ON THE morning of September 15, Pope Benedict XVI administered the sacrament of the sick to hundreds of ill and dying worshippers in Lourdes, France. During the mass, Benedict urged the attendees, many of whom listened from wheelchairs or cots, to “accept death at God’s choosing,” a message which reaffirms the Vatican’s belief that all life should continue until its natural end.
The Pope urged those in attendence Monday to reject the temptation to choose euthanasia in the face of extreme suffering. In several European countries, physician-assisted suicide is already legal. The Pope is right to encourage the faithful to make the choices they feel are in accordance with their faith, but many Christians are understandably conflicted when it comes to addressing the moral questions that modern science poses. It is safe to say that scientific advancements have now far surpassed the guidelines outlined in religion text. That’s why voluntary euthanasia is an issue that needs to be considered objectively and scientifically.
The Pope’s speech in France highlights an interesting paradox in the Christian argument against voluntary medical euthanasia: namely, that the insistence on allowing God’s plan to unfold is undermined by the allowance of medical intervention to save lives while refusing medical intervention to end them. It is common in medicine to artificially prolong life, so the argument that speeding up the dying process is “defying God’s will” is invalid. If that is true, it is also defying His will to prolong life through the use of breathing machines, pacemakers, chemotherapy, organ transplants or even any number of common drugs like medication for heart disease.
This paradox exists because Christianity upholds the sanctity of life, but it doesn’t believe in any sanctity of death. Consider, for example the 2005 debate concerning the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube. Schiavo, who was then 41, had entered a persistent vegetative state at age 26, and had since become entirely dependent on machines to survive. Schiavo’s husband claimed that she had asked to be allowed to die if she should ever be unable to survive on her own, but Schiavo’s parents insisted that their daughter would have wanted to live. The issue became a media frenzy regarding Schiavo’s right to die versus her right to live.
While Schiavo’s case wasn’t an issue of physician-assisted suicide, the argument was the same: It would be wrong and bad to choose death deliberately when one can choose life, even a truncated and miserable life. Those opposed to removing Schiavo’s feeding tube argued that allowing her to die would be un-Christian. Life, they claimed, is an absolute value, and it is an obligation in all cases to preserve that life. Life is good, therefore death is bad. This one-size-fits-all approach ignores personal choice and unique circumstance. Isn’t it far more compassionate to allow the sick to choose just how long they’re willing to tolerate a life with little or no quality? Life is a good, but it is a limited one, and on some level we all recognize that. That’s why termination of lifesaving care, if specified on public record, is legal in America. If Terri Schiavo had made a documented statement that she wished to be taken off of life support if she should ever enter a persistent vegetative state, her wishes would have been granted without a decade-long court battle. But, ironically, if Schiavo herself had been well enough to explicitly ask to be allowed to die, her request would have been denied.
Many concerns have been raised regarding the legalization of euthanasia. For instance, would legalizing euthanasia put undue pressure on the financially unstable to end their lives rather than seek expensive medical treatment? Hopefully not, since the 2008 presidential election has essentially promised a revised healthcare system that would provide insurance and affordable medical care to all citizens within the next few years. Others are afraid that some might wish to terminate their lives because of emotional pain, but doctors can easily refuse to administer the treatment to those they feel unfit for it. Some worry that it might lead down a “slippery slope” to involuntary euthanasia of patients who wish to continue receiving lifesaving treatment. However, there is a clear moral difference between terminating the life of a consenting patient and terminating the life of a patient at the request of others without his consent or against his wishes. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing voluntary euthanasia in the interest of compassion and at the patient’s request would lead to widespread murder. The “slippery slope” has yet to materialize in countries where euthanasia is already legal, or in Oregon where the Death With Dignity Act has allowed the terminally ill to self-administer lethal doses obtained by their physicians since 1997.
Since Schiavo’s case was decided, the issue of “end of life choices” has largely fallen off the radar. And it’s a shame, because this is an issue that could affect any one of us, without warning, at any time. It could be our parents or our siblings or even ourselves who are the next to enter into a long, painful battle with a disease that slowly robs us of our independence before our inevitable death. Why should they, or we, be forced to endure an undignified end to a dignified life?
Arguments in right-to-die cases often mention a “culture of life” which protects all life at all costs. This implies a universal approach to an extremely personal matter that can only be decided by the individual. Each of us has our own unique limits for what we will and won’t bear at the end of our days. Those who agree with the Pope’s message deserve the right to die on God’s terms, but those who disagree deserve the right to die on their own terms. The law should recognize this, and allow for the choice of legal euthanasia in cases where a patient believes continuing to live would be far crueler than dying.
Oh, and just so that it’s on public record: If I’m ever in a persistent vegetative state, please remove me from life support.
Michelle Lamont is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
