What Is the Church's Teaching on Euthanasia?
by Fr. William Saunders
An article appearing in CatholicCulture.org
Pope Pius XII, who witnessed and condemned the eugenics and
euthanasia programs of the Nazis, was the first to explicate clearly this moral
problem and provide guidance. In 1980, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith released its Declaration on Euthanasia which further clarified
this guidance especially in light of the increasing complexity of life-support
systems and the promotion of euthanasia as a valid means of ending life. The
new Catechism (No. 2276-2279) provides a succinct explanation of our Catholic
teaching on this subject.
2276 Those whose lives
are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons
should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct
euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or
dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
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 respect due to the
living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good
faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be
forbidden and excluded.
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. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it
is merely accepted. The decisions should be made by the patient if he is
competent and able or, if not, by those legally entitled to act for the
patient, whose reasonable will and legitimate interests must always be
respected.
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.
Before addressing the issue of euthanasia, we must first remember that the Catholic Church holds as sacred both the dignity of each individual person and the gift of life. Therefore,
the following principles are morally binding: First, to make an attempt on the life of or to kill an innocent person is an evil action. Second, each person is bound to lead his life in accord with God's plan and with an openness to His will, looking to life's fulfillment in heaven. Finally, intentionally committing suicide is a murder of oneself and considered a rejection of God's plan. For these reasons, the Second Vatican Council condemned "all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide...(Gaudium et Spes, No. 27).
Given these principles, we believe that each person is bound
to use ordinary means of caring for personal health. Here one would think of
proper nourishment -- food and water -- and ordinary medical care. Ordinary
means would be those which offer reasonable hope of benefit and are not unduly
burdensome to either the patient or the family.
A person may, but is not bound to, use extraordinary means
-- those means which primarily are not considered ordinary medical care. In our
world today, however, exactly what constitutes extraordinary medical care
becomes harder and harder to define. For instance, accepting an artificial
heart is clearly experimental and would be extraordinary; whereas the usage of
a respirator or ventilator is oftentimes standard procedure to aid the patient's
recovery.
To help navigate through this confusing area of
extraordinary means, the focus should be on whether the treatment provides
reasonable hope of benefit to the patient and what the degree of burden is to
the patient and his family. Factors to consider in making this decision would
be the type of treatment, the degree of complexity, the amount of risk
involved, its cost and accessibility and the state of the sick person and his
resources. One should weigh the proportion of pain and suffering against the
amount of good to be done.
Given this notion of health care, we can turn to the subject
at hand. Euthanasia, literally translated as "good death" or
"easy death," is "an action or omission which of itself or by
intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be
eliminated" (Declaration on Euthanasia). In other words, euthanasia
involves the purposeful termination of life by direct action, such as lethal
injection, or by an omission, such as starvation or dehydration. Note that euthanasia
is commonly known as "mercy killing"; this term is most appropriate
because the act involves an intentional killing, no matter how good the
intention may be to alleviate suffering.
However, euthanasia must be distinguished from the stopping
of extraordinary means of health care. The patient -- or guardian in the case
of an unconscious patient -- has the right to reject outright or to discontinue
those procedures which are extraordinary, do not offer a proportionate good, do
not offer reasonable hope of benefit or are simply "heroic." Such a
decision is most appropriate when death is clearly imminent. In these cases,
the person would place himself in God's hands and prepare to leave this life,
while maintaining ordinary means of health care.
For instance, several years ago, a dear priest friend of
mine was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and told he would die from the
disease; rather than undergo painful chemotherapy or radiation, which would
only give him perhaps six months more to live this life, he entered the hospice
program, which provided nourishment, pain medication and excellent nursing
care. He prepared himself to meet the Lord whom he served as a priest for 45
years.
Another friend of mine was dying of prostate cancer which
had metastasized throughout his body. When I saw him last in the hospital, he
had gone into a coma and was being fed intravenously and was breathing through
a respirator. His kidneys had failed. The doctors told the family that there
was nothing more they could do and the situation was not reversible.
At that point, the medical technology was not providing any
hope of recovery or benefit but rather was prolonging death. The family decided
to turn off the respirator, which had now become an extraordinary means, and
minutes later my friend went to meet his Lord. This action was morally
permissible and different from purposefully terminating life. Granted, no one
enjoys suffering. However, we must remember that each of us was baptized into
Christ's passion, death and resurrection. We all share in our Lord's cross and
that, at times, may be very painful. This suffering, however, especially at the
last moments of one's life, must be seen as sharing our Lord's sufferings. By
uniting our suffering with our Lord's, we expiate the hurt caused by our own
sins and help to expiate the sins of others, just as some of the early martyrs
did who offered their sufferings for sinners. Sometimes, such suffering finally
heals the wounds that have divided families. In all, we must look to Christ to
aid us in our suffering and guide us from this life to Himself.
None of these cases is easy. However, there is a great
difference between purposely killing someone and allowing a person to die
peacefully with dignity. We must remember that "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" (Declaration on Euthanasia).
This item 307 digitally provided courtesy of
CatholicCulture.org
As Christians who believe in the will and power of God, we should never take for granted the value of human life at any time or under any circumstances. Regardless of whether it be cancer or any other illness, many people thought to be in their last hours and minutes of life have returned from the gateway of death to lead a life freed of the very illness they near succumbed to with no other explanation other than miraculous intervention. This does not suggest we seek only such intervention, but rather God's will be done and His mercy and love be granted those who are in need. We do not know His mind nor the purposes of our suffrage but do know His love and mercy. The benefits each one of us and those around us will be gifted if we allow His will be done are well known to Him alone and our own will based on our limited views and judgements should not be acted upon above His.
Posts
Good blog. Now my comments:
ReplyDeleteThe following is taken from the blog:
"euthanasia involves the purposeful termination of life by direct action, such as lethal injection, or by an omission, such as starvation or dehydration. Note that euthanasia is commonly known as "mercy killing"; this term is most appropriate because the act involves an intentional killing, no matter how good the intention may be to alleviate suffering."
I had never thought about "lethal injection" as a "mercy killing" defined as euthanasia. And I understand your use of "lethal" injection here as pertaining to ending the life of someone who is suffering but all this raises the question regarding the death penalty. It too is the taking of a life by "purposeful termination" as you described it. Would then death by the gas chamber or electrocution be also "mercy killing" or even hanging them from the oak tree? What an interesting perspective you have given. And does it alleviate suffering for the condemned person? I'm sure they think otherwise. But it does rob them from possibly making peace with their "maker".
I know the church's position on the death penalty per the current pope: "Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (EV 56)
So are we to assume then that "lethal injection" is in fact a "mercy" killing or an act of the death penalty in which life is taken because of punishment handed down by the courts?
I would say this topic lends itself to further investigation in defining the difference between "mercy" killing and "lethal" injection as the two by definition are mutually exclusive but the outcome is the same and thus could be seen as euthanasia as defined by the church.
Jackie
The distinction may be more clearly understood by separating the terms “Euthanasia” and “lethal injection” according to their assigned purposes. Lethal injection is a term assigned by the judicial system to distinguish one of the several methods of execution that may be utilized in the implementation of the death penalty. Euthanasia is a term most commonly reflecting not so much a specific method but rather an action taken intended to end a person’s life allegedly to relieve the person of some form of suffering, most commonly physical suffering. Lethal injections for these two intentions do not consist of the same dosages or even the same substances most often, but both are performed intravenously and both performed to end life which is the common factor.
DeleteLethal injection in the legal sense was introduced to eliminate what was determined to be other more “inhumane” methods used to implement the death penalty so in law it has a more specific reference. In law, it is not intended to relieve the convicted of suffering but to eliminate any future possibility of that person from becoming a threat to society ever again. In earlier times the death penalty was deemed more appropriate to provide this protection for society because the resources were not always available to house such criminals deemed so threatening to society and some were considered so threatening to the life of others they were considered threatening to the lives of other inmates not incarcerated for as serious of crimes. However, today we have numerous methods and degrees of secure facilities that a criminal may be assigned to as well as numerous forms of medications that can be administered where the death penalty now becomes questionable as a legitimate means to protect the public from the threats of such criminals. This is why the Church calls all Christians to consider carefully their position in regard to the death penalty. When taking the life of another is performed to protect the innocent it is one thing but when taking the life of another who is no longer a threat is performed as a punishment alone, it is no longer our place to take life.