Pope John Paul, and also Pope Benedict, have referred to Western Culture as a “culture of death.” Fundamentally what this means is that, when confronted with human difficulties, the offered solution is increasingly, the death or non-existence of the person with the problem.
To illustrate this, I was recently talking with teenagers on the sin of abortion. One of the students said that she supported abortion because babies born to young mothers are more likely to have birth defects or diseases, and many of them will live in poverty. Thus it is best if they are aborted. I responded,
“Don’t you think that death is a strange therapy? What if you went to the doctor and he said to you, ‘You are obviously alive now, but someday, in the future you might loose a limb, or get sick, or you might loose your job and have to go on welfare, so I am going to kill you right now, here in my office.’ What do you think of this? Isn’t death a horrible and strange therapy? You would probably respond that you would like to live and take your chances.”
The young student silently reflected on the application I had made of her theoretically “compassionate” reason for abortion. I chose not to press her on it and we moved on with the discussion, but I think all in the room got the main point that death is a strange and horrifying therapy, even if it masquerades as compassion.
Yet our culture increasingly proposes death as the solution for many problems. If the infant in the womb is deformed, diagnosed with an inclination to disease, down syndrome or any poor prenatal diagnosis, the solution for many is to kill the child. Currently 90% of children in the womb who show a likelihood of Down Syndrome are aborted.
At the other end of life too, death, masquerading as compassion, is also evident. Euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide is more and more being considered a credible kind of compassion. But here too, death is a very strange and horrifying therapy. Really it is no therapy at all.
The Catholic Bishops of the United States just issued a policy statement on the question of physician assisted suicide entitled, To Live Each Day With Dignity. I want to present just a few excerpts here for our consideration.
The bishops begin by exposing the strange results of this false compassion:
The idea that assisting a suicide shows compassion and eliminates suffering is…misguided. It eliminates the person….
Pretty clear. You will know false compassion by it’s fruit: death, by the fact that it does not really eliminate suffering, it really eliminates the person. Death is not therapy. The bishops go on to say,
True compassion alleviates suffering while maintaining solidarity with those who suffer. It does not put lethal drugs in their hands and abandon them to their suicidal impulses, or to the self-serving motives of others who may want them dead. It helps vulnerable people with their problems instead of treating them as the problem. [Emphasis mine].
The false compassion of the culture of death in which we live also strips certain human beings of dignity (though it claims the opposite), since in effect it declares that their life is not worth living. Here again the Bishops say it very well:
By rescinding legal protection for the lives of one group of people, the government implicitly communicates the message….that they may be better off dead. Thus the bias of too many able-bodied people against the value of life for someone with an illness or disability is embodied in official policy. This biased judgment is fueled by the excessively high premium our culture places on productivity and autonomy, which tends to discount the lives of those who have a disability or are dependent on others. If these persons say they want to die, others may be tempted to regard this not as a call for help but as the reasonable response to what they agree is a meaningless life. Those who choose to live may then be seen as selfish or irrational, as a needless burden on others, and even be encouraged to view themselves that way.
This could not be better said. The claim of the “Right to Die” Movement that it is all about dignity is once again shown to result in precisely the opposite. For, in order to attribute this supposed dignity to some, it strips many more of the dignity they have. The poor, the disabled, the chronically and terminally ill (we are all terminal), are said, increasingly, to have lives not worth living. It would be better for them (us?) to be dead. Really, says who? Does it really bestow dignity on them for us to speak in this manner. And if some DO suffer anxiety or depression over their state, is killing them really to be considered a legitimate or credible therapy? Is this dignity?
The Bishops go on to beautifully remind us that the dying process may well be one of the most important and fruitful times in our life if we face it with faith. I have surely learned this in working with the dying. I experienced it most powerfully with my father, as he lay dying. Some very important things happened for him (and me) during those months. The dying process is often a gift in a strange package, and it is anything but meaningless. In fact, it is one of the most meaningful times of life. To short-circuit this by suicidal notions, or false compassion, is a terrible misunderstanding of the truth and grace available to the dying and those who care for them. The bishops say,
Respect for life does not demand that we attempt to prolong life by using medical treatments that are ineffective or unduly burdensome. Nor does it mean we should deprive suffering patients of needed pain medications….with the laudable purpose of simply addressing that pain (CCC, no. 2279).
