March 2005

Isn't Euthanasia Really Merciful?

All of us have seen personally, or at least seen in the movies, an occasion of a suffering animal that is put out of its misery. An injured animal lay helpless, suffering, with a terrified look in its eyes--and some caring human being comes along and shoots it so it won't continue to suffer. This is considered merciful. So why can't we apply the same premise to humans that are suffering? How do we differentiate what is "merciful" and what is "murder"? Where do we draw the lines, or should we even make a distinction at all--after all, human beings are part of the "fauna" of the earth?

We live in an age of Modernism right now, that basically encourages us all to make our own decisions about the rules and morals of life. It is actually more acceptable to the masses to practice this than to submit to the Magesterium of any Church, leaving the moral and ethical and spiritual decisions to another more qualified Church leader. I live in the "Bible Belt" of the United States, and Roman Catholics only comprise about 4-5% of the population of my entire state. The overwhelming majority of residents here are fundamentalists who do not understand why I let my Pope dictate morals to me, especially in matters of which they claim he has no "real knowledge or experience with," such as abortion, marriage and divorce, raising children, etc. They state that because Pope John Paul II is a priest who has never married, he has no life experiences to help him make moral decisions on any matter that involves family life or married life. Certainly, he has no right to say a word about sexuality! As if experience is our only true guidance in such matters!

Along these same lines of Modernist thinking, it appears that every subject, every law, every commandment, every situation, has become so individual and unique to each of us that there are only "gray" areas in right and wrong, and no more "black and white" areas. Everything is subjective to your own personal opinion about it. And as long as you feel good about what you decide, then you must be right. After all, it is good psychological health to cope well with matters that make us uncomfortable. In other words, as long as you can reason it out, find excuses, justify actions, and not have guilt over actions or inactions, then you are applauded. And if you have not "walked a mile in their shoes" you can't pass judgment on their decisions.... If you have no life experience with a matter, then you have no right to input on such matters.

What?!!??! Where did all this thinking come from? Who has set us up as individuals to determine God's laws and what is right or wrong? Didn't they try this in the Old Testament? Didn't Moses have to get the Commandments written down by God Himself in black and white so His chosen people could not deny them? And aren't we doing the same things now as the Israelites in the desert did centuries ago? Aren't we all just doing our own thing, as long as it doesn't bother our consciences? I believe we do this more than we will admit to ourselves. There are Catholics out there who attend Mass regularly, receiving Holy Communion, that will swear that abortion is wrong, EXCEPT in cases of..... Except? Why is there an exception? In God's Eyes, there are no exceptions! Usually these exceptions arise out of some misconstrued idea that it is more merciful somehow to kill an innocent baby if it is a result of incest or rape, or whatever. It can be logicked away, debated, and determined that somehow that poor innocent is better off not being born. But in actuality, it is better for those already born to not have to go through this birth! It's better for the mother not to have to face childbirth because the baby will be a constant reminder of her rape, or the mother won't have to bear the pain of giving her child to another in adoption--she won't feel the pain of separation or the pain of wondering if her child is being taken care of properly and not abused. See? It's all for the benefit of those who are already alive. It's for their convenience that these innocent lives are terminated.

The same logic is applied to so called "mercy killings." We naturally, as caring human beings, hate to see another person we love in pain or suffering. We naturally want to alleviate their agony in any way we can. Thank God He gave us this compassion for one another! It is part of what sets us apart from the beasts of the earth. We were given a spirit/soul created in His Image and Likeness, as no other creature has been given. It is this very part of us that cries out for mercy, forgiveness, love, kindness, and justice. Where we go wrong is when we determine what is merciful, kind, or just. We've set ourselves up as judges of all good and evil in this Modernist time. This is a direct violation of the Word of God! God alone sits in judgment upon us, and we are warned to "judge not, lest ye be judged." Being a judge means more than making opinions of others that are bigotted or biased or prejudiced. It also means making decisions that are not ours to make. And that includes decisions about ourselves as well as others, and decisions about what is lawful, should be lawful, and exceptions to the law that are acceptable.

When we have loved ones who are ill or suffering, we are naturally uncomfortable and feel inadequate in helping them get better or suffer less. We want to take some sort of action. We easily forget that nothing happens on this earth, whether good or evil, without God allowing it to happen. We do not know the Mind of God, nor can we always understand His reasons for allowing such pain. We also forget that we do not have to know or understand.... What happens between good and evil is God's business. It is His to judge. It is His to allow or not. It should be enough for us to know that everything that does happen has God's reasoning behind it. His reasoning and Divine Will are perfect. He cannot err in any matter.

Having said all that, now I want to remind you of the value of suffering. It has redemptive properties if we would only see it from this angle. How do we know when we see a person in a coma, living on life support, what purpose this fulfills? We do not even know if the comatose person is in actuality suffering or in pain. All we see is a lack of communication and response from them. We make assumptions about the quality of their lives. And what about those persons we love who are not comatose, but constantly cry out in pain because of their injuries or illnesses? We know they are suffering. They know they are suffering. And God also knows they are suffering. And once again, we make assumptions about the quality of their lives.

We know from the Passion of Christ--His agony in the garden, the scourging, the crowning of thorns, the carrying of the cross all the way to His execution site, and His humiliating crucifixion--that suffering is redemptive and purposeful. He Himself even cried out to God in agony, but in the end, succumbed to His Father's Divine Will, in spite of the fact that His Suffering would continue and get worse as the day drew on. Jesus is the perfect example of selfless suffering for the Divine Cause.

We've read many instances in the Bible where Jesus cured the sick, healed the disabled, and raised the dead back to life. What we do not read so much is those instances where He did not do these things because it pleased the Father that the individuals suffer. Yet, I believe these occasions did occur as well. The Bible also does not teach us that the sufferings of Jesus were the only redemptive and purposeful sufferings ever endured. His Passion, Death and Resurrection were, of course, redemptive in a different way than our sufferings are. Jesus is our Lord, Saviour, and Redeemer, opening the doors to heaven for all of humanity. Our collective sufferings could not accomplish such a feat. It took the Son of God to do this. But, our sufferings can atone for sin--our own sins and those of the world. Our pain and agony can be offered to God for His determination of where they would do the most good--salvation of souls, reparation for sin, conversion of hearts, unity of all Christians, poor souls in Purgatory, etc. I believe that especially in this day and age of rampant evil, God needs even more victim souls to suffer to offset the evil and injustice in the world at large.

What exactly does the Fifth Commandment say about this? It states simply : Thou shalt not kill. There weren't any exclusions, addendums, or exceptions listed below it. Therefore, it has come down through the centuries as it was, with holy men of God upholding it in its simplicity, and giving absolution in the confessional when the commandment was broken. The holy men of centuries past have left the Roman Catholic Church a great legacy in upholding the Commandments of God, and that legacy is still passed on to us during this time of Modernist "freethinkers."

Pope John Paul II has confirmed that the quality of life is not interpreted as economic success, beauty and physical pleasure, but consists in the supreme dignity of the creature made in the image and likeness of God. "No one can be the arbiter of life except God Himself."

The Catholic Medical Association has issued a News Release that includes the following:

In March 2004, Pope John Paul II addressed an international congress of health care professionals convened in Rome to discuss the scientific advances and ethical dilemmas in the vegetative state. In the statement by the Vicar of Christ, “Life Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State,” he declares clearly and unequivocally that “the sick person in a vegetative state still has the right to basic health care…the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act…Its use furthermore, should be considered in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory…Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal. In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission.”

There's currently a hot debate before the Florida Court System on whether or not to remove feeding tubes from a young woman named Theresa "Terri" Schindler-Schiavo. Some time ago, Terri sustained a head injury that has changed her life. She is no longer able to do many things on her own, and her husband is claiming she is now comatose and in a vegetative state. Her parents and siblings are not allowed to see Terri without her husband's permission, but they do not believe that she is this severe. They maintain that she has periods of alertness and responsiveness despite what her husband claims. Her only life support is for nutrition--feeding tubes, and these are what her husband wants to remove from her over the objections of her parents. And just recently, her husband's request was granted. Terri is now starving to death.

