A reader writes:
I have another question, if you have the time to reply – no rush.
The subject this time is euthanasia, and particularly assisted suicide. I would like some suggestions on the way to explain the Catholic position on this, in case it comes up again in some conversations.
As I was discussing with a friend who is a very sound Catholic, and has been working with intellectually disabled people for many years, it occurred to us that, unless someone has faith, pain and suffering just does not make a lot of sense. If this life is all there is to it, and illness, injuries due to accidents, or just the wearing out of one’s body due to old age, are all there is left to look forward to until the end of one’s life, why not choose to quit now instead of spending days or weeks in a hospital bed, or a wheelchair?
It is my impression that only a measure of faith, and some understanding of the communion of saints, would make the value of the life of a very ill person, as well as suffering and pain, meaningful. One of the talks in a series on the Catechism offered in our parish strikingly summarized (at least for me) the Church teaching about this. The priest (OK, it was Fr. Corapi, but that has been recorded several years ago) said something to the effect that a sick or handicapped person, particularly in a terminal illness, is more “productive” than he or she has ever been in their life, since, in their suffering and/or in their last days “they are hanging on the Cross with Christ”.
That particular way of expressing this did impress me. But it would be totally incomprehensible to someone who did not know a lot about Catholicism, even people who might have been brought up as Catholics but do not see why the Church has anything to say about people’s suffering and the choice they may want to make (a friend who is a lapsed Catholic actually had that reaction). Even our Protestant brothers and sisters might have difficulty with this idea of the redemptive value of suffering: If my understanding is correct, many are convinced that Christ’s sacrifice and suffering on the cross was a unique and final sacrifice and that nothing needs to be added to it.
Whenever you have some time, I would appreciate an explanation, as well as your point of view.
I think you are right that it requires some kind of faith in a transcendent God to soldier on in the face of pain, particularly in a terminal disease. There have been cultures in the past (such as stoicism) in which social pressure might keep somebody hanging on through great suffering without killing oneself (since it would violate a cultural taboo against cowardice). But these days, such taboos scarcely exist. So without a conviction that self-murder is a sin against the God who gave us life, there is very little to keep our culture from urging the weak to die (ostensibly for their sake, but ultimately for the convenience of a culture that doesn’t want to bother with the inconvenient).
Because of this fundamental disconnects with the Christian tradition and its doctrine of respect for the “least of these”, some way of “translating” that doctrine into something comprehensible to an alien post-Christian culture is necessary. Perhaps the way in to such a discussion is simply to raise the question of “What if?” for people who lack such faith.
What I mean is this: Christianity—and particularly Catholic Christianity—is now so remote from the lives of many post-moderns (especially young postmoderns) that Catholics have something of the same advantage as a tour guide speaking to suburban American tourists about the ways and culture of Hottentots. Postmoderns have it ingrained in them to regard alien cultures with respect and openness. As a Catholic, you are a member of an alien culture to most of your countrymen. So present what you believe in those terms and “subvert the dominant paradigm” of suburban comfyness with some “What if?” questions that challenge the Received Wisdom of the television. What if our sufferings really are a share in Christ’s and really do your soul and those of others good? What if the sufferings of this life are nothing in comparison with the glory to be revealed? What if Christ is who he says he is and there really is hope of life after death? Rather than darkly warning of Hell in ways that are bound to be taken as irrational threats, I’m guessing the better approach is to come alongside the sufferer and let him know his life still has meaning and value. Typically the euthanasiac is motivated by fear and/or pain at the suffering of a loved one or oneself. They also labor under the notion that consent is the sole criterion of the good and have no conception of the common good or the notion of sacrificial suffering. Indeed, such suffering is often incomprehensible or seen as a sort of sick fetish “imposed” by “religious dogma” (as though the Church wants to see maximum suffering). An encounter with Catholic compassion for suffering, coupled with insistence on the value of the life of the sufferer can often open eyes to another way besides death. Many people hunger for meaning more than they do for food. They’re just afraid that they might find out the horrible truth is that there is no meaning. But if they gain the assurance that there is, they will follow Christ even into terrible pain. So the key, it seems to me, is not so much to talk them out of euthanasia as into trusting Christ. Only the speech you must use is your life of integrity. The words you use will be secondary.
Hope that helps. May God bless your work in the Vineyard!
Comments
Post a Comment
I was a hospice volunteer for 3 years; I’m now a volunteer first responder on an ambulance crew. I’m also an atheist. I’ve seen my share of suffering and dying in the last 30 years. There is an intrinsic value to life. We see it embedded in the lives of the people around us we love and care for. And you do not need to believe in God to believe in life. Terminal illnesses, from this perspective, are just accidents of the laws of chemistry. They happen because the laws of biochemistry allow them to happen. There is no ‘purpose’ in suffering, no joy, nothing of real value in this accidental event. So the idea of ‘sacrificial suffering’ in this context (as opposed, say, to those of a soldier, police officer or fire fighter who dies for a belief) has no real value. Why die for cancer? Catholic ‘culture’ is not as alien as you think. It’s fairly common and familiar. No self aggrandizement is needed. What IS needed is an honest and open debate about assisted suicide. There are rational people, who are NOT evil or ignorant, who do want the right to determine their own deaths (I am one.) So let’s keep the debate honest.
It seems to me that secularists do have a conception of something like “the common good,” but one defined in utilitarian terms. Perhaps a better phrase for it is “collective good.” Under this rubric, it would be hard to demonstrate the value of any human life that is not an economically productive unit.
At what point do you define “no value” to a life? For someone who has been healthy his entire life, contracting a neuro-muscular disease and ending up like Stephen Hawking might seem to have devalued his life, but were Hawking’s contributions any less valid? (Sorry to use an atheist as the example - I’m sure you could think of others.) Thus, in the case of a suddenly debilitated man, his “rational” choice of suicide or “euthanasia” could prevent him from choosing to make a significant contribution to the world.
