Euthanasia is immoral and anti-social
Creation: Executive Council of the Spanish Episcopal lecture .
source : lecture Episcopal Spanish.
language original: Spanish.
Copyright: No.
Publication: 19 February 1998.
Checked on 16 May 2002.
Euthanasia is immoral and anti-social
I. We denounce a misleading campaign in favour of euthanasia
a) A relaunched campaign
1. In the so-called developed world there are those who are waging a "struggle" for the social and legal recognition of euthanasia. Among us, the case of a recently deceased quadriplegic had been used for years in this struggle. He was repeatedly presented to public opinion as someone who was being denied a fundamental right: to voluntarily stop living a life of suffering that he no longer considered worthy of being lived. Instead, those who oppose the recognition of this supposed right are accused of repressing freedom and of being insensitive to suffering staff and to the increasingly common sentiment of society. In recent days, this campaign has been relaunched.
b) We respect individuals, but denounce immoral proposals.
2. We sincerely respect people's consciences, the sanctuary in which each person encounters the gentle and demanding voice of God's love. We do not judge anyone's inner self. We also understand that "certain psychological, cultural and social conditioning" can lead to actions that "radically contradict one's innate inclination to life, attenuating or annulling subjective responsibility".1 But there is no denying the existence of a legal and publicity battle for the recognition of the so-called "right to a dignified death". It is this public stance that we have to judge and denounce as wrong in itself and dangerous for social coexistence. Conscience and personal decisions are one thing, and what is proposed as an ethical and legal criterion for regulating relations between citizens is another.
c) An extreme status is presented as normal.
3. First of all, it must be realised that this case, even though it has been hammered into the public eye, is in fact a rare case. Quadriplegics are neither wishing to die nor, much less, asking to be eliminated. The National Federation of Associations of Spinal Injuries and Severely Handicapped Persons expressly stated last month that the vast majority of disabled people are against euthanasia. The image that has been given of these people in the above-mentioned case does not correspond to reality. They are not and do not consider themselves unworthy of life. On the contrary, there are often cases of quadriplegics who are admirable for their spirit of self-improvement and their developed humanity. But one of the tricks of the "struggle" for the social and legal recognition of euthanasia is precisely that: to pass off as normal and common what is extreme and rare. Because for the extreme and rare there would be no need to legislate.
d) Progress is presented as progress when it is retrogression.
4. It should also be noted that the social recognition of euthanasia is often presented as a novelty, as a "liberation" from the oppression exercised by reactionary powers over free individuals who, thanks to progress and the Education, are becoming aware of their rights and are demanding them more and more decisively. Well, we must remember that social acceptance of euthanasia is nothing new. In various primitive societies, and also in ancient Greece and Rome, euthanasia was not frowned upon by society. The elderly, the incurably ill or those tired of living could commit suicide, apply for be disposed of in a more or less "honourable" way or were subjected to eugenic practices and rites. The appreciation of all human life was a real progress introduced by Christianity. What is now presented as progress is, in reality, a step backwards that must be taken into account in the terrible dark side of our way of life today, which the Pope has called the "culture of death".2
II. Euthanasia is a grave moral evil
a) What kind of euthanasia are we talking about?
5. "We will call euthanasia the action whose aim is to cause the death of a human being in order to avoid suffering, either at the request of the latter, or because it is considered that his life lacks the minimum quality to merit the qualification of dignity. Thus considered, euthanasia is always a form of homicide, since it implies that one man puts another to death, either by a positive act or by the omission of due care and attention. "3 This is "euthanasia in the true and proper sense", i.e. "an action or omission which by its nature and intention causes death, with the aim of eliminating any pain".4 agreement On euthanasia, so understood, Pope John Paul II solemnly teaches: "In accordance with the Magisterium of my Predecessors and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation of God's law insofar as it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable elimination of a human person. "5
6. On the other hand, actions or omissions that do not cause death by their very nature and intention are not euthanasia in the true and proper sense and are therefore not morally reprehensible. For example, the appropriate administration of painkillers (even if this results in the shortening of life) or Withdrawal to disproportionate therapies (so-called "therapeutic overkill"), which forcibly delay death at the cost of the suffering of the dying person and his or her relatives. Death should not be caused, but neither should it be absurdly delayed.
