In my ethics classes, I have my students write a paper on euthanasia, focusing especially on the Brittany Maynard case. They have to answer these questions:
1. Is the sort of euthanasia illustrated in Brittany Maynard's case ethical? Is it a legitimate moral option that some people might ethically choose, or is it ethically wrong?
2. Should this sort of euthanasia be legally recognized and approved by allowing the medical profession to participate in it, as is the case in Oregon and elsewhere (physician-assisted suicide)?
They have to write their paper as a letter to one of two made-up individuals, George Stewart or Robert Merryweather. I role-play both of these individuals in the class. George is a Catholic, and Robert is an Agnostic. The students have to write to whomever is on the opposite side of the questions from themselves, or at least whomever is furthest away from their own position. They have to explain their position to whomever they are writing to and show they why they think they are right (and therefore the other person is wrong). They are instructed specifically to be careful to avoid begging the question in their arguments, arguing superficially, etc. When they write this letter, I respond as either George or Robert and give them feedback, argue with them, etc., to help them to hone their arguments, understand their own assumptions better, understand the other person's assumptions better, etc., and in general to grow in their ability to critically think through the issue and to dialogue with those with whom they disagree. They can then write back and try again, get more feedback, try again, etc., and this process lasts over the whole semester. It's a lot of fun (and a lot of work)!
Here are the documents I've written up for both George and Robert that the students read before writing the first draft of their paper:
GEORGE STEWART'S ANSWER
TO THE QUESTIONS
My
answer to both questions is no. My fundamental reason for this
answer is that the sort of euthanasia illustrated in Brittany
Maynard's case is contrary to the objective moral law of God.
Foundations
I
am a Catholic, and so I hold to the Catholic worldview. The Catholic
worldview is described in great detail in the
Catechism
of the Catholic Church,
and in a more condensed form in the
Compendium
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
It is summarized in
the
Nicene Creed. The
Wikipedia
article on the Catholic Church is also helpful. We believe that
there are two fundamental sources of knowledge--
reason
(which refers to what God has made known to us by means of our senses
and reasoning ability) and
revelation
(which refers to what God has made known through special messages and
messengers, culminating in Jesus Christ and the revelation he has
entrusted to his Church). The Catholic Church, being the church
founded by Jesus Christ, has been entrusted with God's revelation and
is the authoritative interpreter of it. This revelation has been
preserved and expounded by the Church in two forms—in
Scripture
(the revelation of God written and infallible) and in
Tradition
(the revelation of God handed down infallibly through preaching and
practice, with the interpretation of that revelation the Church is
led into through the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit). Two
documents of the Second Vatican Council,
Dei
Verbum
(especially Chapter II) and
Lumen
Gentium
(especially #25) describe this in greater detail.
Since my answer to the questions is rooted in the assumption of the
truth of the Catholic worldview, it is my responsibility, to avoid
begging the question, to make a case for the truth of that worldview.
I will not attempt to do so here, however, as I have already done
this in the two debate documents Robert and I have written up and
which you can find on your Syllabus tab in Canvas. I will simply
refer you to those documents.
God,
being the supreme being and the author of all creation, is the
ultimate moral authority of the universe. God's viewpoint defines
reality, and therefore his views of good and bad are the foundation
of an objective moral law which binds all of reality. He is also,
for the same reason, necessarily the supreme judge. He will ensure
that good is ultimately rewarded with good, and that bad is
ultimately rewarded with bad (because he loves the one and hates the
other), even though, in his wisdom, he does not always bring full
judgment immediately. (See the second debate document for more on
these points. See also the
Catechism's
discussion
of the moral law.)
Human
laws derive their legitimacy from God's moral law. God has created
human beings and the universe in such a way that human nature
naturally calls for certain forms of organization among human
individuals with certain authority structures that go along with
them--such as organizations of family and civil society (the state).
Since God is the author of the human nature that gives rise to these
institutions, these institutions are ordained by God and therefore
have his authority behind them. Thus, in St. Paul's language (Romans
13:1-7), the "powers that be" are ordained of God and are
thus ministers of God whom we are commanded by God's moral law to
obey. Since these institutions are "ministers of God,"
they do not have unlimited authority. They only have authority when
they are legitimately fulfilling their essential functions in a
manner consistent with the objective moral law of God. Essential
human governments, then, are a sort of limited microcosm of God's
government of the cosmos. Just as God seeks to promote the good and
condemn the evil in his government of the world, so human governments
ought to rule according to God's moral law, promoting what is good
and hindering or opposing that which is evil in order to further the
common good and the glory of God. For more, see the
Catechism's
discussion
of civil authority. (And see below as well.)
Euthanasia
is Immoral
From
these fundamentals, I can provide the foundation on which my answer
to the questions is based. Euthanasia, particularly the kind
illustrated in the case of Brittany Maynard, is unethical because it
is contrary to the moral law of God. This is discussed
under
the heading of the fifth of the Ten Commandments in the Catechism.
Our lives belong ultimately to God, and we are to use them in his
service and not as if we were the ultimate masters of them. Human
lives are valuable to God, and he commands us to respect and value
them and to treat them accordingly. The intentional taking of a
human life is therefore forbidden. There are times, such as when
one's own life or the life of someone one is bound to protect is
threatened by an aggressor, when necessary and just acts required to
protect life unavoidably involve the unintended side effect of ending
the life of another, but this is not an exception to but an
illustration of the value with which we are to value life.
