"The Nazi euthanasia program quickly expanded to include older disabled children and adults. Hitler's decree of October, 1939, typed on his personal stationery and back dated to Sept. 1, enlarged 'the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.'"
Brother kills brother. Like the first fratricide, every murder is a violation of the "spiritual" kinship uniting mankind in one great family, in which all share the same fundamental good: equal personal dignity. Not infrequently the kinship "of flesh and blood" is also violated; for example when threats to life arise within the relationship between parents and children, such as happens in abortion or when, in the wider context of family or kinship, euthanasia is encouraged or practised.
Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".
On a more general level, there exists in contemporary culture a certain Promethean attitude which leads people to think that they can control life and death by taking the decisions about them into their own hands. What really happens in this case is that the individual is overcome and crushed by a death deprived of any prospect of meaning or hope. We see a tragic expression of all this in the spread of euthanasia-disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally. As well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society. Thus it is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill. Nor can we remain silent in the face of other more furtive, but no less serious and real, forms of euthanasia. These could occur for example when, in order to increase the availability of organs for transplants, organs are removed without respecting objective and adequate criteria which verify the death of the donor
The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).
Excerpts from paragraphs 2276 - 2279 on Euthanasia and paragraphs 2280-2283 on Suicide:
#2277 ...Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respec tdue to the living God, his Creator....
#2278 Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of "over-zealous" treatment....
#2279 Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged.
#2280....It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of.
#2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God
Vatican City -- Feb. 2000 -- Pope John Paul issued one of his strongest condemnations of abortion and euthanasia on Monday, saying they were tantamount to legalised crimes corrupting society.
The Pope said laws permitting abortion and euthanasia should not be seen as inevitable social necessities.
"...These (laws) are a seed of corruption in society and its foundations. Civil and moral conscience cannot accept this false inevitability, just as it cannot accept the idea that wars or inter-ethnic extermination are inevitable," he said.
The Pontiff was addressing participants at a meeting to commemorate the fifth anniversary of the release of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), which branded abortion and euthanasia as unjustifiable evils.
Encyclicals are the highest form of papal writing and the world's billion Catholics are expected to obey their teachings.
Referring to "a world which shows serious symptoms of violence and decadence," the Pope said it was increasingly clear that policies and laws "opposed to life are leading society to degeneration, not only moral but also demographic and economic."
The Polish Pope said clergymen, believers and legislators should do all in their power to change the laws, though a wholesale change in mentality and habits was also required.
"They should leave no stone unturned to eliminate this legalised crime or at least to limit the damage of these laws, remaining aware of the duty to respect the right to life, from conception to the natural death of every human being, even the least gifted," he said.
Though some 97 percent of Italians declare themselves Catholic, abortion was legalized in 1978 and overwhelmingly upheld in a 1981 referendum in the southern European country.
The 79-year-old Pope appealed to scientists, doctors, teachers, families, lawyers, legislators and those working in social services to protect the right to life.
"Only in this way can we overcome this kind of silent and cruel selection which unjustly eliminates the weakest members of society," he said.
In order that the question of euthanasia can be properly dealt with, it is first necessary to define the words used.
Etymologically speaking, in ancient times euthanasia meant an easy death without severe suffering. Today one no longer thinks of this original meaning of the word, but rather of some intervention of medicine whereby the suffering of sickness or of the final agony are reduced, sometimes also with the danger of suppressing life prematurely. Ultimately, the word euthanasia is used in a more particular sense to mean "mercy killing," for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering, or saving abnormal babies, the mentally ill or the incurably sick from the prolongation, perhaps for many years, of a miserable life, which could impose too heavy a burden on their families or on society.
It is, therefore, necessary to state clearly in what sense the word is used in the present document.
By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated. Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used.
It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.
It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.
More serious arguments include: that personal autonomy or self-determination includes a right to die when one judges quality of life to be intolerable; and that voluntary euthanasia is the most compassionate response in such a situation. These arguments rely on notions of respecting human choices, acknowledging human dignity, and responding mercifully to human suffering. Opponents of euthanasia are sometimes described as lacking in these important virtues. We can reply to this by recalling words of the great thirteenth century thinker, St Thomas Aquinas.
Aquinas explained that compassion if just felt is not a virtue. To be 'moved by pity' is fine, but not if the movement is simply one of feeling. For this can cause more harm than good, practically and morally; if it is only felt, compassion may lead us to misjudge the evil or to respond to it inappropriately. By causing us to react inappropriately to suffering, feelings can make us unable to identify their cause correctly and so to intervene effectively. Genuine compassion requires feeling and the intellectual recognition that the suffering which causes this requires a practical and moral response, not just a knee-jerk response assuaging of our feelings.
Opponents of euthanasia are also accused of not respecting human dignity. Here we need to distinguish having a sense of one's personal dignity and so behaving with dignity from possessing intrinsic human dignity. Aquinas writes that 'dignity is something absolute, and pertains to essence. We do not have dignity only in so far as we are leading a certain sort of life, or have certain gifts, or value our lives but just in so far as we are. However much our sense of dignity is reduced by being handicapped, depressed, in pain, old, incontinent or insane, we cannot lose or have diminished our absolute human dignity. By focussing on this it becomes clearer that euthanasia, even if a well-meaning response to feeling or appearing undignified, is actually the final attack on a vulnerable person's intrinsic dignity.
But if sick people have consistently asked for euthanasia, are we not failing to respect their wishes, and so them? Clearly, dying is not something that is just 'our own' choice. We need to ask: are any objective values connected with the sanctity of life being violated? Are any values normally attached to dying, the event of death, and being dead being violated? What about the effects of suicide on specified others, and others in general? Or the effect of medical homicide upon all those involved in carrying it out, those who sanction it, and the wider community, including possible future changes in laws and most governing medical practice.
Aquinas argued that it is our nature to preserve ourselves, to love and rear the young, to recognise the rights and duties of community membership, the claims of knowledge over fashion and ignorance, and of religion over superstition. If he is right that all of this is in our nature, then he is right, too, that to respect each other is to help each other not to have to choose against life, family, community, truth or religion. We do not show people respect by facilitating their choices for death, neglect, isolation, ignorance, superstition. Rather, respect for the sick involves fully acknowledging the difficulties in being ill and choosing well but not patronising them by creating a false morality, offering quick fixes, and passing immoral laws which 'respect' wrong choices.
We do not need classical philosophy to find problems in the Voluntary Euthanasia Bill now happily deceased: these were thoroughly documented in submissions to the Parliament. But philosophy does suggest misuse of terms like 'mercy', 'dignity' and 'respect' in the popular debate distorts our perception of what is really at stake in the case of a suffering person wishing to be killed