I do believe that are horrific occasions where God forgives such acts, but forgiving and condoning are not synonymous.
Life is a gift of responsibility. Abdicating that responsibility does not promote life. It is a hopeless act.
Irksome, I don’t know of any ‘secularists’ who define human life in terms of ‘economically productive units’. And the last time I saw ‘collective good’ mentioned, it was by Rick Santorum who said Catholic morality was a collective morality that was for the common good.
TomR…ending a life does not mean it has no value. The idea of a utilitarian approach to life…defining its value in terms of ‘making a contribution’ isn’t something we should pursue. And euthanasia is ‘abdicating responsibility’ in what sense? And why is it a hopeless act? At some point we die. There’s no current way around that. It’s no more hopeless to end one’s life at a time of one’s choosing than to let the laws of nature commit euthanasia.
Incidentally, I’ve noticed in the past that, at some point, my contributions are refused by the moderator so I’m not sure how long he’ll permit me to post.
Thankyou for posting this particular article. Perhaps rather then debating this very sensitive subject, a point of resources can help an individual come to an understanding as to what real deal is out there. There a many good sources of Truth out there.
Also many other sites a person can surf on their own JUST TYPE PRO Eu. If you are still not convinced just type in (pro-Euthanasia).
Hope some of theses sources are helpful.
http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/ very good gives links to state by state legislation on this subject.
http://www.terrisfight.org/
http://www.motherteresahouse.org/library.html
http://www.catholicnh.org/public-issues/respect-life/
I agree with your point that most people are looking for meaning, and that their ultimate fear in that search is that there isn’t any. I think this is a much better way to approach the question of suffering and euthanasia, rather than the foreign culture method (with all due respect). I know that sometimes people who don’t know a lot about Catholicism will seek out a Catholic to ask questions if they’re curious, but those seem to be the only folks with whom the foreign culture method would really work.
I suppose my argument with an atheist who believes in assisted suicide is this: Everyone has the free will to commit suicide, but no one ought to have the right to rope someone else into doing it. Why play on someone’s false sense of compassion to end your life when they must live with the act the rest of theirs? Anyone who has been a witness to the end of someone’s life knows it leaves an indelible mark upon one’s life forever. To be the person directly responsible? I can only imagine how that would change a man. You want to die? Do it yourself.
Babs, yes, I’ve watched someone die, several times. I think you’re looking only at one side of the discussion; what about compassion for those left behind knowing they didn’t have to watch you die a lingering death in a destroyed body in the case of euthanasia? That’s the problem with this; for every assertion there’s a counter. The logical choice is to leave the outcome in the hands of the people affected.
bob,
Actually I’m not interested in honest “debate”, though I am interested in honesty. It is honest to give a person truthful information, like the fact that there is life after death, and that the quality of that afterlife is connected with this life. It is honest to teach how suffering fits into the BIG picture, beyond our senses. It is not dishonest to invite a person to consider the possiblity of a truth which they don’t currently believe, that is charity.
Also, because something is “biological” or “chemical” does not mean that it is MERELY biological or chemical.
I also have a question along these lines; regarding DNRs and living wills. Is it licit to have a living will that states that if you are in a state where you cannot clearly communicate your wishes that such things as feeding tubes can be refused? I have a fried whose father was in a motorcycle accident and has a head injury. He has a living will that states he doesn’t want to be on life support of any kind, including feeding tubes. She seems to think that his living will should be honored…but get this: He is conscious, can speak and respond, he just doesn’t really remember who he is and speaks nonsense. She thinks his “wishes” should be honored and the feeding tube removed. What about this kind of situation?
Bob, you cannot definitively say that suffering has no purpose just as you can’t say that God does not exist. You can believe he doesn’t exist but you can’t prove it. I know an atheist man who took care of his sister while she was dying of cancer. The process of standing by her in her pain and caring for her was deeply moving for him and convinced him of the value of human life. So yes, she did suffer and yes, it was very purposeful in the life of this man. Just sayin’.
Maria, I don’t understand how you can be honest about a difference in opinion if you don’t allow those differences to be expressed! It is NOT a ‘fact’ there is life after death. That is a teaching of the Church. There’s a difference. And the fact something is biological does not mean there’s a ‘larger’ picture involved. If you’re willing to say euthanasia should be allowed, but that Catbolics are prohibited from doing it, that’s fine. But there’s little to be gained by saying your view is ‘fact’ and must therefore guide the rest of society!
Elaine, I didn’t say suffering has no purpose. I said, from the perspective of the atheist, ‘accidental’ suffering like that caused by disease, has no purpose. Caring for another person DOES have purpose, but the suffering induced by disease, from this perspective, does not. There is a difference. I am an atheist and have cared for the dying all my adult life. I have never seen any value at all in suffering. I HAVE seen value in caring for people. There’s a difference.
Belief in the value of suffering does come to belief in Christ and the value of His death on the cross. Jesus did ask His Father, “Take this cup from me… but not My will but Thine be done.” Jesus’ obedience to the end in His suffering had extreme value - our redemption. After Christ’s death, St. Paul tells us we must learn from the Lord that “my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness,” and the sufferings to be endured can mean that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church.” (The Church is us, God’s people.) Our suffering is a participation in the saving work of Jesus. For a follower of Jesus, uniting our suffering to His gives our suffering and our life extreme value… even the suffering of loved ones (who love the sufferer) can be united to Jesus.
Bob, sorry but that doesn’t make sense. How can you have the *value* of taking care of someone who is suffering if there isn’t someone suffering?
The existence of suffering is an objective fact. It has no value. But the person suffering does. If suffering did not exist, that person would still have value and be worthy of care.
Ah, the perversity of this form of Christianity. In Catholic thinking, God demands pain from humankind. But, we are told, God is love. Well, is He, if this is something He requires. This sort of thinking puts me in mind of a scene from a Monty Python movie, in which a group of peasants, endure being struck before being given gifts.
