A Fate Worse Than Death

 

In April of this year, 86-year-old Betty Sanguin died in her "Christian" sect's church. She did not have a heart attack or a stroke, nor was any ambulance called. She was killed in front of the congregation by her own request. The "Churchill Park United Church of Winnipeg" (Canada), held a  “Crossing Over Ceremony” for Sanguin who was diagnosed with ALS, better known in the U.S. as Lou Gehrig’s disease, a progressive, terminal disease for which there is no known cure. 

The church's leadership team had unanimously approved Sanguin’s request for the assisted suicide ceremony that was held in the sanctuary, as she had strong ties to the congregation.

The Rev. Dawn Rolke, minister of Churchill Park, told The Christian Post in a recent interview that it “seemed appropriate” to hold the ceremony in the sanctuary, as churches are often “host and home to all the raggedness of our lives and to some of our significant life rituals: baptism, marriage, ordination, funeral or memorial services.”

“For us, it was perfectly natural to hold this service for Betty in our sanctuary because death is a natural part of life and Betty had lived a good part of her adulthood in this faith community. Hers was a growing, changing spirituality; her faith was feisty, fierce and passionate, like Betty herself,” said Rolke.

“Some see medically-assisted death as a private matter and they sought to honor this individual’s request. Some felt it was right for Betty, in particular.”

Canada's healthcare system offers patients the option to have assisted suicide, what is known as MAiD or "medical aid in dying," in which a physician or nurse practitioner carries out the death by chemical injection.

At Churchill Park United Church of Winnipeg, the typical sanctuary seating was removed and replaced by comfortable chairs, tables, flowers and a recliner, which Sanguin sat in during the event as people came and went throughout the day to say their goodbyes. 

Friends and family visited Sanguin who was joined by her adult daughters and grandchildren, with Rolke leading the ceremony. 

(See christianpost.com/news/canadian-church-hosts-assisted-suicide-for-member-with-als.html). 

We've reached a point where murder is a "church ceremony." This post will focus on the subject of euthanasia; what it is, why it's wrong, and the teaching of the Church.

Euthanasia: Definition and Explanation

Many sources have been used in the compilation of this post; especially in regards to Church teaching, most notably, theologian O'Donnell, Morals in Medicine, [1956], and Dr. Niedermeyer with theologian  Buonanno, Compendium of Pastoral Medicine, [1961]. ---Introibo

The word euthanasia comes from the Greek eu and thanatos and means "good death." Euthanasia may be deemed active or passive. The active/passive distinction amounts to this: passive euthanasia (also called negative euthanasia) refers to the withholding or withdrawing of a life-sustaining treatment when certain justifiable conditions obtain (see below) and allow the patient to die. Active euthanasia (also called mercy killing or positive euthanasia) refers to the intentional and/or direct killing of an innocent human life either by that person (suicide) or by another (assisted suicide).

Euthanasia may also be either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs whenever a competent, informed patient autonomously requests it (suicide). Involuntary euthanasia occurs whenever a person is incapable of forming a judgment or expressing a wish in the matter (e.g., a defective newborn or a comatose adult) or when the person expresses a wish to live but is nevertheless killed or allowed to die (murder). 

The following Catholic principles must be used for the withholding or stopping of medical treatment.

1. Ordinary means to preserve life must always be used. It seems best defined as those things associated with the basics of life (food, water, rest, clothing, etc.) and what modern medicine can provide. There is never a good reason to starve someone to death. Even in "brain death" or a PVS ("persistent vegetative state"), we cannot know if the person is capable of suffering--suffering we wouldn't want an animal to endure, let alone a human being. 

2. Most of the now commonly available techniques of modern surgery, medicines, and other medicinal practices/devices should be classified as ordinary means of preserving life. 

3. Extraordinary means of preserving life need not be used. Those would seem to include experimental surgery, untested or unproven medicines and the like which cannot be used without prolonged suffering, devastating financial consequences, and offer no substantial chance of recovery.

We must be very careful in what we consider "extraordinary means" of preserving life. In the medical profession, there is the ideal which demands fighting off pain and death until the last possible moment. There is much to be said for that attitude. Many of the great advances in modern medicine, as well as perfection in surgical skill and technique, have been due to what might have frequently been called a "useless prolongation of life/suffering." Modern surgery is only considered an ordinary means of preserving life because of its extensive use in those stages of its development when it was considered an extraordinary means. We must not be too ready to lower that medical ideal, and slow medical progress in the immediate interest of a present case. The future betterment of humanity is also served by attempting "extraordinary means."