The
prohibition on taking human life applies to our own lives as well as
to the lives of others—because the same reasons apply in both
cases. Although a Naturalist may argue that our lives belong to
ourselves so that we may do with them whatever we please, yet the
Catholic cannot view things in this way. The Catechism
summarizes the Catholic position thus:
2280
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.
2281
Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to
preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just
love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it
unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other
human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is
contrary to love for the living God.
In
a case like that of Brittany Maynard, the desire to end one's life,
or to assist another in ending his/her life, is very understandable.
The grave suffering and difficulties Brittany and her family would
have had to have undergone if she had not ended her own life should
not be underestimated. We should assume the best of her motivations
and have great sympathy for her situation and her decision.
Nevertheless, even in such a case of great suffering, suicide is not
permitted. As the Catechism
says (#2277), “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.”
We must remember that God is the supreme creator, the ultimately
moral authority of the universe, and infinitely wise and benevolent.
All the commands of his moral law, therefore, are, by definition,
absolutely perfect and good and best, tending in the best manner to
his glory and our welfare. Violation of God's will is intrinsically
immoral. To rebel against God is to incur infinite loss and misery,
while to follow him brings, in the end, the full satisfaction of
perfect happiness. Although our earthly sufferings seem and indeed
are in themselves very great, yet they are nothing when placed in the
scale against the infinite blessedness of the glory of God which
those who follow God are invited to share in for all eternity. As
St. Paul put it (2 Corinthians 4:17--KJV), “our light affliction,
which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory.” By calling our earthly sufferings
“light,” Paul is not minimizing those sufferings; rather, he is
exalting tremendously the blessedness of sharing in God's own
infinitely blessed life.
Physician-assisted
Suicide Should Be Illegal
As
I mentioned earlier, the legitimacy of human laws, including civil
laws, are rooted in the moral law of God. Consequently, as
the
Catechism
puts it (#1923), “[p]olitical authority must be exercised
within the limits of the moral order.” Human governments have no
authority to legitimize or approve of what God has condemned and
forbidden, and vice versa. If the state were to grant its citizens a
right to engage medical aid in acts of suicide, it would be
evaluating the value of human life in a way contrary to God's moral
law. It would fail to protect life as God requires it to do.
Some
might argue that it is illicit to base civil laws on God's moral law,
for there should be a “separation between church and state.”
This phrase tends to be highly ambiguous. If it means that the state
should adopt, in effect, an Agnostic outlook and base its laws on
this, it is contrary to Catholic doctrine which teaches that human
societies, no less than human individuals, owe allegiance to God and
to his moral law. Nor is worldview-neutrality possible in civil law
(or anywhere else), for civil law is applied social ethics, and
ethics is applied worldviews. Pope Leo XIII addressed this issue in
great detail in
his
1888 encyclical Libertas
(see especially #15, #18, #20, and #21):
18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more
consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be
guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that
in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be
entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal
theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the
absurdity of such a position is manifest. . . .
21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State,
clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer
any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him;
that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that
all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion
of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to
justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no
duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be
abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly
false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are
united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered;
or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence;
or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it
is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of
others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and
beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain
by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge
God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power
and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids,
the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end
in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call
them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and
privileges.
It
is true that the state must sometimes tolerate some evils in order to
avoid bringing on even more evils. In particular, the Catholic
worldview acknowledges that, especially in our current pluralistic
age, room must be made for the individual consciences of men and
women in order to avoid as much as reasonably possible coercing
people to go against their consciences or causing them to lack
sufficient civil freedom to properly form their consciences through
the seeking of truth. In order to safeguard individual consciences,
then, and the ability of all to pursue their duty to seek and follow
the truth, especially in our pluralistic society and age, the state
must allow a reasonable freedom of conscience and religion. The
Catechism discusses
this under the heading of the first commandment (particularly
#2104-2109), and Pope Leo XIII addresses the need for a degree of
toleration within due limits in
Libertas
#33 and #34.
However,
freedom of religion and conscience is not to be granted without
limits or in a fashion contrary to the moral law of God. As
the
Catechism says (#2109—footnotes removed), “The right to
religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only
by a 'public order' conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.
The 'due limits' which are inherent in it must be determined for each
social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements
of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance
with 'legal principles which are in conformity with the objective
moral order.'” Although evils must sometimes be tolerated, the
state, like the individual, must never “do evil that good may come”
(Romans 3:8).
Particularly,
tolerance of evils cannot extend to tolerance for the violation of
fundamental human rights and values that give to the social order the
foundation for its very existence, including the value of human life.
In order to pursue their duty to seek the truth in this life (which
is what liberty of conscience is all about), individuals obviously
must be alive. Thus, appeals to liberty of conscience cannot
adequately warrant legal acceptance or toleration of PAS
(physician-assisted suicide). Pope John Paul II addressed this point
in
his
1995 encyclical Evangelium
Vitae (footnotes removed):
Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in
scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can
the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms
concerning things which are outside its competence", which is
that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition
and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace
and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee
an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead
a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way"
(1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that
all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights
which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law
must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is
the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While
public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something
which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, it can never
presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the
majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons
caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to
life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way
claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely
because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against
the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the
pretext of freedom.
