 |
| July 2004 |
| Euthanasia is not a negotiable issue
for Catholics |
Travis and Kelly Benson
Co-directors
Office of Respect Life
Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls
Lobbyists |
Last month, we wrote on one of the Church’s
non-negotiable issues, destructive embryonic stem cell research.
By non-negotiable we mean that this issue is so fundamental
to our faith that there is no room for disagreement or prudential
judgment. This month, we touch on another non-negotiable issue,
the grave wrong of euthanasia.
Also called “mercy killing,” euthanasia by definition
is the intentional killing of someone by act or omission, most
often with the intent to relieve suffering. When someone provides
an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take
his or her own life, it is referred to as “assisted suicide,”
or if a doctor is the one providing the means, “physician-assisted
suicide.”
All of these are contrary to moral law. As the Catechism clearly
states: “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.”
(CCC #2277)
As for the person dying, if they will their own death, it is
also a serious moral dilemma: “Everyone is responsible
for his life before God who has given it to him. 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.” (CCC #2280)
The case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo has brought this, and other
end-of-life decisions, to the forefront as her case did not
begin as a euthanasia case, but one of interpretation of her
desires as to end-of-life care.
In February 1990, Terri, then 26 years old, mysteriously collapsed
in her home. She fell into a coma for several weeks, and awoke
in a “locked in state,” unable to communicate or
move. While she began to make progress, all therapy stopped
in 1991 at the instruction of her husband.
Since then, her family has been battling to save Terri’s
life while her husband, claiming that Terri voiced opposition
to being kept alive by machines, is trying to end it by petitioning
the courts to allow the removal of the gastric feeding tube
which is the only means of artificial support Terri receives.
If he is successful, Terri will die a painful death due to dehydration
and starvation.
The question many of you may be asking is whether this is euthanasia
by omission or a legitimate end-of-life decision to be made
by her husband as her legal guardian. The Ethical and Religious
Directives for Catholic Health Care Services states that “A
person has a moral obligation to use ordinary or proportionate
means of preserving his or her life. Proportionate means are
those that in the judgment of the patient offer a reasonable
hope of benefit and do not entail an excessive burden or impose
excessive expense on the family or the community.” (#56)
A person can, however, reject medical treatment at the end of
life without committing euthanasia when such treatment is extraordinary
and burdensome. (#57) However, the directives also instruct
that there should be a presumption in favor of providing nutrition
and hydration to all patients. (#58)
On March 20, 2004, Pope John Paul II made a very strong contribution
to the ethical debate on this issue. He said: “The sick
person in a vegetative state, awaiting recovery or a natural
end, still has the right to basic health care (nutrition, hydration,
cleanliness, warmth, etc.), and to the prevention of complications
related to his confinement to bed. He also has the right to
appropriate rehabilitative care and to be monitored for clinical
signs of eventual recovery.” More specifically, he said,
“I should like particularly to underline how the administration
of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always
represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical
act. Its use, furthermore should be considered, in principle,
ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory,
insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper
finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment
to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.”
The Holy Father has thus established that nutrition and hydration
should be given to all patients, including those who seem to
be in a “persistent vegetative state” (a term he
abhors as degrading and inhuman), until it no longer aids in
sustaining life.
As fellow Catholics, the words of the Holy Father echoed Terri’s
parents’ pleas over the past 14 years. While publicized
because of the court battles and Governor Jeb Bush’s intervention
that saved Terri from near dehydration and starvation this past
year, her case is not unlike many others across the United States.
Sadly, in our culture, disabilities, especially serious ones,
are seen as burdens, and the people with them as unworthy of
full medical attention. Persons unrelated and sometimes unknown
to the patient are making or influencing life-saving or life-ending
decisions based on their idea of quality of life.
One way to protect yourself and your loved ones, and to ensure
that your Catholic moral convictions are followed at your most
vulnerable time, is to execute a Durable Power of Attorney for
Health Care. This document allows you to appoint someone you
trust to make these hard decisions on your behalf and in line
with your Catholic faith.
We must also pray for those inflicted with serious medical conditions
that they may see their worthiness, their dignity and their
beauty as children of God. For, “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.” (Sacred Congregation for
the Doctrine of Faith Declaration on Euthanasia, 1980.) |
|
|
|
