The false mercy of euthanasia

By Paul Schratz

Believe it or not, there’s something worse than the worst euthanasia legislation in the world.

The worst euthanasia legislation is the one that’s currently before Parliament. Bill C-407 would provide practical carte blanche to kill anyone, anytime, for any reason.

Bill C-407 is so bad that even the federal justice minister is opposed to it. One hopes and prays that members of Parliament will have no difficulty seeing this monstrosity for what it is and reject it without hesitation.

Bill C-407 does, however, have one thing going for it. The carnage it would bring about is so obvious that the only way it could be supported is through hopeless naivete or wilful callousness.

On the other hand, once it’s defeated, more euthanasia legislation will eventually be introduced, as surely as day follows night, and the next bill probably won’t be so transparently deficient. Indeed, Bill C-407 might almost be described as a backdoor attempt to introduce euthanasia in Canada. It’s so glaringly bad that the next effort will look humane by comparison.

This makes a new statement issued by 100 Canadian doctors and lawyers all the more timely and welcome. The statement, which can be found at http://bcc.rcav.org/C-407.htm, argues that all the safeguards in the world won’t keep euthanasia from growing like an infection. In countries where euthanasia has been introduced and is lauded, the abuses and number of people unwillingly put to death rises each day.

It compellingly argues that from the fifth century Hippocratic Oath through the most contemporary human rights statements, society has affirmed its respect for human life.

From a Catholic perspective, any attempt to bring about death for a supposed greater good remains gravely sinful, regardless of whether the victim consents or not.

From a solely moral perspective, however, the statement presents an open-and-shut case that any euthanasia legislation, no matter how many safeguards are built in, will expand to include those who don’t explicitly request death.

From a practical perspective, the statement says the Dutch experience shows that once legalized, euthanasia “cannot be effectively controlled.”

The doctors and lawyers argue that doctors are eventually put in the position of making value judgements about patients’ quality of life and when they should be “terminated,” dramatically increasing their power over their patients and severely decreasing patient autonomy.

It states without equivocation that if euthanasia becomes legal, “patients would be killed who had not requested to die.”

Numerous surveys in Holland and Belgium show that despite much vaunted protections and safeguards, at least 1,000 patients a year die without consent or request, that only half of euthanasia incidents are reported, and that Dutch doctors have headed down a slippery slope, from killing the terminally ill, to killing the chronically ill, to killing the depressed who had no physical illness, to killing newborn babies with birth defects. In fact, nearly 10 per cent of Dutch newborn deaths are now physician-caused, often by lethal injection, while nearly three per cent of children who die do so at the hands of their doctor.

It also should come as no surprise that once legalized, euthanasia puts immense pressure on those who feel they are a burden to others, especially relatives. Even in Oregon, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1997, a growing majority of people who request it indicate they feel they’re a burden to others.

Just as frightening, the “good death” that many hope for from assisted suicide often goes undelivered. Complications frequently result in the doctor having to step in and euthanize patients who didn’t die promptly, sometimes lingering for up to seven days.

Considering the rising costs of health care, who could deny that once killing is accepted as an appropriate means of dealing with illness, disability, and old age, euthanasia will move from being an acceptable treatment option to becoming the preferred option.

The statement points out that legalized abortion was originally considered an option for crisis pregnancies. Since being legalized, it has increased 10-fold, contributing to a profound loss of respect for the sanctity of human life.

Much of the drive for euthanasia comes from fear of painful, lingering death. While pain experts have shown that today there is no reason for anyone to suffer in extreme pain, without a doubt we’re long overdue in making palliative and hospice care the high priority that they should be if we’re to bring a compassionate Christian approach to illness, death, and dying.

In the Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II called assisted euthanasia a “false mercy,” saying, “the way of love and true mercy” is through compassionate care. Regardless of which piece of euthanasia legislation is before us, it remains a false mercy.