It seems that Catholic teaching can’t decide whether God is love or whether He is still Yahweh having a temper tantrum, and a temper tantrum about sins and failures He Himself set into train. Catholics on one hand will tell you that God is love; on the other hand, this view of theirs does not shrink from imposing all manner of horrific deaths, all, apparently to satisfy the temper tantrum. And how long does this temper tantrum have to go on?
I do not believe any person has the right to decide for another person when the time has come for that other to leave this world. However, the decision by a a person to terminate his own life, rather than weather the agony of a slow death, is no insult to God; nor does it indicate a belief that God is not the master or giver of life. That decision simply accepts the reality that death is upon that person, and that no good purpose would be served by extending the process. That is no comment against God or his authority. Those of you who seem to think that all manner of physical agony should be gone through to honor God’s authority as the Creator ought to consider what kind of God you are positing. Your God is not one of love; He is one who apparently wants at times to see how much of a beating his creatures can take and keep on ticking.
I think, bob, that Ayn Rand, who is currently coming into fashion among some of our current political class, would meet your definition of a secularist (and a militant one at that) who reduces human worth to its empirically productive potential. Indeed, she tends to be sickeningly consistent in that regard.
As for Santorum, my impression of the man is that as a moral theologian, he’s a diabolical amateur who cynically uses the signs and signals of religious thought merely to accrue power to himself. As such, I would not expect any in-depth or well-thought-out moral analysis from him if he couldn’t condense it to fit in the space afforded by promotional bumper stickers or tee shirts.
Whether or not there is life after death and whether or not God exists are both questions that are answered by faith—they cannot be empirically proven. That being said, we do have the ability to reason, which is where the question of euthanasia must be debated in the mixed forum of theists and atheists. So let us examine the facts about the human person from a psychological perspective. First of all, we know that we are social beings; a child will not thrive on mere physical care; at some level, s/he needs to feel cared for as an individual—valued. You could say that we are “hard-wired” for love. Depression, anxiety, attachment disorders are all the products of feeling devalued. Secondly, our need to be valued by others develops as we progress though the different psychosocial stages of life. Erik Erikson observed that we progress through childhood and adolescence only if our social experiences are more positive than negative and only if we face and work our way through negative experiences, which usually occurs through social challenges and assistance. Bob, your volunteer work indicates a developed sense of caring (Erikson’s 7th of 8 psychosocial virtues). Caring (most commonly develops in the generative stage when parents are called to the responsive to the “suffering” of the child as s/he works through the universal (and individual) crises of life. Caring accepts personal sacrifice for the good of another who is dependent and cannot return what s/he is given. This is what parents, teachers and other adults model for us.It is preceded by intimacy (interdependence) in which there is an exchange of caring for each other and meeting each others needs.
We cannot work through adult problems unless we have ‘grown into’ them by learning how to work through childhood issues. We cannot skip stages and each psychosocial virtue must be authentic (not superficial or mere role-play). The final virtue (or psychological strength) is integrity. The question of assisted suicide begs the question: can this act be an authentic act of integrity? Since all of the psychosocial virtues are social they must consider the needs of others as well as our own. One has to consider then: is assisted suicide a step higher than caring (the previous psychosocial virtue) for the individual and for society? Does it allow the individual to work through the negative residue of his/her life and die at peace with self or does it avoid this? Negative residue would be honestly looking at oneself and working through personal failures due to lack of ‘virtue’)? This final stage asks am I really happy with my contribution to the lives of those who follow me? did I help to make the world a ‘better place’? (and in Erikson’s stages that means did I set aside the self-concerns of my childhood to help build others?—as we mature our purpose is for others, first family and then society.
Does assisted society benefit society? Does it take life full circle and allow others to care for me? Can I model acceptance of the final and biggest crisis of life: facing pain and death?
What are the longterm psychosocial consequences of state-sanctioned individual acts that devalue facing pain, suffering and death? What does it model for the next generation?
Obviously, as a Catholic, I believe suicide in any of its forms (save volunteering to sacrifice one’s own life to save others… which is not really suicide at all) is intrinsically wrong.
—
Beyond the Catholic objection to suicide, the basic problem with euthanasia is the question of coercion; both the person who is suffering and the people involved may be coerced either by law, friends or each other towards the act. The suffering person may really want to die, but what right do they have to ask others to help them kill themselves? The person who is suffering may want to live, but through subtle or no so subtle pressure might persuade/force family members or friends to assist them. Likewise, both the suffering person and their family might feel pressured by insurance companies as they see euthanasia as being cheaper than extended hospice care. I can come up with more examples, but I think I have given enough to make my point.
—
Ultimately, I doubt one could ever have a reasonable certainty that euthanasia is ever totally voluntary, both in terms of the suffering person and others involved. Without that certainty, even without Church opposition on the deeper moral issue, I would certainly find euthanasia to be troubling.
MarylandBill argues for the extreme at the margin, which is applicable to almost ANY idea, including religion. The suffering person has a right to ask for help to die because he IS suffering. This scrupulosity is not a problem with proper safeguards. As to insurance companies, well, they already make life and death decisions based on stock prices, etc. and everyone seems to think that’s fine!
To Theresa: As I read your comment, I remembered Pope John-Paul II’s extraordinary example to the world as he was going through all the suffering from his last illness and his dying days. Thank you
Irksome, we agree on both counts. Ayn Rand, ironically enough, is a favorite of the Catholic Teaparty leader Paul Ryan! And Santorum was the senator from my state for many years; a great disappointment.
Bob,
Yes, the suffering person has the right to ask for help, the objection specifically is the nature of the help requested. Further, I am not arguing for the “extreme at the margin”; I am arguing about issues that certainly come up every day in end of life care. If people with terminal diseases continue life extending treatment long after they themselves would have switched to hospice care because of pressure from family or doctors (and we all know they do), then it is equally likely that the reverse sort of pressure will also be applied.