The above papal statement makes it absolutely clear that the withdrawal of food and water from Terri constitutes euthanasia, a gravely immoral act in the eyes of God and the Church.  It represents an express violation of her constitutionally protected right to life and a violation of her religious freedom as a Catholic.

Terri's circumstances are not unique. This type of life support is common throughout the nation and the world in hospitals, hospice, and nursing homes. Starvation and dehydration falls into the category of cruelty, as the death that results from this is extremely painful to endure. Every individual has a right to sustenance. It is not a special treatment, but a requirement of life. To deny sustenance to any healthy individual would be to starve them as well, and would also result in death. So, feeding an individual that cannot obtain food on his/her own is not an act considered above and beyond normal medical treatment. Infants cannot scavenge their own food, nor prepare it. Yet we do not deny them sustenance. And if we did, it would result in the death of the infant and criminal charges filed against the parents for neglect and abuse. Our laws and consciences should not, therefore, make exceptions to allow withholding food from the infirm, elderly, or disabled for any reason.

Other situations that require more life support than just feeding tubes have other issues to consider. Breathing machines, for example, are life support systems that go beyond just nutrition. They actually make the lungs work when they would have given out on their own. The Church sees each circumstance in healthcare differently, depending on the type of medical technology being used in treatment and whether or not the infirmed would die without it.

Living Wills are also becoming more common and almost expected for the infirm and aged. The Catholic Church does not prohibit such a declarative statement by an individual, but it must be written properly. It must mention that nutrition can not be withheld, for example. There are several good resources available to assist you in properly making out a Living Will in compliance with the Catholic Church's teachings. Links to some of those resources appear below. In this day and age, it might be even more important for Catholics to have final directives in case we are not coherent enough to make our own values, morals, and wishes known at the end of our lives. It would be a tragedy to leave our lives in the hands of medical professionals who may not be Catholic, or loved ones who are grieving and confused easily seeing us suffer. One thing is certain: If you have a living will compliant with the Catholic teaching, it will spell out what can and cannot happen to you when you are unable to speak for yourself. If Terri Schiavo had such a directive, she would not now be starving to death.

In conclusion: Suffering in itself is at the very least uncomfortable. As human beings, we naturally avoid pain, and where it exists, try to alleviate it as much as possible. We feel this way for ourselves as well as our loved ones, and even carry this same compassion to strangers--other children of God--when they are suffering. It makes us uncomfortable to be in pain ourselves; it makes us uncomfortable to see others in pain. Just our being "uncomfortable" with a situation in life, whether it is suffering or whatever, does not give us the right to make it stop at whatever the cost or by whatever means we can find. Jesus Christ had EVERY means of stopping His own suffering, and He chose to follow God's Will and Plan for His Life. We, too, can make the same choice for life. accepting whatever manner God wishes us to live it---how He wants us to spend our days; how He desires to utilize our sufferings; how He desires to purify our own souls or make reparation for the souls of others through us. God will take us all to our eternal reward at the hour of His choosing, and until that hour arrives, be assured that He has His reasons for allowing all situations in our lives: joyous, painful, boring, trying, tiring, and loving.

Recommended Reading:

	Advance Directives: Living Wills	Caring for Persons at the End of Life (Care of the Dying: a Catholic Perspective, Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide, Pain Management, Principled & Virtuous Care of the Dying)	Misguided Mercy: Euthanasia & Physician Assisted Suicide
		Catholic teaching on the morality of euthanasia (The Catholic University of America. Studies in sacred theology, second series)	Feeding the Dying: Religion and End-Of-Life Decisions (American University Studies Series VII, Theology and Religion)

Read Hot Topics Archives

Recommend this website to a friend!

 

Join the Mailing List Enter your name and email address below: Name: Email: Subscribe  Unsubscribe

Search My Site

01/09/2006