[E]ffective palliative care can enhance the length as well as the quality of a person’s life. It can even alleviate the fears and problems that lead some patients to the desperation of considering suicide. Effective palliative care also allows patients to devote their attention to the unfinished business of their lives, to arrive at a sense of peace with God, with loved ones, and with themselves.
No one should dismiss this time as useless or meaningless. Learning how to face this last stage of our earthly lives is one of the most important and meaningful things each of us will do, and caregivers who help people through this process are also doing enormously important work.
Amen.
Killing by assisted suicide is no therapy at all, it is killing. It is snatching from God’s hands the authority that is rightfully His. It is making arbitrary, and often self-serving, judgements about whose life is worth living, and whose life really “matters.” This is not dignity, it is not legitimate therapy, and it is not compassion to kill the patient.
It IS compassion to love the patient, alleviate pain, assist with comfort, show patience and understanding, listen and console.
The Bishops conclude well:
Jewish and Christian moral traditions have long rejected the idea of assisting in another’s suicide. Catholic teaching views suicide as a grave offense against love of self, one that also breaks the bonds of love and solidarity with family, friends, and God (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], no. 2281). To assist another’s suicide is to take part in “an injustice which can never be excused, even if it is requested” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, no. 66). Most people, regardless of religious affiliation, know that suicide is a terrible tragedy, one that a compassionate society should work to prevent. They realize that allowing doctors to prescribe the means for their patients to kill themselves is a corruption of the healing art. It even violates the Hippocratic Oath that has guided physicians for millennia: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”
More resources are HERE
Photo Credit: Screen from the video by Romereports.com
Physician-assisted suicide.
Physician-assisted suicide was a major issue in the country 15-20 years ago, including a couple of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases that I worked on, not to mention the antics of Jack “Dr. Death” Kevorkian. 15-20 years ago. Now we get a statement from the U.S. bishops? Where was a statement then? Where was a statement when Terri Schiavo was dehydrated and starved to death??
While much of the language of this long overdue (20-plus years overdue) document is good, certain passages are ripe for being twisted by the pro-death side because that same terminology has been exploited by them for the last 20-plus years to advance their pro-death cause. And maybe in part because it has taken so long, the document has less given me hope than annoyed me.
**Respect for life does not demand that we attempt to prolong life by using medical treatments that are ineffective or unduly burdensome.**
And with that, the bishops have torpedoed all the good that went before, blowing a gaping hole through which the pro-death crowd will drive a million Mack trucks to justify withholding care. Read just about any “right to die” advocate in the last 20-plus years and they nearly all claim that all they are doing is withholding “ineffective or unduly burdensome” treatment. They even justify withholding food and water as “unduly burdensome.” And no wonder, “unduly burdensome” is as laden with utilitarianism as it is ambiguous.
Rejecting the above ambiguous language does not mean we should always provide extreme measures, but it does mean that the passage could have been better worded to say instead that certain extreme measures may be declined where they do not prolong life, but only prolong the process of dying, and in so clinging to this earthly existence, deny the existence of the eternal soul.
**Taking life in the name of compassion also invites a slippery slope toward . . .**
Argh. The totally ineffective and misguided “slippery slope” argument. By arguing that the current situation might lead to a greater evil is to leave the impression that the current situation is not all that evil in itself. If it was bad already, why warn of future dangers?
Do the Dutch bishops confront the evil at hand, or do they also bring up the slippery slope, saying, “we better stop or we might end up like Nazi Germany?”
Something does not become wrong and evil only when one is at the “end of the slope.” We don’t need to wait to become Holland or Nazi Germany, with countless numbers of people dead, before things are very, very wrong. It was wrong and evil when the very first person was denied basic human dignity. And that is what this document should have stayed focused on, and not dilute its force with a slippery slope “things could get worse” argument. Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. To say that something else could be worse is missing the point.
Enough with the slippery slope. We slid off the slope into the abyss long ago. We will never win this war by arguing an endless succession of slippery slopes, where we come to the end of one slope only to argue that we are on another.
**Nor does it mean we should deprive suffering patients of needed pain medications out of a misplaced or exaggerated fear that they might have the side effect of shortening life.**
And this language practically invites the overdosing of morphine, etc., so long as they add an “oops, we didn’t intend that” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) when the “pain meds” end up being fatal poison. To be sure, the heavy focus on paliative care nearly borders on the utilitarian in implying that pain is so great an evil, an implication that overshadows the later statement about the value of redemptive suffering.
