A friend of mine once remarked that, while the redefinition of marriage does have troubling consequences for the continuity of society, what John Paul II has rightly called the “culture of death” is far more sinister, another order of evil entirely. Abortion comes to mind first for most. Not marriage, but life itself is being redefined, and that arbitrarily. The recent article from the Journal of Medical Ethics, “After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?”, brings this home.
Euthanasia takes a close second. Massachusetts is next in line to vote on doctor-prescribed suicide in November of this year. In many ways, this too is a matter where life itself is being redefined not as a welcome good to be sustained but instead as a financial burden, a source of anxiety and concern. And while the administration of life-ending drugs must be freely chosen by the person to be euthanized, it is obvious that the more euthanasia becomes normalized, the more coercive the cultural attitude will become for the young and old alike.
For the young, the the parlance of euthanasia has particular force. Framed in the language of “mercy,” euthanasia, we’re told, is a welcome relief for your loved one, a good deed done, a painless crossing of the threshold of death surrounded by loved ones. What son or daughter, faced with the prospect of seeing their parent through a prolonged and painful death, wouldn’t consider having “mercy” via euthanasia? The elderly are faced with even more twisted prospects. If euthanasia becomes a regular option for those aware that death is close anyway, knowledgeable that they are a financial and emotional burden to their family, what parent wouldn’t choose to die quickly and easily, relieving their children of the imposition?
The notion that euthanasia is always ‘freely chosen’ is simply dishonest. A coercive cultural attitude must be factored in, especially if we employ language like “mercy” and “relief.” The more normal the option becomes, the more life that requires financial and emotional resources will be thought only burdensome.
March 5th, 2012 | 4:21 pm
I do not what to make an argument here for assisted suicide, but it seems to me many of the arguments against it could also be used against the very firmly established Catholic position the right to forego “extraordinary measures” when one is terminally ill. Even costs may figure into what is determined to be “extraordinary measures.” If someone wishes to cling to life as long as possible through burdensome and expensive medical treatment he or she is more than willing to undergo may be subjected to pressure by their heirs to forego the treatment they really want in order to save money.
March 5th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
Is the chief concern about euthanasia that there is a slippery slope towards coercion?
I have euthanized three pets, all of whom died in my arms as I sobbed.
I know I did the right thing for each of those pets. Is there a reason other than coercion that would lead to a different result if I made the same descision for myself under similar circumstances?
March 5th, 2012 | 7:28 pm
The real question is, would the people who opt for suicide still make the same choice if they were absolutely free from all coercive pressures?
For example:
- fear that they will be viewed, treated as, and/or remembered as a burden
- fear that the money will run out, that they will not have access to adequate pain medication or other treatments
- fear that they will be left alone
I’m sure there are others.
March 5th, 2012 | 10:12 pm
I don’t see those considerations as coercion. I see them as realities.
Sure, if I was healthy, I wouldn’t comtemplate suicide. but, if I was suffering from a terminal disease, I’d much rather exit sooner and painlessly than exhaust the financial resouces of relatives while needlessly enduring excruciating pain.
Death is normal.
March 6th, 2012 | 8:05 am
Sure, if I was healthy, I wouldn’t comtemplate suicide. but, if I was suffering from a terminal disease, I’d much rather exit sooner and painlessly than exhaust the financial resouces of relatives while needlessly enduring excruciating pain.
Death is normal.
Thank you for proving the point about how “choice” becomes “expectation”.
Those sick people are so selfish, aren’t they? How dare they expect to live out their lives when the young people really have more right to those resources.
March 6th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
“The notion that euthanasia is always ‘freely chosen’ is simply dishonest. A coercive cultural attitude must be factored in”
Misulia’s analysis is far too glib. If the option of euthanasia requires a “coercive cultural attitude,” then is he willing to admit that taking euthanasia off the table also requires a coercive cultural attitude? Is it, in other words, possible to discuss this subject in its complexity?
March 6th, 2012 | 2:36 pm
My father was a platoon leader in World War II and landed at Utah Beach. He had a soldier in his unit who refused to replace his damaged “lucky” helmet: the soldier had been injured—not as badly as he apparently looked, but bad enough. The Germans overran his position. One of them stopped and— weeping and apologizing—told the American injured that he would put them out of their misery. They begged him not to do so, but he shot all of them, aiming at their heads. The survivor was merely knocked unconscious because the bullet entered his helmet, traveled between the helmet and helmet liner and exited the other side. His advice to my father and others was to hang on to a hand gun if they could get one, to save themselves from mercy killers.
One week later, my father was horrifically injured by a Bouncing Betty mine that killed everyone else around him. Despite his condition and his belief that he was dying, he desperately did not want to be killed by someone else’s misplaced “compassion”. He kept his .45 ready and said he would have used it to keep alive. He preferred living, and did so until 2007, in pain everyday of his life and 50% disabled. He was the most cheerful and contented person I have ever known.
So sometimes, mercy killing is “well meant”, but misplaced and presumptuous.
March 8th, 2012 | 11:49 pm
David,
Extraordinary methods means activities beyond what any providing what any healthy person would need to live. Thus the prohibition against removing food and liquids – do this to a healthy person and they’d soon be dead as well. DNR orders, on the other hand, are ok, as massive intervention to save those who would otherwise simply die is “extraordinary.”
With euthanasia we go even further. It’s not like a DNR order, and it’s beyond removing nutrition and hydration – it’s taking active measures to ensure a person is dead.
Hope that clarifies things a tad.
March 9th, 2012 | 5:49 pm
[...] Death is Normal – Mark Misulia, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact