TOBET Talk-Euthanasia
St. Ann's Parish-RCIA
February 19, 2006
9:30-10:30 am

"And yet I do not altogether die; what is indestructible in me remains! What is imperishable in me now stands face to face before Him Who Is!" Pope John Paul II, days before he died. (May 18, 1920-April 2, 2005).

I start with this quotation from our beloved late Pope John Paul II who showed us by his example how to die. And this quotation, filled with hope in the Resurrection, lets us know that keeping alive the person-particularly his body-at all costs is not the goal. This talk on the evil of euthanasia will not say that every person must be kept alive indefinitely; in fact, that could be wrong. What I hope to cover in this talk usually takes me about a week to teach to my 11th and 12th graders. Thus, this will certainly not be exhaustive-so let me recommend some reading which is quite exhaustive:

1. The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. ISSN: 1532-5490. Autumn 2005, Vol. 5, No. 3. 1-866-832-4327.
2. Grisez, Germain. The Way of the Lord Jesus: Difficult Moral Questions. Vol. 3. Franciscan Press, Quincy University, 1800 College Avenue, Quincy, Illinois, 62301-2699. ISBN: 0-8199-0981-5
3. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1995), directive 58; cf. U.S. Bishops' Pro-Life Committee, "Nutrition and Hydration: Moral and Pastoral Reflections, " Origins 21:44 (9 April 1992): 705-12.

As you listen, please be aware of 5 main points I will try to cover:

1. The redeeming nature of suffering
2. Society's "Culture of Death" with its slogans such as "dying with dignity."
3. The "language of the body", a term coined by Pope John Paul II in his Theology of the Body. This understanding undergirds the more heady points we will cover in the 4th topic:
4. Specific examples to help clarify the pertinent terms: omission, commission, direct, indirect, ordinary, extraordinary
5. A "Living Will"

1. The redeeming nature of suffering.
   1. "By His stripes, we are healed" (Peter's epistle); "We adore You, oh Christ, and we praise You, because by Your Holy Cross, You have redeemed the world."
      
      It is Jesus, our Lord, our Savior, who ultimately has let us know that suffering redeems-Why? Because He redeemed us by his suffering and by the culmination of that: death. Thus, Scripture can say: "Oh Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting?" Rather than suffering and death being only our enemies-which they must be at first, for we are not masochists-they became the gateways to life, eternal life.
      
   2. "I constantly carry about in my body the dying of Christ so that the rising of Christ might be revealed in my flesh," St. Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians. "For I am crucified with Christ, and yet I live, not I but Christ who lives within me" St. Paul writes to the Colossians.
      
      
   What I think this shows the belief that we Catholics hold to: we can participate in helping others through our suffering. St. Paul calls us co-workers for Christ. Why did Paul not focus on the Resurrection only-why did he say we carry in our bodies the dying and we are crucified with Christ? I think it is to give meaning to each person's pain. We are not nihilists who think that there is no meaning to life, no meaning to pain. Rather, we place tremendous benefit on our suffering. What a strange verse St. Paul writes to the Corinthians: "I, in my body, make up for what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ." AMAZING!
   
   We cradle Catholics-when we get hurt, even now as adults, we hear our mother's voices softly saying, "Offer it up" whenever we would scrape our knees/etc. Little did I know the profound truth my mom was teaching: suffering is important for the sanctification of the Church, and I in Christ can play a role. (Analogy of a little kid pushing the lawn mower).
   
   No wonder Mother Teresa said, "I see God in everyone, and especially in those who suffer."
   
   I had to begin this talk on euthanasia-which literally means, "good death" (eu-"good"; thanatos-"death") with this foundational understanding of the redemptive power of Christ and our sharing in it because we know that most well-meaning, loving people promote the morally wrong practice of euthanasia out of a desire to free their loved one from suffering. While we must admit that this is noble, we ought to remember 2 things: 1. We can never to a wrong for a right (the end does not justify the means) and 2. If we approach suffering as Scripture explains and the Church teaches, then we will trust in God's divine providence, even when it hurts. Think about Our Lady, Mary-she of all people did not want her Son to suffer and die. But she knew that she was not to "put Him out of His misery" knowing that His gift of self through his gift of self through His suffering and death would make salvation available for all.
   
   
2. Society's "Culture of Death" with its slogans such as "dying with dignity" vs. the "language of the Body."
   1. Society tells us that the "humane way" of death for the elderly is to be quick and painless. My friend, Erin, who is a vet puts animals "to sleep" when their bodies no longer are functioning. The reason she can do such a thing is because humans are above animals. Our bodies reveal that we are made in God's image. God is a God of life, a union and communion of life and love from all eternity-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The human body points to that union and communion of love, particularly in the friendships of love that we form, especially in marriage. So since our bodies are like "sacraments" as Pope John Paul has said, then we cannot treat persons the way we treat animals. The visible human body expresses the deeper aspect of the person, his soul. We are higher than animals.
   2. Another fraudulent belief the society of death tries to inculcate in us is the idea that the person is not worth keeping alive unless he is useful. Such egalitarianism can be traced to Machiavelli and Descartes in the 1500 and 1600's, but alas, I digress!! Suffice it to say that it is a modern phenomenon that a human being should only be allowed to live if he is contributing to society. (WW II, with exterminations of many disabled people) and now euthanasia.
   3. The slippery slope: from contraception (1930's) to abortion (1973) to euthanasia (1998) to cloning….We are living in the culture of death, indeed.
      
      
3. Now. Let us get to the specific terms that we need in order to speak plainly about health care for the elderly or infirmed. Remember, we believe Scripture, especially the book of Deuteronomy where God says He is the giver/taker of life. Also, we do not believe that this world is it, this life at all costs, so these terms that Catholic theologians have used are helpful in making informed choices. (Remember a talk on conscience-we must apply objective truths to our own situations). The foundation of all of our decisions is based in Jesus' words, "This is my Body." He did not say "soul" but Body. Adam to Eve: "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." The First and the New Adam, both, underscore the significance of the body conveying a deeper truth. The same goes regarding our decisions of health.
   
   Last Tuesday I went to the doctor because my body was "speaking" (cough, cough), meaning, "Monica, you are sick"-so I listened and took action.
   
   The same goes with people who are critically sick, even dying. Their body is "speaking"; we must listen. Sometimes the body tells us that this person is dying-no doubt. Critical organs are shutting down. God wants the person with Him in eternal life. We would be playing God to go to any length to keep him alive.
   
   Here is where the terms ordinary and extraordinary become helpful. Here, too, is not always a black and white response.
   
   For instance, in the above example, what if the person were a teen-his organs are failing, but because of the youth of the body and the gift of organ donation (which the Catholic Church promotes), the teen's condition can be reversed. Then, the help given would be considered ordinary, that is, what is morally required.
   
   What about the same situation but the person is ninety? All of the above help might prolong his condition but it would not reverse this condition. Therefore, there is no moral obligation to use the same means that were used on the teen. In fact, it is possible that such means would be considered extraordinary if they were used. CAVEAT: The reason that the teen may be helped and not the elderly person is not because the teen has more dignity or usefulness; rather, it is because a youthful body "speaks" the language that it is better equipped to heal itself with the help of medicine.
   
   Let's use Pope John Paul's death as a great "icon" for we who are faced with death. Pope John Paul, as he was getting worse and worse used ordinary means to help him: antibiotics, for a while-food and water intravenously. But he lived as he taught. His 85-year old body was saying, "Well done, good and faithful servant, you may now enter into your Father's house." Therefore, he did not have doctors do all they could medically to sustain him. That would've been extraordinary means. He truly "died with dignity, " allowing God to take him (the eve of Divine Mercy Sunday! St. Faustina, not taking away from Jesus' passion and death and resurrection a week earlier).
   
