Legalising Euthanasia

by Editor · May 13, 2015

The ruling by Judge Hans Fabricius in the Pretoria High Court that a doctor who sought to assist a patient to die would face no criminal sanction and not lose his medical licence will have elicited much sympathy from those who regard �the right to die� as an issue of mercy and of personal liberty.

“…often when a life ceases to be useful, some people will seek justification for its termination.” (Graphic The Southern Cross)

At a time when a Bill intended to legalise euthanasia is tabled in Parliament, the ruling may well have far-reaching consequences.

The attraction of the pro-euthanasia argument is self-evident. The fear of suffering helplessly or being in a vegetative state for an extended period of time is reasonable. Euthanasia may seem a sensible option especially for those who have witnessed loved ones in agony before death provides a release from suffering.

Most of those who support legalising euthanasia are doubtless animated by good intentions; they might even regard their position as virtuous.

However, the line between euthanasia as a noble ideal and as a pretext for cynical killing is very thin.

Doctors warn that legalising euthanasia could produce widespread abuses, especially in countries such as South Africa, where there is a shortage of qualified physicians.

There is a possibility that some medical practitioners might overstate the suffering and understate the prognosis of treatment in cases where patients are difficult or are unable to afford medical or palliative care.

There is also the hazard that a legal right to die could be exercised for reasons other than illness by those who are suicidal, thereby making physicians party to their death.

While most families are selflessly dedicated in their care and concern for their ill loved ones, some are not. There can be little doubt that euthanasia, should it be legal, would be used to get rid of family members whose illness represents a financial or emotional strain. In this way, euthanasia would not be a means to ease the patient�s suffering, but that of the family.

Since many people, especially those who once were independent, wish not to be �a burden� to their relatives, there would be cases of patients consenting to being euthanised only because they perceive themselves as an inconvenience.

Legal euthanasia could also be exploited as a short-cut to a lucrative inheritance, or to prevent a will being amended. Whatever the probability of such manipulations, a law should not provide loopholes for legalised murder.

These practical concerns aside, there are also ethical considerations governing the sanctity of life.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that �an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded�.

This does not mean that expensive treatments invariably must be persisted with. �Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of �over-zealous� treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one�s inability to impede it is merely accepted,� the Catechism says.

Church teaching allows for palliative care that might accelerate death, for example the use of painkillers, but this must not be the intended outcome.

The Church teaches that prolonging the life of a patient, even in a vegetative state, is beneficial as long as this is not a burden to the patient. All patients must always be given the right to be fed and hydrated in a safe, clean and warm environment.

Only extraordinary artificial means of treatment to keep a patient alive may be withdrawn. The Church objects to interventions intended to bring about premature death.

We must beware that often when a life ceases to be useful, some people will seek justification for its termination. However, when society usurps the will of God � or, if one doubts God, the way of nature � then human dignity is injured.

And a law which injures human dignity, even if it appears reasonable and underpinned by noble intentions, is not just.