Three Principles for Opposing Euthanasia

Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are two issues which are quickly emerging in the Western world.   They present us with a very troubling moral dilemma.  It is typically given to us like this:

"Suppose you had a person who was slowly dying of some incurable illness.  But his death is slow and agonizing.  Would it be so wrong for that person to be given a pill so that he can die more quickly and painlessly?  Wouldn't the Golden Rule have us end that person's suffering, or at least allow him to end it himself?"

It sounds like the truly empathetic position - perhaps even the Christian position - would be to embrace euthanasia and PAS.  Any yet you have the Catechism of the Catholic Church insisting the following:

"Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible. Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable." - CCC 2276

Today I wanted to look at three principals which I use to explain why I am opposed to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.


Principle 1:  Someone Has to Participate in Killing 

Imagine yourself working at a sporting goods store.  A customer approaches you and says:

"I'm planning to kill myself.  Could you help me pick out a cheap pistol?"

Would you feel comfortable helping that customer?

Even worse, what if your job required you to actually load the gun for him.  Or perhaps pull the trigger yourself!  Would you be comfortable with those duties?   Of course not.

There is a huge psychological and moral cost in participating in someone's death.  This is why, for instance, 19th century inventors created an automatic gallows - to relieve the burden upon the man tasked with throwing the switch.  People instinctively don't want to be responsible for other people's deaths.

So here is the first crucial distinction to keep in mind:  Euthanasia and PAS are often characterized as a person exercising the "right to die".  But in truth, this is really about is the right to force someone else  to administer your death.

If you wouldn't want that to be part of your job, why is it reasonable to demand that of someone else?



Principle 2: Corrupting the Medical Field

The second thing we have to ask is:  What is the medical field even for?

Webster's Dictionary defines medicine as:

"The science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease."

Medicine is about preserving and restoring the life and well-being of patients.  Killing patients - or helping them kill themselves - is not medicine.  It is the opposite of medicine.   That's why the American Medical Association has historically said:

"Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer."

Now, euthanasia and PAS are typically advocated under the circumstances of terminal patients with untreatable pain.  But this is a legitimate case of a slippery slope.  As soon as these practices become accepted as a standard medical intervention, there ceases to be any real reason why it cannot be used in non-exceptional cases.

For instance, the country of Belgium has been a pioneer in PAS since 2002.  The practice was originally intended for those with "constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain" resulting from an accident or incurable illness.

Since then it has grown to include cases far exceeding the original intention.   In 2014 an otherwise healthy elderly couple availed themselves to assisted suicide simply because they feared loneliness.  In 2015 a woman was granted assisted suicide because she was depressed and suicidal.

Step back and think:  Wouldn't the legitimate practice of medicine mean treating the depression, rather than helping her commit suicide?


Principle 3: Perverse Incentives

The final thing I wanted to point out are the unavoidable perverse incentives introduced by normalizing euthanasia and PAS.  Suicide will always be the quickest, simplest, and cheapest option when confronting any protracted illnesses.

So, for instance, the state of Oregon has PAS as one of its covered medical options.  In 2008 a woman with lung cancer was denied chemotherapy by the State.  But they did inform her that her suicide would be fully covered.  What kind of choice is that?  The economic one, of course.

This can also take a more subtle form when one considers the kinds of pressure exerted upon the dying.  End of life care is very expensive.  Imagine how a person in that kind of condition may think of himself as a burden on his family.  And with the State making the offer of a free, painless death - some may choose to die when they otherwise would not.


What, then?

With all that said, what needs to be done for the suffering and dying?

Well, there is a whole field of medicine called "palliative care" which focuses on aiding and comforting the dying.  And while our current medical technology may permit us to completely eliminate suffering, it is at least a legitimate practice of medicine.

Thus, the Catholic Catechism says the following:

"Even if death is thought imminent, the ordinary care owed to a sick person cannot be legitimately interrupted. The use of painkillers to alleviate the sufferings of the dying, even at the risk of shortening their days, can be morally in conformity with human dignity if death is not willed as either an end or a means, but only foreseen and tolerated as inevitable. Palliative care is a special form of disinterested charity. As such it should be encouraged." - CCC 2279