b) Atheistic and hedonistic individualism, the cause of the return to euthanasia
7. Today euthanasia is again acceptable to some because of widespread individualism and the consequent misunderstanding of freedom as merely the ability to decide anything as long as the individual deems it necessary or convenient. "My life is mine: no one can tell me what to do with it". "I have the right to live, but I cannot be forced to live." Statements like these are what are repeated to justify what is called "the right to a dignified death", a euphemism for, in reality, the "right to kill oneself". But this way of speaking denotes an egocentrism that is literally deadly and endangers the fair coexistence of people. Individuals thus set themselves up as false "gods" ready to decide on their own lives and those of others.
8. At the same time, human existence tends to be conceived as a mere occasion for "enjoyment". More than a few false prophets of the "painless" life exhort us not to endure anything at all and to rebel against the slightest setback. According to them, suffering, endurance and sacrifice are things of the past, old-fashioned things that modern life has already completely overcome. A "quality" life today would be a life without suffering. Whoever thinks that there is still any place left for pain and sacrifice is branded as "old" and as a cultivator of a morality for slaves. It is not surprising that, from hedonistic attitudes of this subject, coupled with individualism, one hears supposed justifications for euthanasia such as: "I decide when my life is no longer worth living" or "no one can be forced to live a life without quality".
c) Life, a marvellous gift of the Creator
9. It is true that life is, in a sense, mine. I am manager of what I make of it. But if no property (of goods or things) ceases to have a social and transpersonal reference letter , even less so life, which is not just any property. To conceive of life as an object of "use and abuse" by its "owner" is to take the petty bourgeois sense of private property to an almost ridiculous extreme. Life is not at our disposal as if it were an estate or a bank account. If we assimilate living to objects of property, we deprive human life of that sense of unconditionality and mystery which gives it its incomparable dignity.
10. Christians have a name for the dignity and mystery of life: human life is the glory of God. Its dignity comes from its divine origin and destiny. It is a conviction that we share with many other believers, with the vast majority of humanity, who have always rightly considered that the life of human beings is sacred and inviolable, because it belongs first and foremost to God. We know, moreover, that the living and true God is not a capricious master of His creatures. He is Love itself. All that exists proceeds from Love, which is God in the eternal communion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The human being, created in the image of God, is the creature capable of repeating, in his own way, the relationship of intimacy in which the Son of God has always been with the Father in the Spirit. Every human being has, therefore, a sublime and mysterious divine dignity. His life is much more than what he can do or possess: it is a life willed by God himself.
11. The "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex 20:13) also refers to one's own life. The fifth commandment of the Decalogue expresses in the form rules and regulations that human life is not at the disposal of anyone, for it is not the exclusive property of anyone, but the gift of God. For us this Law is not only an imperative of reason; it is above all an expression of hope based on trust in creative Love. We hope that our life will one day be definitively accepted into God's eternal Life because we believe that we come from Him and that we are moving towards Him, already moved by the power of His life-giving Spirit. We Christians feel especially called to recognise and live life as our own good and the good of others because we have experienced in a new way that our life and that of others is first and foremost a wonderful gift of God.
This prevents us more effectively against the deceptions of individualism: we know well that it is false to say that "my life is mine alone". It belongs first and foremost to God and also to my brothers and sisters. If I were to take my own life, I would also be harming my loved ones and humanity, which would be radically damaged by this most sacred asset of its most sacred patrimony: the life of a human being.
d) The mystery of an inalienable primordial good
12. But human experience and wisdom also generally understand that life belongs to that class of untouchable goods that we cannot negotiate with anyone, not even with ourselves: those goods that tend to be identified with the very mystery of existence and human dignity. Life is non-negotiable for me. If freedom, honour, Education, etc. are goods that cannot be renounced, then life, the primordial root of all these goods, is even more so. Indeed, if no one can deprive himself of his freedom by alienating it by means of a contract of slavery, no one can deprive himself of life, which is even less at our disposal than freedom itself: life appears to us as something prior and enveloping, which is more than ourselves. That is why a voice resounds within the human being that tells us: "do not kill, do not take life; always choose to live, and you will be surprised again by its unsuspected possibilities". It is very worrying that this inner voice in favour of life is not heard by some people today.
III. The Moral Evil of Euthanasia Compromises Common Life
a) Recognised euthanasia has bad consequences
13. Euthanasia is in itself a grave moral evil, since it is contrary to the meaning of human life, a gift and an inalienable good. Even supposing that a decriminalisation of euthanasia would not entail dangers and undesirable effects, the very act of taking someone's life, even at his or her request, would always be humanly unacceptable. But we cannot fail to notice that the social legitimisation of this evil, implicit in decriminalisation, brings with it serious consequences and new situations of immorality. We will briefly mention some of them.
b) Moral pressure on the elderly and the sick
14. The social and legal acceptance of euthanasia would, in fact, generate an intolerable status of institutionalised moral pressure on the elderly, the disabled or incapacitated and on all those who, for one reason or another, might feel like a burden to their relatives or to society. Given the "example" of others to whom euthanasia would have been applied voluntarily and recognised, how could these people not think that they too would not have the moral "obligation" to ask to be eliminated in order to cease to be a burden? This inevitable consequence of a hypothetical decriminalisation of euthanasia would mean introducing into human relations one more factor in favour of the unjust domination of the strongest and contempt for those most in need of care. No one should be led to think, under any pretext, that he or she is less worthy and valuable than others. Careful and careful attention to the weakest is precisely what dignifies the strongest and is a sign of true moral and social progress. It is not difficult to see the setback that legitimising the moral evil of euthanasia would entail for social life.
c) Deaths imposed by others
15. It is said and emphasised that the euthanasia requested is voluntary euthanasia. From what we have just said, requested euthanasia carries with it the malice of suicide and cooperation with suicide. But, in addition, the facts show that the social and legal acceptance of voluntary euthanasia brings with it non-voluntary and even imposed euthanasia, i.e. homicide. Firstly, indirectly, because of the inducement effect mentioned in the previous paragraph: quite a few would be pressured, in one way or another, to "voluntarily" ask for death. Secondly, directly, because of unwanted and uncontrolled decisions of others. This is not only foreseeable, but also the experience of what has happened in recent years in places where euthanasia has been decriminalised. In 1995 in the Netherlands 19,600 people died of death caused ("sanitarily") by action or omission. Of these only 5,700 people knew what was happening. In the remaining cases, the persons concerned did not know that others made the decision for them that they no longer had to live.6
d) Mistrust of families and health care institutions
16. If the "example" of those who call for euthanasia were to become commonplace and, moreover, if it were to become widespread internship for doctors to decide, in certain cases, to end the lives of their patients without even their consent, social relations would suffer a severe blow. In a society that consented to this, mistrust and fear would take hold of many sick, elderly and disabled people. Relationships between the old and the young within families, and between patients and doctors in health institutions would suffer particularly badly. According to the "efficiency mentality "7 and the economist mentality, dominant in the consumer society, euthanasia would bring with it, at final, the depreciation of human life, valued more for its capacity to make and produce than for its very being.
