Can mercy killings be legitimate?

Dignity South Africa is the name of a movement started by Prof Sean Davison (now back in South Africa) who was arrested in New Zealand for administering a lethal dose of morphine to his cancer-ridden mother, which he did at her desperate request. The movement stresses the autonomy of patients who have unbearable suffering to decide when to end their life. Can this be a legitimate case of freedom of conscience?  Pen Evans

Vatican II’s document on religious freedom, Dignitatis humanae, states that no one can be forced to act in a manner contrary to conscience, nor can anyone be restrained from acting in accordance with conscience, especially in matters religious (3).

This might look an attractive option for Catholics who are pain-racked and desperate to die, but it is not a legitimate option.

In his 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae (The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II observed that today suffering seems like a setback from which one must be freed, and death is considered a “rightful liberation” once life is held to be no longer meaningful. The temptation grows to bring death about before its time, “gently”. A hopelessly impaired life therefore no longer has any value. This view neglects our fundamental relationship with God.

Whether it is by active euthanasia (administering a lethal dose with the intention of killing the patient) or by assisted suicide (prescribing a lethal dose for the patient intending to aid suicide, which the patient takes himself), the Church brands it as a gravely immoral act.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says even if one makes an error of judgment in good faith, it does not change the nature of this murderous act (2277).

The debate on the ethical worth of mercy killing is not simple because there are so many imponderables and ramifications, even in the medical profession.

The SA Medical Journal, for example, featured a number of letters in this respect. One by Dr JV Larsen (Vol 101, No 11) dismissed the idea of a lobby for legal doctor-assisted suicide. Encouraging a rapid escape from life, he said, implies defeat and not dignity.

He believes that death with dignity is possible when end-of-life issues are addressed, with compassionate care being essential for the patient’s and family’s ability to cope, helping them to recover a sense of worth and meaning.

Remarking that doctors are fallible as diagnosticians and prognosticators, he recommends support and involvement in the hospice movement.