_____________
Meanwhile, I’m all for presenting Church teaching in postive terms, in emphasizing the good, rather than merely issue condemnations. But I’m also for calling things by their proper names, like “evil” and “mortal sin,” neither of which terms appear in this document. We do the suicide-minded person no favors by saying that the Church recognizes that God is merciful and grave psychological disturbances can diminish the responsibility of people committing suicide. Better to also remind them that killing yourself is a mortal sin, and if you think your life is bad now, try killing yourself and going to hell. The prospect of hell has dissuaded more than one person from ending his miserable life on this earth. Giving them the impression that God will welcome them with open arms (on the wish that some mitigating psychological factor might be present) is only likely to encourage them to do the evil deed.
There is much good in this document. Some positive things that have needed saying. But certain parts of it make it, on the whole, fatally flawed. Maybe not as a matter of doctrine, but as a matter of tactics and apologetics. Perhaps that is the nature of a group document, too many cooks spoiling the soup with a couple of ingedients that would have been better left out. Or perhaps it has too much authorship by staff and not enough by some bishop or bishops themselves.
Of course, maybe I’m just a buzz-kill, maybe I’m just too grumpy and annoyed and cranky in my old age.
RE: “And with that, the bishops have torpedoed all the good that went before, blowing a gaping hole through which the pro-death crowd will drive a million Mack trucks to justify withholding care. Read just about any “right to die” advocate in the last 20-plus years and they nearly all claim that all they are doing is withholding “ineffective or unduly burdensome” treatment. They even justify withholding food and water as “unduly burdensome.” And no wonder, “unduly burdensome” is as laden with utilitarianism as it is ambiguous.”
The Bishops could have been more clear on the point, but, nevertheless, they are correct. Indeed, that evildoers twist the meaning of good words and are confused by cunning fools is a proof of the necessity of the Church in the world, for she is infallible in faith and morals and so we can trust her judgments about assisted suicide. Hence we must pray for evildoers to listen and heed the Church who speaks in her Bishops, just as we listen and heed God Who speaks in Christ and Christ Who speaks in the Church.
RE: “Argh. The totally ineffective and misguided “slippery slope” argument. By arguing that the current situation might lead to a greater evil is to leave the impression that the current situation is not all that evil in itself. If it was bad already, why warn of future dangers?”
The slippery slope metaphor (not to be confused with the slippery slope fallacy) is taken from the Catholic truth that evil leads to evil, even worst evil: A demon leaves the body but comes back with seven demons worst than him. Pride leads to anger and anger to murder, yet both pride and anger are evil in themselves. So we ought to avoid such evil in order to avoid greater evil, and to do this, increase our devotions to God, that neither Satan may find us idle or lazy to tempt us nor any temptation may find us without praying heats to tear us away from He Who is our Life – more Life to us than our own souls are to our own bodies.
Bravo to Bender!
Bender,
More than one time you have voiced your dismay regarding others posters comments criticizing the liturgy on this blog. I believe your dismay stemmed from a perception that these criticisms were a direct attack on the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Christ Himself in the Mass? With this in mind, I have to question if your criticism of this document by the USCCB isn’t a direct attack on the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit Himself as manifested in the Magisterium of our Church through our US Catholic Bishops?
I find your statement, “But certain parts of it make it, on the whole, fatally flawed,” deeply disturbing at best. In light of the Holy Spirit, I hope you reassess and rethink this comment. I realize this document isn’t written ex cathedra nor is it an Encyclical, however, I believe it deserves more respect and charity than you allow.
Here is a link to the past article that contains one of your comments I alluded to above regarding the liturgy:
http://blog.adw.org/2010/09/a-lover-of-the-traditonal-latin-mass-reflects-on-the-virtues-of-the-newer-vernacular-mass/
Let us offer up the suffering of the elderly, the dying, and those in comas and concussions for the salvation of souls.
This reminds me of a talk given by Sister Ann Shields of Renewal Ministries about how when we face tough decisions we limit ourselves to what the outcome might be. We play different scenarios in our minds and usually can’t see how it could end well. Where if we would trust the Lord, he is the Lord of the “third alternative” and has an infinite number of possibilities.
I struggle with the hospice approach to end-care as well. I understand and, somewhat, support the mind-set of hospice but I’m not sure that witholding fluids is a humane approach to death. I have been handed pamphlet upon pamphlet explaining to me why witholding fluids is not painful for the patient and that it actually makes the patient more comfortable. I so want to make informed, God-ly decisions for my loved ones but I don’t know how I feel about this kind of end-of-life care. Any helpful advice?