Consistency is key to euthanasia argument

By Paul Schratz

Get set for the euthanasia debate: the “gay marriage” debate all over again.

Once again, disturbing legislation is before Parliament: in this case Bill C-407, an act to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The tactics and in some cases the very arguments will be eerily familiar. The strategy will be to use words like “choice,” “rights,” and “dignity,” only this time redefining life instead of marriage.

Again, extreme cases will be trotted out to justify a new law, and again the polls will show the majority of Canadians gradually buying into the arguments of those able to present a very sympathetic case. Bit by bit, their arguments will sound logical, and again Canada will consider taking another step further away from truth and toward the culture of death.

The marriage debate ended the way it did because we were unsuccessful in demonstrating what true marriage was. People forgot what the debate was about and began to concede points out of sympathy.

It was an understandable response. Society has long been buying into a whole range of precursors to “gay marriage.”

With so many couples living together, contracepting together, divorcing and remarrying, and generally treating sexuality and the transmission of life as a lifestyle choice like buying an SUV, it became difficult to demonstrate why same-sex unions posed such a problem.

In the end, those who believed in the truth of marriage as a union that produces life, supports future generations, and must be protected in law, were not able to effectively make their case.

As with same-sex unions, there will be no point trying to persuade a nation about the dangers of euthanasia if we fail to convey the dignity of life and tolerate other abuses against life.

Catholic teaching is wonderfully logical and consistent. We believe in the sanctity of life from the moment it is conceived, to its final, tenacious end as so ably demonstrated by Pope John Paul II.

Our teaching cannot countenance the taking of innocent human lives, whether they’re frozen in a test tube, whether great scientific breakthroughs might result, or whether lives were conceived as a result of rape or incest. It doesn’t matter if it’s a severely handicapped child, a mother with feeding tubes in her, or an elderly woman in a nursing home whose “quality of life” is deemed inadequate. All of these are regularly advanced as excuses for euthanasia, and the list keeps expanding.

Now Bill C-407 would take the ground-breaking and ground-digging legislation of the Netherlands and move it many steps further.

It would allow euthanasia and assisted suicide for people suffering chronic physical and mental pain, regardless of whether they’ve tried any treatment whatsoever.

It would allow the euthanizing of anyone as long as they wish to die and are “assisted by a medical practitioner.”

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition calls Bill C-407 one of the worst bills he has ever seen, especially since it provides no protection for vulnerable people. “The whole idea is wrong from the beginning. Assisted suicide is a direct threat to those with chronic disabilities and the elderly.”

Given our liberalized climate, our soaring health care costs, and the preposterously minimal safeguards in this legislation, is there any doubt that there will be enhanced pressure for the sick and elderly to “do the right thing” and die?

(The push for euthanasia is in large measure being fuelled by perceived inadequacies in health care. It goes without saying that we also need to advance arguments in support of palliative care and hospice care.)

It’s all about teaching a consistent truth. Fortunately, the Catholic framework is, in the words of Chesterton, “a universal philosophy that fits with human nature and the nature of things.”

It’s the only package that completely and logically ties together sexuality, life, and death.

Let’s do our best to let Canadians hear about it.