"It is I who bring both death and
life" (Dt
32:39): the tragedy of euthanasia
64. At the other end of life's
spectrum, men and women find themselves facing the mystery of death. Today, as
a result of advances in medicine and in a cultural context frequently closed to
the transcendent, the experience of dying is marked by new features. When the
prevailing tendency is to value life only to the extent that it brings pleasure
and well-being, suffering seems like an unbearable setback, something from
which one must be freed at all costs. Death is considered "senseless"
if it suddenly interrupts a life still open to a future of new and interesting
experiences. But it becomes a "rightful liberation" once life is held
to be no longer meaningful because it is filled with pain and inexorably doomed
to even greater suffering.
Furthermore, when he denies or neglects his
fundamental relationship to God, man thinks he is his own rule and measure,
with the right to demand that society should guarantee him the ways and means
of deciding what to do with his life in full and complete autonomy. It is
especially people in the developed countries who act in this way: they feel
encouraged to do so also by the constant progress of medicine and its ever more
advanced techniques. By using highly sophisticated systems and equipment,
science and medical practice today are able not only to attend to cases
formerly considered untreatable and to reduce or eliminate pain, but also to
sustain and prolong life even in situations of extreme frailty, to resuscitate
artificially patients whose basic biological functions have undergone sudden
collapse, and to use special procedures to make organs available for
transplanting.
In this context the temptation grows to have recourse
to euthanasia, that is, to take control of death and bring it about before its
time, "gently" ending one's own life or the life of others. In
reality, what might seem logical and humane, when looked at more closely is
seen to be senseless and inhumane. Here we are faced with one of the more
alarming symptoms of the "culture of death", which is advancing above
all in prosperous societies, marked by an attitude of excessive preoccupation
with efficiency and which sees the growing number of elderly and disabled
people as intolerable and too burdensome. These people are very often isolated
by their families and by society, which are organized almost exclusively on the
basis of criteria of productive efficiency, according to which a hopelessly
impaired life no longer has any value.
65. For a correct moral judgment on
euthanasia, in the first place a clear definition is required. Euthanasia in
the strict sense is understood to be an action or omission which of itself and
by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering.
"Euthanasia's terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the
intention of the will and in the methods used".76
Euthanasia must be distinguished from the decision to
forego so-called "aggressive medical treatment", in other words,
medical procedures which no longer correspond to the real situation of the
patient, either because they are by now disproportionate to any expected
results or because they impose an excessive burden on the patient and his family.
In such situations, when death is clearly imminent and inevitable, one can in
conscience "refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious
and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick
person in similar cases is not interrupted".77 Certainly there is
a moral obligation to care for oneself and to allow oneself to be cared for,
but this duty must take account of concrete circumstances. It needs to be
determined whether the means of treatment available are objectively
proportionate to the prospects for improvement. To forego extraordinary or
disproportionate means is not the equivalent of suicide or euthanasia; it
rather expresses acceptance of the human condition in the face of death.
78
In modern medicine, increased attention is being given
to what are called "methods of palliative care", which seek to make
suffering more bearable in the final stages of illness and to ensure that the
patient is supported and accompanied in his or her ordeal. Among the questions
which arise in this context is that of the licitness of using various types of
painkillers and sedatives for relieving the patient's pain when this involves
the risk of shortening life. While praise may be due to the person who voluntarily
accepts suffering by forgoing treatment with pain-killers in order to remain
fully lucid and, if a believer, to share consciously in the Lord's Passion,
such "heroic" behaviour cannot be considered the duty of everyone.
Pius XII affirmed that it is licit to relieve pain by narcotics, even when the
result is decreased consciousness and a shortening of life, "if no other
means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the
carrying out of other religious and moral duties".79 In such a
case, death is not willed or sought, even though for reasonable motives one
runs the risk of it: there is simply a desire to ease pain effectively by using
the analgesics which medicine provides. All the same, "it is not right to
deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason":
80 as they approach death people ought to be able to satisfy their
moral and family duties, and above all they ought to be able to prepare in a
fully conscious way for their definitive meeting with God.
Taking into account these distinctions, in harmony
with the Magisterium of my Predecessors 81 and in communion with the
Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that euthanasia is a grave violation
of the law of God, since it is the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing
of a human person. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the
written word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the
ordinary and universal Magisterium. 82
Depending on the circumstances, this practice involves
the malice proper to suicide or murder.