Active and voluntary euthanasia is an act of suicide, as in the case of Betty Sanguin. Those who assisted her are guilty of murder. Those who approved and participated without causing the death may rightly be called accessories to murder. 

Suicide is a grave sin for three (3) reasons:

1. It is a most grave offense against the rights of God. The act usurps God's authority over life and death. "Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death." (Wisdom 16: 13). Human life has intrinsic worth because it comes from God, and God wills the salvation of all. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on a human nature and died for humanity, to give all a chance to get to Heaven. 

2. It is a grave offense against society. A community has the right to be benefited by the lives of their members. It has a demoralizing effect on those who loved the person. People valuable to society would rashly kill themselves in a fit of depression thinking they are not valuable. Even members of society not able to contribute in any substantial, material way would deprive others of an example of fortitude, or the opportunity to show charity and mercy to the needy. 

3. It is a grave offense against the natural law. You cannot "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless there is love of self (not inordinate). Those who kill themselves to escape pain and miseries, incur the greater evils of death and moral cowardice, to be followed by eternal damnation--the greatest of all evils and suffering.  

(Material directly above condensed from theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology, [1930], 2: 117-123). 

The Church arrives at this conclusion based on the supernatural creation of the human soul, and the supernatural destiny of each person. In the words of Niedermeyer/Buonanno:

Euthanasia is the extreme consequence of a series of postulates which represent an ideological unity and which are directed against the sacred character of life: birth prevention, abortion, sterilization, suppressive selection. The rational principle common to all these postulates is an absolutely temporal intention; a materialism not always well dissimulated; the idea of unlimited autonomy of man, with the elimination of a supernatural moral law and of responsibility before God as Creator, Legislator, and Supreme Judge. (See citation above, pg. 202). 

The Vatican II sect, and most Protestant sects, are imbued with Naturalism, the view that this life arises from purely natural properties and causes; the supernatural being denied. This is displayed in anthropocentric "liturgy" (i.e., the Novus Bogus "mass"), naturalistic, invalid "sacraments," and Bergoglio telling us "‘The most serious of the evils that afflict the world these days are youth unemployment and the loneliness of the old." Will it be any surprise if there's a Vatican II sect "suicide ceremony" in the near future? 

Most Common Arguments for Euthanasia

1. The Autonomy Argument. Since biological life is not the real, moral issue, then life is not intrinsically valuable or sacred simply because it is human life. The important thing is that one has biographical life and this involves a person's ability to state, formulate, and pursue autonomously chosen interests, desires, and so on. If a person autonomously chooses to end his life or have someone else assist him in ending his life, then such action is morally permissible. One should be free to do as one chooses as long as no harm is done to others.

2. The Equivalence Argument. There is no morally relevant distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible. Thus, active euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible.

3. The Mercy Argument. It is cruel and inhumane to refuse the plea of a terminally ill person that his or her life be mercifully ended in order to avoid unnecessary suffering and pain.

4. The Best Interests Argument. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights, then that action is morally acceptable. In some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one's rights. Therefore, in those cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable. 

5. The Golden Rule Argument. Moral principles ought to be made universal. If I don't want someone to apply a rule to me, I shouldn't apply it to them. Similarly, if I want someone to apply a rule to me, I ought to be willing to apply it to others. Now suppose I were given a choice between two ways to die. First, I could die quietly and without pain, at the age of eighty, from a fatal injection. Or second, I could choose to die at eighty-plus-a-few-days of an affliction so painful that for those few days before death I would be reduced to howling like a dog, with my family standing helplessly by. The former death involves active euthanasia, and if I would choose it, I should be willing to permit others to choose it too. 

Responses to Most Common Euthanasia Arguments

A) Reply to the Autonomy Argument. First, it begs the question that there is no God and no Natural Law/Divine Law. The same could be said for all five arguments. However, all fail on separate and independent grounds as well. As to this argument, if we only need to protect people with "biographical lives," it would seem, then, that a person who no longer has such a life, who has no point of view, is no longer covered by the duty not to kill. However, if the person has lost the right not to be killed, it would seem that other rights would be lost as well, since the right to life is basic to other rights. In this case, it would be morally permissible to experiment on such a person or kill him brutally. Why? It is because we are no longer dealing with an object which has the relevant rights. 