   Here is another example of means of treatment in which ordinary can become extraordinary. The only person I ever saw die was my friend, Zack Barcevac. He had cystic fibrosis. It was not extraordinary means for him to have had a lung transplant-late 20's. ½ year later, he became very ill. It was not extraordinary for him to go on a ventilator because doctors hoped he would pull through. He was on a ventilator for about 3 months. Finally, his body began shutting down; more and more organs were not functioning. His wife, my friend Erin, had to make a decision. Should she have the ventilator removed to let nature take its course? She consulted with a trusted priest, with friends, with Zack's parents. Although some wanted his life to be prolonged, she knew death was imminent-the body spoke the finality of death, The ventilator was removed, and he was put on a bi-pap-which did not breathe for Zack, but helped when his lungs initiated a breath. He died on June 20, the 4 year anniversary of their marriage.
   
   
   Recap: Suffering is redemptive. Society tries to tell us otherwise-and tells us that usefulness is a bottom line. The body "Speaks".
   
   Now let's talk about 2 other terms important for discussions on euthanasia, the direct taking of an innocent person's life.
   
   Omission and commission-both are immoral/wrong
   Co-mission-to do a deliberate act-smothering with a pillow, injecting poison, etc. to kill an innocent person.
   Omission-to withdraw something with the intention to kill-life-support when there is a good chance of survival soon, food and water fed intravenously (Terri Schiavo-March 31, 2005, 2 days before Pope John Paul's death), etc.
   
   There are 2 other terms. Remember so far: ordinary (morally obliged to give such treatment or food/water) and extraordinary (disproportional treatment) ; commission/omission
   Now: direct and indirect:
   Zack-treatment was withdrawn, not to have him die-if he would have lived, so happy. But to let nature take its course. So his death was unintended. The famous Karen Quinlin case-her Catholic parents finally made the grueling decision to withdraw treatment since she had been in a coma for so long with no hope of recovery. They removed life-support, and then she lived for over 6 more years. Had they intended her death, she would have made sure she would have died.
   Terri Schiavo-death was intended.
   Food and water, remember, is almost always considered ordinary. Only in circumstances like the person's body rejects such means can it be eliminated. Rare.
   
   
4. The Living Will-A new phenomena due to advances in technology but also because of the culture of death. Here is what the noted theologian Germain Grisez says:

Think about the scenarios above-the person who makes a living will cannot know all the possibilities that could arise. That is why it is safer to appoint a trusted person for such a matter.

Let's attempt a summary:

• We live in the culture of death, and therefore we ought to ensure we are not influenced in such a way-but that we are living in the light and life of Jesus, He who conquers death.
• The body "speaks" a language-that is, it tells us something. However, it is not always easy. That is why we ought to appoint a person and his/her backup to make end-of-life decisions.
• Ordinary means-esp. giving nutrition and hydration-are morally impinging.
• Extraordinary means is the excessive treatment which does not let nature take its course.
• Acts of euthanasia, whether by omission or commission, are always wrong.
• The direct taking of life is wrong; the indirect death of a person is sometimes the unintended effect.
• Every health care decision should meet 2 criteria
  • One may never choose to do or omit anything so as to bring about one's or another's death (suicide or homicide)
  • One ought to try to be healthy enough and survive long enough to fulfill all of one's duties.
• Jesus is always the basis of all our actions. He suffered and died so as to redeem. We are given such dignity when we are allowed the privilege of suffering on behalf of others for Him.
• Let us always remain loving to others. Some have made wrong decisions in expediting their loved ones' deaths. Rather than lambasting them, we love. Yet, as time passes, we might talk in a heart-to-heart way to get them to see the truth of life and love according to the Gospel.

Small group questions:

1. Have you had an experience where you had to see a loved-one suffer for an extended period of time? If so, how did you deal with it? Could you/can you now see the Redemptive power of Jesus' sufferings in your loved one's suffering?
2. The Catholic Church's teachings remain consistent on life and bio-ethical issues, including the issue of euthanasia. Why do you suppose the Church must remain steadfast in such a view? What can we say when people say the Church is "behind the times" regarding this issue?
3. Much of the argument in favor of euthanasia stems from the good desire to help the sufferer not be in pain AND/OR the lack of usefulness of the dying/comatose person. How can we respond to such ideas?