In the Encyclical Pacem in Terris, John XXIII pointed out that "it
is generally accepted today that the common good is best safeguarded
when personal rights and duties are guaranteed. The chief concern of
civil authorities must therefore be to ensure that these rights are
recognized, respected, co-ordinated, defended and promoted, and that
each individual is enabled to perform his duties more easily. For to
safeguard the inviolable rights of the human person, and to
facilitate the performance of his duties, is the principal duty of
every public authority'. Thus any government which refused to
recognize human rights or acted in violation of them, would not only
fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding
force".
In
#68-73 of the same encyclical, Pope John Paul II considers those who
would claim that the value of protecting life is a relative value
that can be overbalanced by other concerns, such as respect for
majority opinion, or fear of the social repercussions of making
abortion or euthanasia illegal, and he concludes that such thinking
is too relativistic and does not adequately preserve the absolute and
foundational nature of the right to and value of life. Since life is
obviously fundamental to the social order, the devaluing of it or the
overturning of its rights cannot be tolerated. John Paul II again,
from the same encyclical (#72):
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching
concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and
source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right
belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize
the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or
euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life
proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone
before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in
euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person
involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and
authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of
suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute
respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In
this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and
opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in
relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion
and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good
of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are
completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the
right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the
person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts
with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a
civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact
to be a true, morally binding civil law.
Conclusion
As
the above is quite clear, I think, there is really nothing more of
substance that needs to be added. I will therefore close with a
summary statement of the entire subject in the form of a quotation
from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a Vatican
committee designed to help the papacy and the whole Church wade
through various doctrinal and ethical matters) in their
(papally-approved)
Declaration
on Euthanasia:
It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can
in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a
fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one
suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying.
Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing,
either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his
or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or
implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit
such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine
law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime
against life, and an attack on humanity.
ROBERT MERRYWEATHER'S
ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS
My
answer to both questions is yes. I do think that euthanasia, of the
sort illustrated in the case of Brittany Maynard, can be an ethical
option for some, and I also believe that death with dignity
(doctor-assisted death such as the sort practiced in Oregon) should
be legal. My main reason for thinking the way I do on these points
is my conviction that our lives are ultimately our own to use as we
see fit, and that death with dignity, in some rare cases, is the best
option available to finish out one's life in the best way possible.
Foundations
My
views on euthanasia are, of course, rooted in my broader worldview
assumptions. I am an Agnostic Naturalist. I believe that, at this
time, we humans do not possess knowledge of anything beyond the
natural, empirical world that we inhabit and experience with our
senses. I do not assert that such knowledge could never be had in
principle. I won't even assert dogmatically that absolutely
no
one at all
has such knowledge now, but I claim that if anyone
does
have such knowledge, it does not seem to be generally available to
us. So perhaps I should say that there seems to be no
publicly
verifiable knowledge
available to the human race at present of anything beyond the natural
world. Of course, unlike George, as an Agnostic I do not have
“official documents” I can refer you to to find out more about
Agnosticism. Agnosticism is a substantial view regarding what we
know and what we don't know, and it greatly affects how we view the
world we live in, but in a sense it is a much more “negative”
worldview than George's—not “negative” in the sense of “bad”
but rather in the sense that it is more an affirmation of what we
don't
know than a list of things we
do
know.
This makes it much easier to define. If you want to see more
descriptions and definitions of Agnosticism, I would recommend
the
Wikipedia article on “Agnosticism” as a good basic overview,
as well as Bertrand Russel's essay
What
is an Agnostic?
Of course, not everyone agrees with me about Agnosticism, and many
non-Agnostic holders of other worldviews have claimed that their
worldview can indeed be known to be true and have presented arguments
attempting to show this. If I wish to avoid begging the question,
then, in my claims regarding euthanasia which are rooted in my
Agnosticism—and I do!—I must do something to respond to these
arguments. George and I have written up a couple of debate documents
(found on your Syllabus tab on Canvas) in which George has presented
some of his arguments for his Catholic worldview and I have responded
to them, attempting to show that they don't really prove what he
thinks they prove and thus trying to establish an Agnostic position.
I will not repeat my arguments here, but simply refer you to those
documents.
It
may be that there is more to reality than the natural, empirical
world, but if there is, we don't know about it. No doubt there is
much about the natural, empirical world even that we don't know. But
in constructing a system of ethics and deciding how practically to
live our lives, we cannot build on what we
don't
know but only on what we
do
know. If someone suggests that we ought to follow the commands of
the Christian God
just in
case Christianity might
turn out to be true, well, what if
Islam,
or
Hinduism,
or for that matter the ancient
Aztec
or
Norse
religion turns out to be true? We will simply have dug ourselves
into a deeper hole, perhaps, by trying to be Christian. Of course,
the religions overlap to a great extent in terms of practical advice,
but then in most of the areas of overlap—such as prohibitions
against murder, theft, etc.—one can reach the same conclusions on
Naturalistic grounds as well and so one doesn't need to know anything
about the supernatural to establish such things. When we go beyond
these basic ethical principles, however, and begin to get into more
specific practical commands and prohibitions of the various
religions, we find that the religions differ greatly. Is it a sin to
eat pork? Christianity says yes, Islam and Judaism say no, etc.