B) Reply to the Equivalence Argument. Two distinctions can, and must, be made between passive and active euthanasia. First, the direct cause of death is different. In the latter it is the doctor or other human agent. In the former it is the disease itself. Second, the intent of the act is different. The Traditional Catholic view allows for withholding or withdrawing treatment in some cases where certain circumstances obtain, for instance, in cases where the patient is terminal, death is imminent, treatment is judged extraordinary, and death is not directly intended. Those are major differences proving that active and passive euthanasia are not moral equivalents.

C) Reply to the Mercy Argument. First, there are very few cases where modern medicine cannot alleviate suffering and pain. It is wrong ethical methodology to build an ethical doctrine on a few problem cases. The mercy argument violates this methodological principle by placing too much weight on an argument which only applies to a small number of situations. 

Second, though this can be abused, there can be a point to suffering. One can grow through it; one can teach others how a wise, virtuous person handles life's adversities including suffering and death. One can also show that one cares for his or her membership in community with others and that is not right to withdraw from one another in time of need. Further, one can affirm the fact that people have value and purpose beyond happiness, the absence of pain, or the ability to pursue autonomously chosen goals.

Third, life is a gift and we are not the sole, absolute owners of our lives. We are made in the image and likeness of God. He decides matters of life and death, not us. 

D) Reply to Both the Best Interests and Golden Rule Argument. Two responses have been offered which apply equally to the Golden Rule argument and the Best Interests argument. First, the arguments beg the question against a sanctity-of-life view in favor of a quality-of-life view. In other words, if life is sacred, or if persons have intrinsic value simply by being human and, thus, are ends in themselves, then active euthanasia inappropriately treats a person as a means to an end (a painless state of death). Not everything a person takes to be in his own best interests is morally acceptable. Similarly, not everything a person would wish to have done to him or her is morally good. Quality-of-life judgments are often subjective and can be morally bad.

Put differently, a person can dehumanize himself--- and actually does so--- in active euthanasia by intentionally killing himself (or if someone else intentionally kills the person). Hence, when one engages in active euthanasia, one abdicates one's privilege and responsibility to live out one's life in community with and for others. This signals a failure of the community to be present to the sick person in a caring way. It also signals a failure of the person himself to die in a morally appropriate way (e.g., to teach others how to suffer and die) and to undergo a manner of dying which does not hinder those left behind from remembering the person in a morally helpful way. 

Conclusion

The arguments for euthanasia can be answered on similar Naturalistic grounds. However, what is most important is spiritual. Recently, much ado was made when the detestable atheist owner of the drug-and-sleaze nightclub Studio 54, Mark Fleischman, underwent doctor-assisted suicide at age 82. His quality of life diminished over the last two years due to an undiagnosed "mystery illness." He went to Switzerland to the Dignitas suicide clinic to finish his life by his own hand, drinking a lethal dose of barbiturates. (Ironically, "dignitas" is Latin for "dignity"). 

According to his wife, "Mark used to not believe in God at all. He was a complete atheist," she said. "He started to believe in God during the last few weeks." When he took his life, Fleischman most likely sealed his fate forever. However, could God have been trying to get to him before he despaired and took his own life?

 As Niedermeyer/Buonanno teach:

In many cases surprising facts have become known by discovering before imminent death a richness of mental life---buried under the surface---that was hidden in completely demented persons. We also do not know what takes place in the dying. We merely perceive that the last moments are of decisive importance. These last moments can bring to many dying persons a great amount of grace and can still save an apparently lost soul.

When a man believes himself authorized to shorten, even by a few seconds, the life of his fellow creature, he deprives him of these decisive moments of grace---and in so doing, possibly still thinks that he is benefitting him.  (Ibid, pg. 203; Emphasis mine). 

The members of Betty Sanguin's false sect thought they were "benefitting" her. Unfortunately, those who usurp the authority of God, Who Alone can decide the length of a human lifespan, will most likely find themselves in eternal flames. A fate far worse than any "quality of life" issue they were seeking to avoid.