Activists
Push to Loosen Laws
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, MARCH
16, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Misguided compassion for the sick continues to spur
attempts for the legalization of euthanasia. The Luxembourg Parliament recently
voted in favor of a law to permit the practice, Reuters reported Feb. 20.
Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and his Christian Social Party opposed the
bill, but were outvoted. As ZENIT reported March 7, Benedict XVI raised the
issue with the prime minister during an audience with him that day.
Before giving the final go-ahead to legalized euthanasia, Luxembourg may wish
to examine what has happened in other countries. Just a short distance
northward, in Holland, the practice of euthanasia for terminally ill adults is
now being extended to babies.
In 2005, the so-called Groningen Prot ocol was published, setting out under
what circumstances doctors could kill the newly born. Although the practice
came in for heavy criticism, an article in the January-February issue of the
bioethics journal the Hastings Report defended it.
In “Ending the Life of a Newborn: The Groningen Protocol,” Hilde Lindemann and
Marian Verkerk acknowledged that the new norms had been accused of allowing a
form of infanticide and of failing to distinguish with precision between cases
of babies who are certain to die and those who could continue to live.
Criticism was mainly from other countries, the authors claimed. Within Holland,
they argued, there is little opposition to ending the lives of the newborn, at
least in most situations. They distinguished three categories of cases: Those
who either have no chance of survival; those who after intensive treatment face
a very grim future with severe problems.
More controversial, they admit, is the cas e of a third group who are not
dependent on intensive medical treatment, and who may survive for many years,
even into adulthood. Among the examples in this category Lindemann and Verkerk
mention those with progressive paralysis, complete dependency or a permanent
inability to communicate.
“In bringing within its compass babies who are in no danger of dying -- and,
indeed, with proper care could live to adulthood -- the protocol is even more
radical than its critics supposed,” they observed.
Preemptive death
Moreover, they mentioned further on, the protocol leaves the door open for the
euthanasia of babies whose suffering will take place only in the future, and
who in the current status are not in great pain.
Is it permissible for a doctor to engage in, “lethal preemptive strikes before
any actual suffering has occurred,” ask Lindemann and Verkerk? The disturbing
answer is: “We can see no reason why, in at l east some cases, the more
responsible course of action might not be to end an infant’s life in advance of
intense, unrelievable suffering it will otherwise surely have to endure.”
Experience in North America, where the state of Oregon approved assisted
suicide in 1994, also gives cause for concern. Rita Marker, executive director
of the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, analyzed
the situation in an article published last Dec. 18 by the Web site
InsideCatholic.com.
Proponents of assisted suicide argue that there have not been any abuses on the
law in Oregon, noted Marker. Nevertheless, she explained, this claim cannot be
proved. In fact, all the information in official reports on each case is
provided by the very same people who carry it out.
There are, in addition, no legal penalties for doctors who simply do not report
cases where they have participated in assisted suicide.
As well,
once the individual reports are submitted to state authorities and compiled in
an annual report, the original records are destroyed. There is, therefore, no
possibility to examine the documentation if at some subsequent point doubts are
raised.
Marker also criticized the provision in Oregon’s law that permits a doctor to
help a mentally ill or depressed patient commit suicide. This is troubling, she
observed, considering that, according to the last official state report,
doctors referred only 4% percent of assisted-suicide patients for psychological
or psychiatric evaluation.
Bending laws
Even without explicit legalization in a number of cases the legal system looks
with increasing leniency on people involved in assisted suicide. In Canada the
National Parole Board decided to release Robert Latimer, convicted in 1993 of
killing his daughter Tracy, who suffered from cerebral palsy, reported the
National Post newspaper Feb. 28.
Latimer had argued it was a “mercy killing,” but was convicted of murder. His
prison sentence started in 2001. Late last year his parole was declined, given
he refused to admit he had done anything wrong. Authorities, however, soon
reversed their decision.
Meanwhile in England, Robert Cook admitted the manslaughter of his wife
Vanessa, but was given a suspended sentence, reported the BBC on Feb. 1. Cook
had helped his wife, who had multiple sclerosis, commit suicide. The Lewes
Crown Court sentenced Cook to 12 months in jail, suspended for two years.
“The law of murder, against killing someone, is a vital one for the protection
of the most vulnerable in society,” commented But Andrea Williams, of the
organization Care Not Killing, to the BBC.
Pro-euthanasia groups, however, used the occasion to renew their appeal in
favor of legal changes to allow assisted suicide. Not a good idea, argued Mick
Hume, opinion columnist for the Times newspaper Feb. 5 .
Hume noted the tendency for tribunals to look with leniency on those how help
the ill commit suicide. This tendency can lead to tragic cases, he warned. He
cited the case of Jennifer Allwood, who thought it would be merciful to smother
her 67-year-old father who had cancer.
Her father wanted nothing of it, and was able to fight back and survive. In
spite of this Hume observed that last December a court only imposed a suspended
sentence on Jennifer Allwood.
Value of life
Benedict XVI has spoken out clearly on the need to respect the value of human
life in the face of attempts to legalize euthanasia. “If it is true that human
life in every phase is worthy of the maximum respect, in some sense it is even
more so when it is marked by age and sickness,” he told participants in an
international congress organized by the Pontifical Council for Health Care
Ministry last Nov. 17.
“Today's efficiency mentality often tends to marginalize our suffering brothers
and sisters, as if they were only a ‘weight’ and ‘a problem’ for society,” the
Pope commented.
We should indeed do all we can to alleviate the pain caused by illness, he
urged, but at the same time we also need to demonstrate our capacity to love
and our sense of human dignity.
The Pontiff also encouraged his listeners to learn from the example of Christ
on the cross and to use his love for us to sustain ourselves in times of trial.
Last month the Pontifical Academy for Life held its annual congress precisely
on the theme of the incurably sick. In his Feb. 25 address to participants the
Pope called for appropriate medical treatment for the sick, and also for
support of the families involved who often bear a great burden.
Growing numbers of elderly people are threatened by a combination of financial
pressures and a utilitarian vision of the person, the Pope warned. He called on
Church institutions and parishes to create an environment of solidarity and
charity for those close to death and at the same time reaffirmed the Church’s
long-held teaching on the immorality of direct euthanasia.
The Pontiff also cited a passage from his recent encyclical "Spes
Salvi": “A society unable to accept its suffering members and incapable of
helping to share their suffering and to bear it inwardly through ‘com-passion’
is a cruel and inhuman society” (No. 38). A cruelty that will extend its reach
if pro-euthanasia groups are successful.