—
I also object to your notion that this is not a problem with “proper safeguards”. What proper safeguards? How can we ever be sure that the person requesting euthanasia, or the person performing it is not under subtle pressure? Further more, how are we going to make sure that the safeguards are not corrupted.
—
Also, yes, it is true that health insurance companies make life and death decisions regarding the reception of treatment, but there is a definite moral difference between refusing to pay for a treatment that has little chance of success and providing incentives for the taking of a human life.
MarylandBill, we have all kinds of activities in society today for which safeguards are present. And they do, imperfectly, work. But it’s pointless to deny the fact that some people do, in full possession of their faculties, wish to die when faced with some illnesses. Eric McDonald writes a wonderful blog around this very idea. And insurance companies routinely deny payment for treatments they don’t want to pay for, yet no one considers that killing. In fact, people die every day in this country WITHOUT insurance from illnesses that, if treated early, would have been healed. So THOSE safeguards protect the insurance companies yet no one, and I mean NO ONE, is complaining about THAT. Your points are well thought out and merit serious consideration.
A privilege eventually becomes a right, a right eventually becomes an obligation, and an obligation eventually gets enforced by the government.
If we permit euthanasia, at length the government will kill the burdensome.
@ bob,
The existence of suffering is an objective fact.
Agree.
It has no value.
This is either an assertion, or you are simply begging the question - does suffering have any value? Is something only valuable if it is a fact?
But the person suffering does. If suffering did not exist, that person would still have value and be worthy of care.
This pretty much summarizes the Catholic position, i.e. worthy of care; not worthy of death.
Bob - many people do in fact care about the insurance stuff. It’s been a talking point for some time. It is, however, not the point we’re talking about now.
___
If I were to look at this from a point of view trying assuming the lack of God, I would ask one question: how is it better for prospective euthanizee (if I can mangle the English language a little) to be dead? A dead person, from this perspective, is believed to no longer exist, and something which does not exist cannot have any good. A live person who is in extreme pain does have some good - namely, existence, and probably much more: the love of his relatives and all of that. After his death, his relatives may still love him or his memory, but that won’t be any good for him. He doesn’t exist. So euthanasia, removes what is good. It in fact removes the fundamental good - existence. It also removes some bad, true. But existence, life, is more important than any other concern. It must be, because without existence nothing else can happen.
___
You can talk about the good of the family, but to be frank their opinion or feelings don’t really matter when it comes to the existence of their relative. You cannot take away the very fundamental good of a person so some other person can feel all warm and fuzzy about it.
Bob,
We can debate whether someone who wishes to die is in full possession of their faculties or not, but it would be fruitless, since of course I can argue that the wish to die is a priori evidence of not being in full possession of ones faculties. That being said, its not a question of whether or not there are people who genuinely wish to die. The more important points are that there are people who might wish to live who will be coerced to choose death or that there are people who may not wish to take part in such an “assisted suicide” who will be forced to do so.
—
There is a reason why an insurance company refusing to pay for a treatment is not considered killing; its because it is not killing. Effect is different than means. Insurance companies have to balance a whole host of factors, including remaining in business so they can treat others. It makes little sense to provide a treatment that costs millions and has a 10% chance of working to one patient when it might mean the company can’t pay claims for 100 people on a treatment that has a 90% chance of working. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of for profit insurance because it can result in such decisions being made for the wrong reasons. Even then however, there is a different moral calculus in allowing someone to die and killing someone (there is also a difference between refusing life support and removing life support).
Joe that’s no more true than to say the government ‘protecting life’ will wind up with everyone a prisoner of the state.
JosephR…I didn’t say suffering had no value. I said that, from the perspective of the non religious person, it has no value. People are free agents and can assign any random value to any experience at all. And that person is going to die. The decision will be made EITHER by nature OR by the person involved. There is no intrinsic reason why the suffering must be prolonged.
Someguy…the fact is, that person is going to die. And if he lives his life in pain or, as is more often the case, in a drug induced coma or stupor to alleviate pain, then he has a choice to make about value. Many people choose not to live a life of that quality. There’s little reason to argue the point because in either case it’s an assertion about the value and quality of life. But what IS the case is that there is a difference of value. And there’s no inherent reason to assert EITHER value is correct or more worthy of respect.
MarylandBill, well, insurance companies don’t really ‘have’ to balance anything because if WE truly valued life, ALL people would have medical insurance instead of it being rationed, arbitrarily, by price. I agree with your math, yet we make the decision, instead, that a 90 year old women gets cancer surgery while a poor 19 year old has no health protection at all. Rationing medical care on the basis of availability and price does kill.
Rationing food on the basis of availability and price kills also. It is an unfortunate fact of our fallen world that no system is going to work perfectly. But basic facts about economics can’t be overturned. Medical care consumes a bigger piece of America’s GDP every year and is growing at an unsustainable pace. I have no idea whether the answer is in the free market or “socialized” medicine. What I do know is that whatever system we use is going to have the result that some people will get care and some won’t get care. Medical care will probably always be too expensive for it to work otherwise.
—
BTW, I have no problem with a 90 year old getting cancer surgery if they want it; the mere fact that someone is 90 does not make them somehow less deserving of lifesaving care. I have known 90 year olds that were more vigorous than some 20 year olds.
Could not the suffering of one be transferred to the compassion of the caregiver? It might be that the caregiver is the one in need of observing the suffering for salvation of their own soul and the selflessness they offer to the ill. Caring for a very ill loved one is a lesson in itself. Maybe we need that lesson.
bob - “…the fact is, that person is going to die.”
This is true of me right now. There is no choice to make about value. Existence is the most valuable possession anyone has. To give it up to help someone is admirable. To give it up because you’re in pain is to misjudge.