66. Suicide is always as morally
objectionable as murder. The Church's tradition has always rejected it as a
gravely evil choice. 83 Even though a certain psychological, cultural
and social conditioning may induce a person to carry out an action which so
radically contradicts the innate inclination to life, thus lessening or
removing subjective responsibility, suicide, when viewed objectively, is a gravely
immoral act. In fact, it involves the rejection of love of self and the
renunciation of the obligation of justice and charity towards one's neighbour,
towards the communities to which one belongs, and towards society as a whole.
84 In its deepest reality, suicide represents a rejection of God's
absolute sovereignty over life and death, as proclaimed in the prayer of the
ancient sage of Israel: "You have power over life and death; you lead men
down to the gates of Hades and back again" (Wis
16:13; cf. Tob 13:2).
To concur with the intention of another person to
commit suicide and to help in carrying it out through so-called "assisted
suicide" means to cooperate in, and at times to be the actual perpetrator
of, an injustice which can never be excused, even if it is requested. In a
remarkably relevant passage Saint Augustine writes that "it is never licit
to kill another: even if he should wish it, indeed if he request it because,
hanging between life and death, he begs for help in freeing the soul struggling
against the bonds of the body and longing to be released; nor is it licit even
when a sick person is no longer able to live".85 Even when not
motivated by a selfish refusal to be burdened with the life of someone who is
suffering, euthanasia must be called a false mercy, and indeed a disturbing
"perversion" of mercy. True "compassion" leads to sharing
another's pain; it does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.
Moreover, the act of euthanasia appears all the more perverse if it is carried
out by those, like relatives, who are supposed to treat a family member with
patience and love, or by those, such as doctors, who by virtue of their
specific profession are supposed to care for the sick person even in the most
painful terminal stages.
The choice of euthanasia becomes more serious when it
takes the form of a murder committed by others on a person who has in no way
requested it and who has never consented to it. The height of arbitrariness and
injustice is reached when certain people, such as physicians or legislators,
arrogate to themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to
die. Once again we find ourselves before the temptation of Eden: to become like
God who "knows good and evil" (cf. Gen
3:5). God alone has the power over life and death: "It is I who
bring both death and life" (Dt 32:39;
cf. 2 Kg 5:7; 1
Sam 2:6). But he only exercises this power in
accordance with a plan of wisdom and love. When man usurps this power, being
enslaved by a foolish and selfish way of thinking, he inevitably uses it for
injustice and death. Thus the life of the person who is weak is put into the
hands of the one who is strong; in society the sense of justice is lost, and
mutual trust, the basis of every authentic interpersonal relationship, is
undermined at its root.
67. Quite different from this is the
way of love and true mercy, which our common humanity calls for, and upon which
faith in Christ the Redeemer, who died and rose again, sheds ever new light.
The request which arises from the human heart in the supreme confrontation with
suffering and death, especially when faced with the temptation to give up in
utter desperation, is above all a request for companionship, sympathy and
support in the time of trial. It is a plea for help to keep on hoping when all
human hopes fail. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us: "It is in the
face of death that the riddle of human existence becomes most acute" and
yet "man rightly follows the intuition of his heart when he abhors and
repudiates the absolute ruin and total disappearance of his own person. Man
rebels against death because he bears in himself an eternal seed which cannot
be reduced to mere matter".86
This natural aversion to death and this incipient hope
of immortality are illumined and brought to fulfilment by Christian faith,
which both promises and offers a share in the victory of the Risen Christ: it
is the victory of the One who, by his redemptive death, has set man free from
death, "the wages of sin" (Rom
6:23), and has given him the Spirit, the pledge of resurrection and
of life (cf. Rom 8:11). The certainty of
future immortality and hope in the promised resurrection cast new light on the
mystery of suffering and death, and fill the believer with an extraordinary
capacity to trust fully in the plan of God.
The Apostle Paul expressed this newness in terms of
belonging completely to the Lord who embraces every human condition: "None
of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to
the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or
whether we die, we are the Lord's" (Rom
14:7-8). Dying to the Lord means experiencing one's death as the
supreme act of obedience to the Father (cf. Phil
2:8), being ready to meet death at the "hour" willed and
chosen by him (cf.Jn 13:1), which can only
mean when one's earthly pilgrimage is completed. Living to the Lord also means
recognizing that suffering, while still an evil and a trial in itself, can
always become a source of good. It becomes such if it is experienced for love
and with love through sharing, by God's gracious gift and one's own personal
and free choice, in the suffering of Christ Crucified. In this way, the person
who lives his suffering in the Lord grows more fully conformed to him (cf.
Phil 3:10; 1
Pet 2:21) and more closely associated with his redemptive work on
behalf of the Church and humanity. 87 This was the experience of Saint Paul, which every
person who suffers is called to relive: "I rejoice in my sufferings for
your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions
for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church" (Col 1:24).
|