Also, there are times when the historic religions of the world mostly
agree on certain particular principles, but that agreement seems to
be rooted more in custom and prejudice than rational consideration.
Euthanasia is, I think, one of those cases. Many religions have been
against it in human history, but I don't think they can show that
they have had good reasons to be against it (barring belief in the
supernatural claims of the religions). If human antiquity nearly
agrees on something, that should give us pause and make us consider
the matter carefully, but it should not determine the matter for us
if the position seems to be without or contrary to reason. After
all, there are many things—slavery, for instance, or lack of
religious freedom, or belief in magical cures for diseases—which
have been nearly unanimously thought to be OK by most human cultures
in history which we now reject as irrational and not conducive to
human thriving. Euthanasia has been objected to by many historic
religions, but that doesn't prove they had (or have) a good reason to
be against it—and
not
all have
been against it.
At
any rate, we can only work with what we have, and all we have,
Agnostics claim, is what we know of the natural, empirical world.
This includes our knowledge of the external, physical world as well
as our knowledge of our own inner thoughts, desires, etc. George's
Catholic worldview claims that there is an “objective moral law”
rooted in the will of God. We were created by God and belong to him,
and therefore there is a purpose for which we were made and to which
we have a duty to conform. But I see no basis to claim the existence
of any such “objective moral law.” What I
do
see is that we all have desires. We all want to be happy. There are
certain things that are more conducive to making us happy, other
things less conducive. Since we all want to be happy, we will want
to live in such a way as to be as happy as we can be. It is out of
this fact, I believe, that ethics arises. Ethics, in my view, is the
art of recognizing both our desires and the relevant facts of the
universe in order to find a way to live that brings about happiness
and contentment. I would argue that the sorts of motivations that
are natural to us include motives of self-interest, by which we seek
our own personal happiness and well-being, and also motivations which
embrace a concern for others—such as love, empathy, sympathy,
compassion. As beings who have evolved in a social context, we are
not only naturally concerned for ourselves, but we are also naturally
concerned for other beings around us who we can see are like us in
their capacity to experience pleasure and pain. Therefore, I would
argue that, ordinarily, the best way to live the happiest life we can
is to live in a way that balances self-interest with other-focused
motivations. We don't want to be too selfish, and on the other hand
we don't want to live as slaves to the desires of others to the point
of our own misery. I could go further on this point, but instead I
will refer you to an excellent little essay by Fred Edwords,
The
Human Basis of Laws and Ethics,
which I think has argued for these points in a very compelling way.
Here's
another good one from Ronald Lindsay.
As
social beings, we tend to live in groups and therefore require rules
by which we can all attain happiness in harmonious societies. Since
there is no moral law that transcends human desires, or at least none
that we have any knowledge of, there is no basis for one person to
have any intrinsic authority over anyone else. That is, there is no
basis for me to say to you, “Because I am me, and you are you, it
is inherently the case that you ought to do what I want you to do or
what I tell you to do.” And vice versa. I am my own boss, and you
are yours. I want my personal autonomy to be respected by others,
and I'm sure you do as well. If, then, all of us want to live
together in society, and we are properly motivated both by
self-interest and by compassion for others, we will want to create a
society that respects the autonomy of all individuals, treats all
individuals equally, etc. We will want our laws and policies to be
based on the consent of all the governed, and to be based on
principles, ideals, and beliefs that all of us can reasonably be
expected to share. We will not want to impose our own peculiar,
un-objectively-verified opinions, values, and desires on each other.
John
Locke, the great 17
th century British philosopher, was one
of the historic pioneers of the viewpoint that governmental authority
must be based on the consent of the governed—usually called the
social contract theory of
government. Here is how he describes this position in his
Second
Treatise of Civil Government,
chapter 8:
Sec. 95. MEN
being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent,
no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political
power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any
one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of
civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a
community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one
amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a
greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of
men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are
left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any
number of men have so consented to make one community or government,
they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic,
wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.
Of
course, we don't want to fall into a philosophy of “mob rule,”
where the majority has the power to tyrannize over minorities. We
want the laws and policies of society to be based on principles all
people,
both majorities and minorities, can share. Here is how the great
twentieth-century moral philosopher John Rawls put it in his book,
Political
Liberalism
(New
York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 137:
Our exercise of political power is fully proper only when it is
exercised in accordance with a constitution the essentials of which
all citizens as free and equal may reasonably be expected to endorse
in the light of principles and ideals acceptable to their common
human reason.
Therefore,
we will want to avoid restricting the behavior of others except
insofar as it is necessary to achieve the basic goals for society
that we all share—such as the preservation of our lives from being
taken away by others, preservation of personal property, and other
such basic liberties and rights. This is the basis for the ideal of
freedom of religion and conscience, such as is expressed in the First
Amendment--”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”--and
in the
Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18--”Everyone has
the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right
includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to
manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and
observance.” It is inappropriate for a person to impose his/her
religious values on other people through public laws and policies,
for this would be to impose on other people without their consent,
thus violating the very foundation of the social contract theory of
government. Laws and policies should be based only on public
reasons, not private ones—that is, reasons that are accessible to
all through common human reason, not reasons that are believed only
by a few because they are not fully objectively verifiable.
Religious beliefs cannot be fully objectively verified, and therefore
they fall into the private and not the public realm in this sense.
They should not be made the basis of public laws and policies. The
behavior of citizens thus should not be restricted on the basis of
only private reasons, such as religious reasons. Leif Wenar shows
how this would apply, for example, in the case of same-sex marriage:
To take
a straightforward example: a Supreme Court justice deciding on a gay
marriage law would violate public reason were she to base her opinion
on God's forbidding gay sex in the book of Leviticus, or on a
presentiment that upholding such a law would hasten the end of days.
Not all members of society can reasonably be expected to accept
Leviticus as stating an authoritative set of political values, nor
can a religious premonition be a common standard for evaluating
public policy. These values and standards are not public. (
Leif
Wenar, "John Rawls", The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Fall 2008 Edition],
Edward N. Zalta [ed.], URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/rawls/>)
Euthanasia
Can Be Ethical
On this foundation, I can begin to put forward my reasons for my
position on euthanasia. Here is my basic reasoning: In the vast
majority of cases, it is better to live than to die. We all
naturally value our own lives and wish to preserve them. Therefore,
suicide is ordinarily a very irrational act. This is why we work so
hard to prevent people from committing suicide, and why we regard it
in such a negative way. This is all very appropriate. Obviously,
our ability as individuals and societies to survive and thrive would
be greatly imperilled if we ceased to care greatly about our own
lives. However, in some rare cases, it seems that a person making a
careful, rational, objective evaluation of his/her options may
conclude that it is better to die than to live. This will be the
case when the cons of continuing to live so greatly outweigh the pros
that one would not reasonably be able to achieve a sufficient level
of happiness to make continuing to live worth it. Brittany Maynard's
case seems to me to be just such a case. Her evaluation of her
options, so far as one can tell without being Brittany herself or at
least someone much closer to her, seems to have been carefully and
rationally conducted, and she concluded that the sufferings and
difficulties which her disease and its treatments would almost
certainly bring upon her and upon her family and friends were such
that it was truly better for her to die than to continue to live out
the rest of her limited lifespan naturally (or unnaturally, as the
case may be, with all the treatments, painkillers, etc.). I can see
nothing in any of the data of her case or situation that would
suggest that Brittany's conclusion or decision was in any way
irrational, or that she would truly have been happier continuing to
live.
It
is easy to claim, as some do, that her decision was irrational, and
that she would have found a sufficient happiness in continuing to
live. It is easy to claim
this, but much harder to prove. I think we have to ask ourselves,
Who was in the best position to evaluate Brittany's options and make
the decision? Surely the answer is, Brittany herself. Part of the
concept of our “autonomy,” as I like to call it, is that we are
the masters of our own lives. We don't like it when others don't
respect that fact with regard to our own lives. When I make
decisions regarding how to live my life, make use of my resources,
etc., I don't want to be constantly judged by others on the basis of
their own desires, speculations about what is really
going on in my life and inside my head, hypothetical scenarios that
aren't based on any actual facts, etc. I want people to respect me
and my decisions, to give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that
I am a rational person capable of making rational choices regarding
my own life unless there is some clear evidence to the contrary. In
many cases of suicide, there is
a strong degree of evidence to the contrary. If Larry says he wants
to kill himself because his girlfriend broke up with him that
afternoon and he is convinced that there is nothing more to live for,
and he is obviously not considering the fact that these things are
ordinarily gotten over, the good prospects of the future, etc., those
who are in contact with Larry surely have a basis for considering
that Larry is probably not evaluating his options very rationally.
At the very least, they have a basis to restrain Larry until it is
more clear that he is acting with his full rational capacity. We all
want to be protected, not just from others, but even from ourselves
in certain circumstances—insanity, debilitating medical depression
or other mental disorders, etc. But Brittany's case seems obviously
far different from Larry's. In a case like hers, where we cannot
show some obvious irrationality, I think that proper respect for
individual autonomy requires us to respect the rationality of the
person's decision and his/her competence to make that decision.
Death
with Dignity Should Be Legal
In
a case like Brittany's where our reasonable attitude ought to be
respect for the rationality of her own choice as to what to do with
her own life, I think this respect extends to allowing a person the
right to make use of the medical profession in carrying out his/her
death if that is what he/she has chosen to do. The medical
profession, like all human institutions, exists to help us live
happier lives. Ordinarily, this involves trying to preserve our
lives, but, as we saw above, not necessarily always. The medical
profession can help a person in a case like Brittany's to die on
his/her own terms in a way that is cleaner, perhaps less painful,
more orderly, and in a way that can avoid the legal impediments and
social stigma that (usually rightly) ordinarily attend acts of
suicide.
Some would argue that doctors ought not to be allowed to aid in
euthanasia, since doctors are supposed to preserve lives. Would this
assisting in death, then, be contrary to their essential function?