__
There is NO difference in value. To exist is to exist. To cease to exist is to cease to exist. To say that it might as well happen now because some perceived quality is lower is an emotional argument only. A person who is generally unhappy, has all their family members dead, no friends, no home, barely survives off of what he can beg or scrounge, could be said to have a worse “quality of life” than Bill Gates. You could say that “yeah that’s different,” but what you really mean is that you don’t support offing homeless people. Quality of life is secondary to life. Now, you could start talking about who to save with limited resources, and that’d be another argument.
__
But for this one I reiterate: you can only have quality of life if you’re alive. If you’re dead, from the atheistic perspective, you don’t exist. Your previous situation does not matter to you because you don’t exist. Whether your last minutes of life were bliss or hell, they were better than what you have now: nothing. This is objectively true, because existence is the fundamental good, without which you can have no other good, and a person that no longer exists does not have it. This fact does not depend on a patients preferences or opinions.
Someguy, certainly that is your value. I argue otherwise. And there is no inherent value in prolonging a hopeless situation. I’m not sure why it’s a misjudgement to commit suicide in this situation. And it’s an emotional argument to prolong life as well. It’s not a question of ‘happiness’, it’s a question of the meaning of one’s life at that point. And, no, quality of life in this situation, is not secondary to life. Existence is not the fundamental good because existence ends. If existence is THE good, then good has an end.
“And there is no inherent value in prolonging a hopeless situation.”
__
I think you misunderstand hope. To be hopeless in this sense is a lack of a way to get better. But the lack of a way to get better does not justify making things worse. Again, from an atheistic point of view, my life is more or less hopeless now. I may have some fun, may experience some good stuff, but then I’ll be dead and it’ll all be gone.
__
Arguably, there are no values without some sort of supernatural that are not based on emotionalism. But if there is anything to value AT ALL, it must be existence, because without it nothing else can be valued. This isn’t just my opinion, it’s self proving. For one thing, anyone who disagrees with me and tries to hold on to one thing they value more than their existence, to the exclusion of all else, will suddenly be unable to argue with me.
__
“If existence is THE good, then good has an end.”
__
This is the logical result of atheism certainly. The universe will end and all things material with it. All things pass. To dust you shall return, and all that. But it doesn’t matter. Existence must be fundamental, because if you remove it you remove all other goods to. This very nearly what fundamental means. Again, by the standards of hopelessness, things are hopeless now from this point of view. But even so, if there is good it is still here at least for now. Since it cannot be good for an object to remove all of its good, it cannot be good for an object to destroy, hopeless or no.
If death is inevitable, I don’t see how it’s making it worse to end the suffering. And, no, contrary to the rather ingrained teaching of Christianity, from an atheistic point of view life is NOT hopeless. I’m not sure why so many Christians believe this, but it’s false. And existence ends. That’s why it can’t be the final good. I value my integrity more than my existence. If it’s a fact that existence ends, you can wish all you want that it doesn’t. That doesn’t change the fact it does. It’s probably one of the most radical ideas in history…this idea that existence ends. But just because you don’t like it, or its consequences, does not, in and of itself, cause it not to be true.
“If death is inevitable, I don’t see how it’s making it worse to end the suffering.”
Because the future and the present are distinguishable.
__
“from an atheistic point of view life is NOT hopeless”
This is true, but primarily because most atheists introduce values based on emotionalism. Or survival, but deciding that survival is to be valued without prior justification is either a) what I’ve been saying, b) emotionalism, or c) both.
__
“And existence ends. That’s why it can’t be the final good.”
Why should the final good persist? Don’t get me wrong, I think it does. But why do you? Whether or not you think I take comfort from my idea that existence continues is irrelevant.
__
“I value my integrity more than my existence.”
When you are dead, if you truly don’t exist, you will have no integrity. Some people who knew you might think you do, but they’ll die to. The history books will vanish and the earth will be destroyed and all effects of your integrity will be gone because nothing exists to carry them.
@bob: If “existence is not the fundamental good because existence ends”, what in your opinion _is_ the fundamental good (or aspect thereof) which euthanasia serves?
Also, speaking generally to the topic: The idea that “euthanasia’s OK with proper safeguards” is deeply and intrinsically flawed. The reason is that the great majority of suicide-minded people choose death not because of present pain or suffering, but for reasons of personal autonomy - e.g. “It’s my choice”, “I wouldn’t want to live that way”, “I don’t want to be a burden to anyone”, “I want the right to go out as I choose”. If these statements are all true, and we want the law to accommodate all of them, then ‘safeguards’ are meaningless. After all, it’s your choice, and no one - no law - can get in your way, right? The facts on the ground in Oregon (where assisted suicide has been legal since 1997) are that every single ‘safeguard’ written into the Death With Dignity Act has been gotten around in some documented case (self-administering of the lethal drug, no coercion by family members, 6 months to live or less, adequate psychological screening of candidates). One only needs to look to Belgium (where they’re encouraging the use of assisted suicide to obtain transplantable organs) and the Netherlands (where the Groningen Protocol allows parents to have their disabled infants euthanized, and also where severely mentally ill people are granted euthanasia).
The reason legalized euthanasia for the terminally ill turns into euthanasia on demand (and sometimes someone else’s demand) is this: The human experience of “unbearable suffering’ is different for every person. Attempts to capture this moving target in laws and official policies have been disastrous. What is often forgotten by those to deal in ‘rights’ rhetoric is that whenever a human right - that is, a new human right - is created or granted to a certain class by society, a corresponding _responsibility_ is created for the rest of the populus to provide them that right. The pressure to mainstream euthanasia (as has happened in Belgium, the Netherlands, Oregon, and elsewhere) comes not so much from certain people having the right to kill themselves, but from the rest of us being conscious of a responsibility to allow certain people to kill themselves. Should we intervene in the plans of a suicidal person - any suicidal person? (And who are you to say that a severely mentally ill person, or a grieving widow, isn’t suffering just as much or worse than someone with Stage IV cancer?) After euthanasia becomes acceptable, we’re not sure anymore. And so… the slide down the slippery slope begins.