IV. Faith in Jesus Christ, the strength to live and die with dignity
a) Suffering is illuminated by the power of faith
17. The Creed professed by the Church leads us to hope for eternal life. This hope teaches us that our life in the world is one of the stages of our existence; very important and decisive, certainly, but not the only one. That is why we sing with the Psalmist: "Your grace, O God, is more precious than life; my lips will praise you" (Ps 62). To come to share fully in God's life, "together with all creation, now free from sin and death",8 is the ultimate horizon of our life. This is the great gift of God that is worth more than temporal life. It is the hope of glory that relativises all the difficulties and pains of this world and gives us the strength to make our life a constant offering to God and to our brothers and sisters. Faith in eternal life allows us to live with serenity and dignity even when we are confronted with suffering or injustice. In this case, following in the footsteps of the crucified Lord, we know that evil is overcome by trust and love in virtue of the power of the Creator God, who raises his faithful to Life. Suffering, in itself an evil, we do not worship it, but the God who can bring good even out of evil.
b) Suffering that sets limits to the "culture of death".
18. Pain, when accepted with faith and hope, does not destroy the human being, but also contributes to making him greater. Faith in the risen Jesus Christ makes this clear to Christians. But faith, because it is not alien to the innermost core of the human being, does not say something totally incomprehensible to non-Christians. Suffering can plunge us into despair, but it can also develop unsuspected physical and moral capacities in those who face it out of love and hope. There are countless examples of this. In any case, can it not be understood that those who fight the battle of life with courage, even in the midst of suffering, are for that reason alone being of incalculable value to the cause of human dignity? No person is ever useless. But he who sustains his life in the midst of suffering is, if possible, useful to the utmost Degree . His or her attitude of integrity and courage is the best retaining wall against the tide of the "culture of death".
V. For a good and dignified death
a) True compassion is charity, which does not take life.
19. Social and legal acceptance of euthanasia is not a good way for us to die well and with dignity. The Church works for a good and dignified death. The example of Mother Teresa of Calcutta is on everyone's report . Many other Catholic people and institutions have worked and continue to work so that the sick and the elderly have the human warmth and the material attendance they need until the last moment of their lives. The faith in Jesus Christ that Mother Church enlightens in us is, in final, the best financial aid for each and every one of us who are going to the meeting of death. Faith, hope and charity are the true paths to a good and dignified death. The human sciences confirm this when they say that the dying need not only purely technical medical care, but also a humane environment, the closeness of their loved ones and, if necessary, palliative care to alleviate pain and to live the end of this life with serenity. True mercy and compassion is not that which takes life, but that which cares for it until its natural end. On the other hand, anyone who gives in to a false compassion or a mistaken idea of progress and collaborates directly in putting someone to death becomes an accomplice to a grave moral evil and contributes to undermining the foundations of living together in justice. No one can be forced to this immoral partnership . In their case, conscientious objection would be obligatory.
b) Urgency of the pastoral care of the sick in families
20. As advances in medicine and hygiene now allow people to live, with some frequency, into old age, there are many cases in which families have elderly people to care for, sometimes in delicate situations. Families need to be helped to take good care of their elderly. Sometimes they feel powerless to face certain situations on their own. We encourage all the people and institutions that already do this to continue their meritorious work. In particular, we urge pastors and Christian communities not to neglect the work they are already doing in this regard and to intensify it as far as possible. The pastoral care of the sick, including its sacramental aspect, should help families to live through difficult situations in a human and spiritual way. To be close to those who suffer, to spend our time and resources with them, is an inescapable part of following Christ.
Notes
(1) John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 66.
(2) John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae 12ff. and 64.
(3) lecture Episcopal Episcopal Spanish. committee Episcopal for the Defence of Life, La Eutanasia. 100 questions and answers on the defence of human life and the attitude of Catholics, EDICE 1993, nº 4. More detailed explanations of the Church's teaching on the many problems surrounding the question of euthanasia can be found in this precise and pedagogical document of the Episcopal Commission for the Defence of Life, committee and in the document of the Episcopal Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, Sobre la eutanasia, BOCEE (April-June 1986) 89-94.
(4) John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 65.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Cf. W.J. Eijk / J.P.M. Lelkens, Medical-Ethical Decisions and Life-Terminating Actions in The Neederlands 1990-1995. Evaluation of the Second Survey of the Pratice of Euthanasia, Medicina e Morale 47 (1997) 475-501, 491.
(7) John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 64.
(8) Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer IV, Commemoration of Saints.