But this is too mechanical a way to view the medical profession. As
I said above, the purpose of any human institution is to help us live
happier lives. Of course, ordinarily doctors are in the business of
preserving lives, but in those rare cases where continuing to live
would truly bring more suffering than good, why should they not be
allowed to provide aid by contributing their resources to helping
someone end his/her life in a way more conducive to his/her
happiness? I can think of no good reason.
Some
people fear that allowing legalized death with dignity would
inevitably lead to abuses. But I find that those who make such a
claim rarely put forward specific arguments proving it in any
specific way. The concern tends to be articulated merely as a vague,
ominous fear, and upon investigation no rational, quantified
foundation can be found for it. Oregon, and other places that allow
death with dignity, place restrictions and requirements upon it to
prevent abuses. If these are found to be unsatisfactory in some
ways, others can be suggested. There are always some
risks to any
human institution, and abuses can never be wholly
prevented. But we do not ordinarily ban very useful institutions for
this reason alone. (If we did, we would have to ban all civil
government, the medical profession in general, parenthood, etc.,
etc., etc.) Some of the requirements already in place in Oregon and
elsewhere include things like a requirement that a person cannot have
a diagnosable mental illness or depression, a requirement that a
person must go through a waiting period before being able to receive
aid to die, that a person must get more than one medical opinion and
make the request more than once, that the doctor cannot administer
the lethal drug himself, that the whole thing must be carefully
documented, etc. I see no reason why, if careful regulations of this
sort are in place, we need fear abuses to such an extent that we must
ban medical aid in such an important area entirely.
Some people suggest that if we allow death with dignity, we will
eventually be allowing doctors to kill patients at their own whims
and without patient consent. But an institution based on respect for
personal individual autonomy cannot logically lead to an institution
based on complete disregard for individual autonomy. Sure, humans
can twist anything, but if B is in truth the opposite of A it is hard
to blame B on A!
Conclusion
To summarize my above arguments: Although it would clearly be
irrational for most people to end their own lives, there are some
people in rare cases in which, so far as I can see, it would not be
irrational to do so, because the sufferings involved in continuing to
live so much outweigh the pros of continuing to live. When a person
in such a condition makes the decision to die and shows no clear
signs of irrationality, respect for individual autonomy requires us
to respect the person's decision and refrain from sitting in judgment
over it by declaring it unethical (that is, irrational, not truly
leading to happiness). Since the medical profession can provide
significant aid to those who are in such a condition and have made
such a decision, and there is no good reason not to, it makes sense
to allow the resources of the medical community to be available to
them, and so “death with dignity” should be legal, so long as
proper regulations and safeguards are in place.
ADDENDUM 3/30/24: Since the above was written, I've updated George Stewart's response a bit. Here is my current version:
GEORGE STEWART'S ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS
My answer to both questions is no. My fundamental reason for this answer is that the sort of euthanasia illustrated in Brittany Maynard's case is contrary to the objective moral law of God.
Foundations
I am a Catholic, and so I hold to the Catholic worldview. The Catholic worldview is described in great detail in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in a more condensed form in the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is summarized in the Nicene Creed. The Wikipedia article on the Catholic Church is also helpful. We believe that there are two fundamental sources of knowledge-- reason (which refers to what God has made known to us by means of our senses and reasoning ability) and revelation (which refers to what God has made known through special messages and messengers, culminating in Jesus Christ and the revelation he has entrusted to his Church). The Catholic Church, being the church founded by Jesus Christ, has been entrusted with God's revelation and is the authoritative interpreter of it. This revelation has been preserved and expounded by the Church in two forms—in Scripture (the revelation of God written and infallible) and in Tradition (the revelation of God handed down infallibly through preaching and practice, with the interpretation of that revelation the Church is led into through the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit). Two documents of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum (especially Chapter II) and Lumen Gentium (especially #25) describe this in greater detail.
Since my answer to the questions is rooted in the assumption of the truth of the Catholic worldview, it is my responsibility, to avoid begging the question, to make a case for the truth of that worldview. I will not attempt to do so here, however, as I have already done this in the debate document Robert and I have written up and which you can find on Google Classroom, and also in the Protestant-Catholic debate document I wrote up with Norman McTavish. I will simply refer you to those documents.
God, being the Supreme Being and the Author of all creation, is the ultimate moral authority of the universe. Since God defines reality, his viewpoint is identical to objective reality. For me, who am not the Author of reality, a distinction can be drawn between my subjective viewpoint and objective reality. That is why I am capable of being wrong. To be wrong is to have one’s subjective view come into conflict with objective reality (and when that happens, reality always wins, of course!) But for God, there is no distinction between his subjective viewpoint and objective reality, because his subjective viewpoint defines reality itself–it simply is reality. So God cannot be wrong, not only because he is omniscient (he knows everything), but because there can be no conflict between his subjective viewpoint and objective reality, these being the same thing. (To use an analogy, think of an author and a novel. If I am a character in the novel, my subjective view could be out of accord with the objective reality of the novel, because there is a distinction between these two things. But the author cannot be wrong, because the author’s viewpoint defines the reality of the novel, since the novel flows from that viewpoint.)
This has huge implications for morality. If I see something as good, or bad, or as valuable, that is only my subjective opinion; it may or may not correspond to objective reality. But if God sees something as good, or as bad, or as valuable, then that thing truly is, objectively, good, or bad, or valuable. It is good, or bad, or valuable, not only to the subjective desires of individual creatures in the universe, but it has an absolute goodness, or badness, or value to Ultimate Reality itself. Therefore, if we view something as worthless which God sees as valuable, or if we view something as bad which God sees as good, or vice versa, our subjective opinion is objectively incorrect. And it is also displeasing to God, for when a being loves something, he hates to see others hating it, or vice versa. When a being values something, he hates to see it treated as valueless by others. This is because such an erroneous attitude is not fitting to the reality and doesn’t do it justice. We hate to see contempt shown for that which is good or love shown for that which is evil. By its very own nature, goodness is connected to happiness, and evil to unhappiness. God is the Supreme Good, and so to experience him is to experience the fullness of happiness; to lose him is to lose happiness. Therefore both the natural and the just consequence of turning away from the good, from God, is misery, while the natural and just consequence of loving goodness, loving God, is happiness. It is natural, and it is also God’s will, that justice be done–that goodness and evil receive the rewards that are fitting to them. Therefore we can be sure that what is good and right according to God’s viewpoint, which is the objective moral law of all reality, is indeed objectively good and right and also leads to happiness (at least ultimately, if not always in the short term), and that what is evil and wrong according to God’s viewpoint is indeed objectively evil and wrong and will lead ultimately to misery.
The objective moral law of God is known to us both through reason and through revelation, as the Catechism discusses further here.
Human laws derive their legitimacy from God's moral law. These include all the laws and rules by which we govern ourselves as individuals, as well as those by which we govern each other within human societies. God has created human beings and the universe in such a way that human nature naturally calls for certain forms of organization among human individuals with certain authority structures that go along with them--such as organizations of family and civil society (the state). Since God is the author of the human nature that gives rise to these institutions, these institutions are ordained by God and therefore have his authority behind them. Thus, in St. Paul's language (Romans 13:1-7), the "powers that be" are ordained of God and are thus ministers of God whom we are commanded by God's moral law to obey. Since these institutions are "ministers of God," they do not have unlimited authority. They only have authority when they are legitimately fulfilling their essential functions in a manner consistent with the objective moral law of God. Essential human governments, then, are a sort of limited microcosm of God's government of the cosmos. Just as God seeks to promote the good and condemn the evil in his government of the world, so human governments ought to rule according to God's moral law, promoting what is good and hindering or opposing that which is evil in order to further the common good and the glory of God. For more, see the Catechism's discussion of civil authority.
Euthanasia is Immoral
From these fundamentals, I can provide the foundation on which my answer to the questions is based. Euthanasia, particularly the kind illustrated in the case of Brittany Maynard, is unethical because it is contrary to the moral law of God. This is discussed under the heading of the fifth of the Ten Commandments in the Catechism. Our lives belong ultimately to God, and we are to use them in his service and not as if we were the ultimate masters of them. Human lives are valuable to God, and he commands us to respect and value them and to treat them accordingly. The intentional taking of a human life is therefore forbidden. There are times, such as when one's own life or the life of someone one is bound to protect is threatened by an aggressor, when necessary and just acts required to protect life unavoidably involve the unintended side effect of ending the life of another, but this is not an exception to but an illustration of the value with which we are to value life.
The prohibition on taking human life applies to our own lives as well as to the lives of others—because the same reasons apply in both cases. Although a Naturalist may argue that our lives belong to ourselves so that we may do with them whatever we please, yet the Catholic cannot view things in this way. The Catechism summarizes the Catholic position thus:
2280 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.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
In a case like that of Brittany Maynard, the desire to end one's life, or to assist another in ending his/her life, is very understandable. The grave suffering and difficulties Brittany and her family would have had to have undergone if she had not ended her own life should not be underestimated. We should assume the best of her motivations and have great sympathy for her situation and her decision. Nevertheless, even in such a case of great suffering, suicide is not permitted. Whatever her level of subjective culpability for her act (about which I form no judgment), Brittany’s act was objectively wrong. As the Catechism says (#2277), “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.” We must remember that God is the supreme creator, the ultimate moral authority of the universe, and infinitely wise and benevolent. All the commands of his moral law, therefore, are, by definition, absolutely perfect and good and best, tending in the best manner to his glory and our welfare. Violation of God's will is intrinsically immoral. To rebel against God is to incur infinite loss and misery, while to follow him brings, in the end, the full satisfaction of perfect happiness. Although our earthly sufferings seem and indeed are in themselves very great, yet they are nothing when placed in the scale against the infinite blessedness of the glory of God which those who follow God are invited to share in for all eternity. As St. Paul put it (2 Corinthians 4:17--KJV), “our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” By calling our earthly sufferings “light,” Paul is not minimizing those sufferings; rather, he is exalting tremendously the blessedness of sharing in God's own infinitely blessed life.
As I said, I do not judge Brittany Maynard’s internal moral state or motivations. Going along with this, I do not presume to judge the condition of her relationship with God, the state of her heart, her eternal destiny, or any such thing. My claim is simply that her action, considered objectively, was contrary to what is required by the moral law of God, and thus was objectively unethical, and similar actions are likewise unethical.
