach the world the difference between allowing a dying person to die, and killing the innocent, whether by suffocation, starvation, or lethal injection.

Regarding the Denver Post Reporting of Pastor Buddy Conn Supporting Dylan's Mercy Killing

After a lengthy face-to-face meeting with Pastor Conn and his senior pastor, Michael Ware of Colorado's Victory Church, I am convinced that Pastor Conn was COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF, and DID NOT support the parents' decision to stop feeding their son. I APOLOGIZE to Pastor Conn and Pastor Ware, and to their church members, for not contacting Buddy prior to accepting the story in the Denver Post as factual. The Post reporter Kevin Simpson will not answer our questions regarding Buddy Conn's total repudiation of Simpson's portrayal of him as aware and supportive of the decision to stop feeding Dylan. Pastor Ware has committed to making an effort to correct the false public record as established by the Denver Post, and hopes to soon publicly publish a corrected account, hopefully, in a Denver Post letter to the editor. There is more to say on this, and so this section will be updated January 11th, 2006. For now, again, I reiterate, I should have contacted Pastor Conn initially, and for not doing so, I am sorry.

Pastor Bob Enyart of Denver Bible Church
Listen to these Bob Enyart Live MP3 radio shows about Dylan from

Give your opinion on our Bob Enyart Live Forum at TOL. is sponsored by

Section Still to Come: On the Legality of Killing Dylan.