(And for anyone tempted to respond “the slippery slope is a logical fallacy”: Again, I’m not talking about logic or theory. I’m talking about documented cases.)
“And you do not need to believe in God to believe in life”
Dear Bob. If there is no God, there where did life come from?
Bob,
My sister in law has announced her plans to commit suicide if and when she becomes seriously (possibly terminally) ill. To me this smacks of cowardice and caving to fear. I believe it is a poor example for her son and family that whenever (and why limit it to terminal illness?) life gets too tough or painful, it’s ok to just give up. I would be sincerely interested to hear what you think about that. Do you think that planning to commit suicide when and if a person becomes seriously ill is an act of strength or cowardice in the face of pain and fear? Is it an act of love for family or an act of selfishness for self? Why or why not?
I cared for her mother in the last year of her life. My sister in law was reluctant to even stay with her for an afternoon. I watched her mother go through pain, anger, and depression over her illness. She changed from a happy, laughing person into a grump, and her only wish was to die. She would have committed suicide if she could, BUT in the last weeks of her life, she became reconciled to her illness, and passed beyond the stages of fear and pain to peace. She was again the joyful, caring person she’d been before. After a year of hell caring for her, we were reconciled and close again. She died in my arms. Had she committed suicide, she would have died an angry unhappy person, and we would have been left with memories scarred by her angry, demanding attitude. As it is, she died joyfully, and our memories are again of a woman of love. Who’s to say that she didn’t live the perfect amount of time to affect a joyful change in her and her family?
I am having difficulty following the ‘debate.’ BUT, Bob you say that “.. existence ends so can’t be the final good. SO .. I value my integrity more than my existence…” What is your integrity based upon? I go back to Erikson’s last stage, where life ends in either a state of integrity or despair. This state is more then pain—it is psychological and social. If wisdom has been acquired then life ends with a sense of personal integrity (the sense that one tried their best and made a positive contribution); if not a sense of despair—regrets. Of course,these feelings are on a continuum and can vary in degree. Most often it is facing the reality of death that challenges people to examine their lives and how they exercised the powers they had during their life. That period of reflection and growth can be entirely avoided with assisted suicide. Power is maintained in the “I’ll put an end to this pain act”. Is it loving? I repeat what I said earlier that integrity is based upon having consciously tried to make the world a better place for others (acts of love)—not just lived for self (avoiding pain). You have yet to address the many possible short term and long term consequences of assisted suicide upon others—spouse, children, community. Assisted suicide has the power to deprive the family of the opportunity to reconcile through care and to have their hearts softened as suffer with (compassion) the person dying. Likewise it deprives society of the opportunity to care for no other reason than to hold someone in need—who, when the caring id ended, no longer exists to “pay it forward.” A noble society is based upon avoidance of pain; rather, on giving, nurturing, accepting others.
Canadian philosopher Donald Demarco puts is clearly: “Man’s radical weakness is his love of power; his greatest strength is his power to love.”
PS You might like to read some essays by Daniel Robinson (psychologist and philosopher) on right. responsibility, and freedom.
The power to bring into being and to end life need to be more than mere powers from the philosophical, psychological and social perspectives.
Also, does not a wise man examine possible consequences before beginning a battle?
Someguy, it’s pretty apparent you’ve been led by the nose to have, ironically enough, an emotional response to atheism. Your view that religion is true because, if it’s not, then things stink, is an….emotional response. I, being a scientist, value logical clarity in language (which has NOTHING to do with my views on religion.) I don’t know what the ‘final good’ is supposed to mean. But atheists have meaning in their lives every bit as real as theists do!
Teresa, what do you think the long term suffering does to family members? Certainly it’s corrosive and destructive as well as exhausting. What does that do for the family members? And it’s not up to us to judge how someone makes the decisions about values at end of life. There are people who NEVER come to grips with it and others who do so quickly. You have a procrustean view of end of life issues. It’s not that cut and dried, which is why those who aren’t involved shouldn’t BE involved. And I’ve been a psych major, a philosophy minor, as well as a hospice volunteer and student nurse. I have a fair amount of practical experience in taking care of the dying.
MB, perhaps you’re right about your sister. But in my volunteer hospice work, my work as a student nurse, and my current volunteer work with our local ambulance, I see many people who aren’t in such a situation. They have a mature view of the end of their lives and have little fear (of course, everyone is a BIT afraid of death.) Responsible end of life decisions, including the decision to end it on one’s own terms, is probably one of the most sober and mature decisions a person can make. Alot of the objections here center around second guessing the dying. I’m not sure why people feel they have the right to do that.
Vermont Crank, you’re arguing god of the gaps.
Mark Shea….. this question about euthanasia and assisted suicide is much like a song I can’t stop playing in my head. I’ve watched for years as the these practices have taken root and have grown to alarming levels.
In responding to your question I temporarily set aside the faith question in favor of first responding to the cultural one. I did this because when speaking with a person will little or no faith and leading with God is usually and sadly a conversation killer. In drawing on the examples in your article (plus a few)one can a myriad of reasons presently used to justify eliminating the aged, physically handicapped, diseased (cancer et al), mentally handicapped, terminally ill, deformed etc. I believe the leading reasons are suffering, lack of awareness and the cost to society. So in response to your question (bad form I know) I must respond with a question, one which I ask those who support euthanasia and assisted suicide, “Where do you draw the line”? Why not also eliminate the poor, the cronically unemployed, cronic alcoholics, the homeless, the deaf, the mentally ill and bald people too? The poor are deprive and hungry with few prospects. The cronically unemployed usually don’t want to work choosing instead to leech off the working class at great cost to society, the homeless are probably mentally ill, they suffer from poverty plus lack of hope and well, bald people are just annoying. So why not eliminate them all and in the words of Ebeneezeer Scrooge, “reduce the surplus population”.
Then I think of Beethoven who after losing his hearing and contemplating suicide went on to produce some of his most famous pieces. How about Helen Keller…blind…deaf….and mute who devoted her life to helping the less fortunate….really, the less fortunate? Remember Franklin Delano Roosevelt….couldn’t walk unassisted but became President and lead the country during most of WWII. If you like music you probably love Stevie Wonder…..blind from birth. I could go on…Abraham Lincoln, Leo Tolstoy, Vincent Van Gogh, Ernest Hemingway….there are countless famous people who made significant contributions to the world who might not make the life cut with our euthanasia/assisted suicides friends today. One final thing, lost is the amazing example those with the courage to live life to the very end give to family and friends who watch them do so. I believe they have a massive effect on those left behind in how they see and live their own lives.
During the discussion with those who are in the dying process and those who support determining when to end life, at some point, will turn to life after death and God. In my experience the ensuing discussions are productive, accepting and leave the participants with much to think about. But the secular junk must be cleared first.
The point is the line between deciding who qualifies for life and who does not becomes more blurred everyday.
bob - “Your view that religion is true because, if it’s not, then things stink”
__
My last post because you have stopped debating. I never argued that religion was true nor that atheism is wrong. I simply said that if you’re going to value anything, you have to value existence, and if you’re an atheist the only existence is this life. Pretty basic stuff. Nothing is valuable to something which doesn’t exist. I also didn’t introduce the term “final good” - you did. Neither did I make any sort of argument that “good” must persist - you again. In fact, I didn’t actually argue for any sort of good beyond what is valued, and did not consider any values beyond a general appreciation for existence - all you. Never brought up God or the afterlife - you. I agreed that atheists do have meaning in their lives, though I questioned the source of this meaning. Which you ignored.
__
You could say that “it’s pretty apparent you’ve been led by the nose to have, ironically enough, an emotional response to” religion. Or maybe just sound argument. Not sure
__
Be that as it may, my previous points all stand, and you may want to actually consider them, or at least consider that arguments can be correct even if put forth by non-atheist (that’s a funny word. non-non theist?), instead of saying random stuff against my beliefs. I am also a scientist of a sort, mathematician with physicist sympathies, and value clarity in language, and, more importantly, clarity in thought.
Bob,
I’ve experienced more death and serious illness than I care to. One sister in law died of cancer, a brother in law died of COPD, my mother and mother in law also died of COPD. My 25 year old son is currently an invalid with severe Lyme Disease, (bedridden, GI tract is impacted, on TPN now for 2 years), and he may yet die from it. For all of these people, I’ve either been the main care giver or in the role of emotional support for the main care giver. I’ve both seen and experienced the grief and exhaustion of care giving. I am in deep grief over my son’s illness at such a young age.
However, again, I have seen much good come in the months and sometimes years of illness and care giving, both for the patient and the care giver. My sister in law, like myself at the time, was neither atheist or Christian, but rather, “Don’t know, don’t care if there’s a God.” She was terrified of death. Like my mother in law, though, before she died, she came to peace. Her illness changed her husband from a self centered, non-involved father into a great dad, who even quit his job for years to be there for his son. I think it’s fair to say that their son grew up to be a much more loving, caring, well-balanced young man than he would have been had his mother died suddenly, and not had those months to encourage her husband to be a good dad. One of her last requests was that the son be raised Catholic, and her husband honored that request, which I believe helped his own life focus. My brother in law’s exhausting care needs brought his family closer than they had previously been. They were all in it together. My mother’s illness also turned my father into a devoted caregiver, and much more compassionate man.
In the first year of his illness, my son not only contemplated suicide, but at one point actually crawled out the window to go to the roof. Why did he change his mind? He realized the impact his action would have on those who love him. He is still very ill, but has developed an amazing attitude, strength, and sense of humor. We never knew how much courage he had, and he has inspired our family, as well as hundreds of extended family and friends. I hear frequently from people who tell me that whenever they are tempted to complain over life’s little things, they think of him and his lack of complaint, and realize that their issue isn’t that big a deal.
Yes, caring for an ill person is exhausting, and we grieve their illness and their death, but the grief is tempered by having walked that tough road with those we love. I have a friend whose husband committed suicide, rather than face cancer. She and their children are devastated, filled with anger and anguish.
So, at what point does the ill person decide that their lives are worthless and useless enough to justify suicide? Can a terminally ill person still contribute to the betterment of their loved ones, possibly themselves, and maybe even society at large? Is the family truly better off not having to care for a seriously ill person, or are there psychological and sociological benefits through shared suffering? Is the grief more bearable when sharing the burden of illness with someone you love, or by having them kill themselves to “spare” you and themselves? Again, is suicide and act of selflessness or an act of selfishness towards those you love? Finally, is it at all possible that there is a higher power that has designed you, and knows what is best for you in your entirety, rather than in what your present circumstances might be? As a person who would like to be able to decide for yourself if you should end your life, what do you think?
MB, it’s just a fact people react differently in these situations. And suicide is not an act of selfishness when the alternative is a living death. And, perhaps, if there is a ‘higher power’, suicide can be an instrument of its will. After all, the universe was ‘built’ in such a way that these diseases are common.
Bob,
Thank you for your thoughts. I guess we disagree about what is a “living death.” The people that I’ve seen were alive, with the capacity to give, receive, and teach love until the moment they died. One could argue that the millions of people in the world that are suffering from war, drought, and starvation are in a “living death,” but I’ll bet most of them want to survive, and so they hang on.