Physician-assisted Suicide Should Not Be Recognized or Authorized Legally as a Human Right
As I mentioned earlier, the legitimacy of human laws, including civil laws, are rooted in the moral law of God. Consequently, as the Catechism puts it (#1923), “[p]olitical authority must be exercised within the limits of the moral order.” Human governments have no authority to legitimize or approve of what God has condemned and forbidden, and vice versa. If the state were to grant its citizens a right to engage medical aid in acts of suicide, it would be evaluating the value of human life in a way contrary to God's moral law. It would fail to protect life as God requires it to do.
Some might argue that it is illicit to base civil laws on God's moral law, for there should be a “separation between church and state.” This phrase tends to be highly ambiguous. If it means that the state should adopt, in effect, an Agnostic outlook and base its laws on this, it is contrary to Catholic doctrine which teaches that human societies, no less than human individuals, owe allegiance to God and to his moral law. Nor is worldview-neutrality possible in civil law (or anywhere else), for civil law is applied social ethics, and ethics is applied worldviews.
The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #463, puts it this way:
Authority should always be exercised as a service, respecting fundamental human rights, a just hierarchy of values, laws, distributive justice, and the principle of subsidiarity. All those who exercise authority should seek the interests of the community before their own interest and allow their decisions to be inspired by the truth about God, about man and about the world (emphasis added).
Pope Leo XIII addressed this issue in great detail in his 1888 encyclical Libertas (see especially #15, #18, #20, and #21):
18. There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. . . .
21. This kind of liberty, if considered in relation to the State, clearly implies that there is no reason why the State should offer any homage to God, or should desire any public recognition of Him; that no one form of worship is to be preferred to another, but that all stand on an equal footing, no account being taken of the religion of the people, even if they profess the Catholic faith. But, to justify this, it must needs be taken as true that the State has no duties toward God, or that such duties, if they exist, can be abandoned with impunity, both of which assertions are manifestly false. For it cannot be doubted but that, by the will of God, men are united in civil society; whether its component parts be considered; or its form, which implies authority; or the object of its existence; or the abundance of the vast services which it renders to man. God it is who has made man for society, and has placed him in the company of others like himself, so that what was wanting to his nature, and beyond his attainment if left to his own resources, he might obtain by association with others. Wherefore, civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness-namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2104-2105) makes the same point:
The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ." By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live." The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church. Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies. (CCC #2105, footnotes removed)
It is true that the state must sometimes tolerate some evils in order to avoid bringing on even more evils. In particular, the Catholic worldview acknowledges that, at all times, and especially in our current pluralistic age, room must be made for the individual consciences of men and women in order to avoid as much as reasonably possible coercing people to go against their consciences or causing them to lack sufficient civil freedom to properly form their consciences through the seeking of truth. In order to safeguard individual consciences, then, and the ability of all to pursue their duty to seek and follow the truth, the state must allow a reasonable freedom of conscience and religion. The Catechism discusses this under the heading of the first commandment (particularly #2106-2109), and Pope Leo XIII addresses the need for a degree of toleration within due limits in Libertas #33 and #34. Here is the Catechism on this, #2106:
"Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits." This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it "continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it." (Footnotes removed)
However, freedom of religion and conscience is not to be granted without limits or in a fashion contrary to the moral law of God, as the Catechism goes on to make clear:
The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities. This natural right ought to be acknowledged in the juridical order of society in such a way that it constitutes a civil right. (#2108, footnotes removed)
The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a "public order" conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner. The "due limits" which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order." (#2109, footnotes removed)
Evils must sometimes be tolerated, when restraining the evil would bring about even worse evils, but the state, like the individual, must never “do evil that good may come” (Romans 3:8). The state cannot recognize a right to PAS (physician-assisted suicide) because no one has a right to such a thing. There can be no such thing as a right to do that which is wrong, nor can the state abandon its core function of recognizing and protecting real human rights (such as the right to life).
Pope St. John Paul II addressed this point in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae:
Certainly the purpose of civil law is different and more limited in scope than that of the moral law. But "in no sphere of life can the civil law take the place of conscience or dictate norms concerning things which are outside its competence", which is that of ensuring the common good of people through the recognition and defence of their fundamental rights, and the promotion of peace and of public morality. The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom. (#71, footnotes removed)
The doctrine on the necessary conformity of civil law with the moral law is in continuity with the whole tradition of the Church. This is clear once more from John XXIII's Encyclical: "Authority is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God. Consequently, laws and decrees enacted in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience...; indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse". This is the clear teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, who writes that "human law is law inasmuch as it is in conformity with right reason and thus derives from the eternal law. But when a law is contrary to reason, it is called an unjust law; but in this case it ceases to be a law and becomes instead an act of violence". And again: "Every law made by man can be called a law insofar as it derives from the natural law. But if it is somehow opposed to the natural law, then it is not really a law but rather a corruption of the law".
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. It might be objected that such is not the case in euthanasia, when it is requested with full awareness by the person involved. But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law. (#72, footnotes removed)
Conclusion
As the above is quite clear, I think, there is really nothing more of substance that needs to be added. I will therefore close with a summary statement of the entire subject in the form of a quotation from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (a Vatican committee designed to help the papacy and the whole Church wade through various doctrinal and ethical matters) in their (papally-approved) Declaration on Euthanasia:
It is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment