"Individuals and society have understood for centuries that when our beloved pets have grown too sick to be either cured or cared for well they can and should be put to sleep. This is accepted as a humane decision.
"Why is it, then, that we make people suffer such pain when they are in similar conditions? Wouldn't it be more humane and caring simply to put them to sleep also to end their pain? Why does the Catholic Church insist that people undergo such pain and suffering? Shouldn't each of us be able to determine both the moment and means of our own death? After all it is my life?"
Assisted suicide has been legalized in Oregon and euthanasia has been legalized in the Netherlands. We have seen it placed on the ballot and defeated here in California, but we would be naïve to believe that it will not return. As Catholics it would be important for us to be educated about the issue not only so we can form our own consciences well, but also so we can articulate our Church's position clearly in society.
Pain and freedom
The two main arguments in favor of legalizing assisted suicide and/or euthanasia often revolve around pain and personal freedom.
The Church has several important responses to the argument presented above. First, the Church teaching: any form of either assisted suicide or euthanasia is evil and immoral and there are no situations that would justify it.
Euthanasia is defined in Pope John Paul II's 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae as a temptation "…to take control of death and bring it about before its time… (n. 64) Euthanasia in the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and by intention causes death…Euthanasia's terms of reference are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used" (n. 65). Both assisted suicide and euthanasia are integral aspects of the "culture of death" that is woven through much of the contemporary world.
Our Catholic ethic of life responds clearly that life is to be protected from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death. Euthanasia --- like abortion, the death penalty and unjust war --- is clearly not a natural death, and therefore offends our consistent life ethic. Life is a gift from God and our faith challenges us to live it on God's timetable, not our own.
Thus we may do nothing to hasten death but at the same time we need do nothing extraordinary to prolong the dying process. This means that when death is imminent, we are challenged to accept its inevitability without resorting to "therapeutic obstinacy." When a person decides that they are ready to accept their imminent death, they have every moral right to refuse any and all extraordinary or disproportionate means. When the burdens of treatment outweigh the benefits, they are free to say, "No more."
In 1980, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) wrote in "Euthanasia" (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith):
"In our day it is very important at the moment of death to safeguard the dignity of the person and the Christian meaning of life, in the face of a technological approach to death that can easily be abused. Some even speak of a 'right to die.' By this they mean, however, not a right of persons to inflict death on themselves at will by their own or another's hand, but rather a right to die peacefully and in a manner worthy of a human being and a Christian."
The same document makes it clear that "extraordinary" or "disproportionate" means can never be obligatory.
Some are surprised by the Church's easy acceptance of natural death, when in some cases it may be clear that modern medicine could forestall physical death for some time. Here it is so important for us to remember that when we use the term "pro-life," the "life" referred to is not exclusively a description of "physical life." For a Catholic, an authentic "pro-life" stance is actually a "pro-eternal life" stance. Our protection of physical life should not cause us to lose sight of the fact that for everyone there is a time when cure is no longer possible.
However, there is never a time when "care" is no longer possible. The U.S. Bishops, in "Ethical and Religious Directives" (4th ed., 2001), wrote: "In the face of death --- for many, a time when hope seems lost --- the Church witnesses to her belief that God has created each person for eternal life." Here we can be reminded that hospice care, where death is neither hastened nor disproportionately held at bay, can be a very moral choice for those who await an imminent death.
Pain control
Finally, we turn to pain control. The Church's position is clear: medicine is directed to "kill the pain" not "kill the patient." The Church, in fact, does not demand that people suffer pain. Every patient has the right to effective pain control.
The teaching on the use of painkillers, even when it is foreseen that the high dosages necessary to be effective may cause difficulties, is clear. The principle of double effect allows the physician to prescribe whatever is necessary to address the pain. As the CDF document "Euthanasia" says: "In this case death is by no means intended or sought, although this risk of it is being incurred for a good reason; the only intention is to diminish pain effectively by use of the painkillers available to medical science."
Between 1998 and 2005, Oregon reported 246 deaths by assisted suicide. Interesting to note is that inadequate pain control is listed as a reason for requesting assisted suicide by only 25 percent, the second least reason given. In the end, pain control is not an argument that can carry the day in favor of assisted suicide.
In conclusion, assisted suicide and euthanasia can never be legitimized as moral choices. They seek to "kill the patient" rather than kill the pain. They trumpet the preeminence of personal choice by removing both God and the person from the equation. How does that enhance autonomy and freedom?
A society that condones assisted suicide and euthanasia is headed down a very slippery slope where we may quickly see that:
1) Health care dollars for seniors are diverted and/or unavailable.
2) Health care research funds devoted to senior health concerns begin to dry up.
3) Medical care is no longer seen as a right for all citizens but only for the young and healthy.
4) The medical community is compromised into an involvement with "life-taking" rather than "life-caring."
5) Government no longer provides equal protection for all its citizens, but is involved instead with encouraging the premature death of some.
6) The truly human approach of hospice care for the dying is replaced by an option that encourages and is even complicit in killing.
In the end, as creatures and as Christians, we accept both the gift of new life and the inevitable call to eternal life as part of God's careful plan for each of us. As our bishops remind us in "Ethical and Religious Directives":
"We are not the owners of our lives and, hence, do not have absolute power over life. We have a duty to preserve our life and to use it for the gory of God, but the duty to preserve life is not absolute, for we may reject life-prolonging procedures that our insufficiently beneficial or excessively burdensome. Suicide and euthanasia are never morally accepted options." Vincentian Father Richard Benson is academic dean and professor of moral theology at St. John's Seminary, Camarillo. His column appears monthly in The Tidings. |