Also, I don’t see how, as an instrument of a “higher power” suicide can be compared to disease, since one is a biological reality, and one is a deliberate human act. Anyway, I have to go now, but thank you for your consideration. I’ll think about what you said, and I hope you will think about what I’ve asked.
I’ve read a number of comments, and on the whole Catholics tend to think suffering is a good thing—if not for the person suffering, then for the people who have the opportunity to care for them. Much like Christ suffered and died so that people would be redeemed for original sin.
A lot of things would be easier for the dying person if we had universal health care—families wouldn’t be burdened with medical and hospital costs, and paid caregivers would be available to help out. Instead of doing something to help people in this universal situation, you insist that everybody suffer when death is inevitable and emotional and physical pain is all that can be expected for the short time left.
We put our pets down when their suffering becomes a burden and death is inevitable. People are different—they deserve to suffer. I hope you do.
Adrienne,
From your comments I gather you are not a Catholic. Fair enough. That being said you’re quite right in that Catholic’s believe suffering has redemptive value.
With regard your wish for universal health care perhaps you should take a closer look the unfunded debt associated with just Social Security and Medicare. The unfunded debt number as reported by the National Center for Policy Analysis report on June 11, 2011 is 107 trillion dollars. In short without substantial reform these programs are destined to fail; what will happen to the aged and terminally ill then? The nanny state has never worked as illustrated by Greece, Spain and Ireland just to name a few with Britian and a number of other European states waiting in the wings to do so. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.
With respect to your suggestion that putting a dog down is compassionate but refusing to do so for a human is antihumanitarian is irrational; dogs are not rational beings.
Finally, your wish for someone to suffer because they don’t hold your beliefs is simply ironhearted and says much about you.
Mike, you’re awfully selective in your use of data. The US has the most inefficient healthcare system in the western world, with our PRIVATE healthcare costs DOUBLE those of of ‘nanny states’. The market in VERY inefficient in allocating healthcare and the US is a great example of a market failure. The free market can not, and does not, have the capability to solve this problem. Lumping healthcare into a ‘nanny state’ classification is a card trick, pure and simple. I suggest you start drinking the caffeinated coffee instead of the conservative de-caf you’re fond of!
I think we need to be careful to keep this discussion on point. I think we can all agree that it is desirable that everyone receive the health care they need, regardless of by what method it is provided.
—
The concept of a virtually any health care system, whether it government run, or privately run, if it allows euthanasia, runs the risk of leading to a system where people are pressured to die.
Adrienne,
You get it, and you don’t. Catholics do not think suffering is a good thing, nor do we wish it on ourselves or others. (See all the Catholic relief groups.) However, suffering happens, whether terminal or not. Suffering can just plain be bad, or, when endured with patience, shared with loved ones, and/or united with God, good can COME OUT OF suffering, for either the one suffering, those who care for them, or even society in general. (How many composers, writers, etc, have suffered and channeled it into beauty?)
I’m sorry, I’ll be unable to answer if anyone responds—busy trying to help relieve my son’s suffering.
@Mike Malone: I want you to suffer from a guilty conscience instead of passing accountability for your morals and avoidance of things you don’t want to know.
__
@Bob: Thank you for answering Mike’s comment. You got right to the point.
__
@mb:One of the problems that I have about Christianity is that, in your philosophy, you need suffering so that good can come out of it. How many composers, writers, etc. would have produced more beautiful works if they didn’t suffer? Pain and suffering tends to overcome creativity, not enhance it.
I’m sorry that your son is suffering. I don’t think any good will come of it.
@Mike Malone: Dogs can be a lot more rational than some people. They love life and are loyal. They are also sentient beings, know pain and joy and can be very empathetic. Many politicians who call themselves “Christian” have no empathy for what people are suffering in this country.
I am a nurse who has to control pain in my orthopedic patients and we do so very successfully without “snowing” the patients. My husband is a hospice doc. He finds it very easy to control even the worse pain successfully without “snowing” the patient or overdosing the patient. There is never a need to have suffereing at end of life. There is never a need nor morally justifiable reason to end a life early. To use pain as an excuse to do so is either due to incompetent care or because the caregiver has been trained to think human life is expendable in this way. This is in violation of the oath of Hippocrates. Do younger docs take this oath any more? Some medical schools require it and some don’t. The bottom line is know who is caring for you and your loved ones!!!!
On another note, one need not use extraordinary means at the end of life when one is actually in the dying process. For example, when the body is dying and the body is shutting down, one of the mechanisms to kick in is loss of appetite. Once a person is truly in the process of dying, it is cruel to put a peg tube in and force feeding. This only causes suffering. But when one is merely sick or suffering from a medical condition, it is wrong to withhold food and fluids. It is helpful to have physicians who understand this difference and holds to the ethical and moral approach. It is helpful to ask yourself: is what we are considering doing going to prolong the death process or is it creating a bridge to get through a medical crisis to lead to healing and thus continued life. You don’t give up on life. You must have competent caregivers who know the how to judge those who are truly in the dying stage of their life.
To: bob…
Health care in the US is, or has been, the best and available to all if they avail themselves to it. (And Catholic Hospitals have helped in this regard don’t forget). My work has been on Joint Replacements and we have even put them in homeless people. Try that in a country with socialized medicine. This marvelous medical advancement is denied to many in your average socialized medicine country. You may use statistics to prove how bad it is here but statistics can be very manipulated. For example: The USA is considered very poor in infant mortality rates. Well, this is because we try to save every baby, even the smallest preemie. Well that data on these babies is all combined with all the other births to show our infant mortality rate is so awful. But consider, in countries with socialized medicine, they don’t even attempt to save these smallest preemies. So those cases don’t get plugged into their data. As a result it makes their rates for infant mortality look fabulous. The dirty little secret is that we save more babies than they could even dream of. This can be applied to all our medicine.
But you want universal health care? You are crazy! Besides, where will all the Canadians go for their health care when we become like them? ;-)
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.