Is “right to die” movement the right course?
When it comes to achieving inner peace, most of us would agree with the psalmist’s refrain, “Only in God is my soul at rest.” But what about wanting to put the body to eternal rest at the end of life? Is it moral to help the terminally ill end their lives? Banned everywhere but Oregon until 2008, the idea . . .
When it comes to achieving inner peace, most of us would agree with the psalmist’s refrain, “Only in God is my soul at rest.” But what about wanting to put the body to eternal rest at the end of life? Is it moral to help the terminally ill end their lives? Banned everywhere but Oregon until 2008, the idea appears to be gaining traction and it is now legal in five states. Its advocates, who have learned to shun the term “assisted suicide,” believe that as baby boomers watch frail parents suffer, support for what they call the “aid in dying” movement will grow further.
In January a district court in New Mexico authorized doctors to provide lethal prescriptions and declared a constitutional right for “a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.” Last May the Vermont legislature passed a law permitting it, joining Montana, Oregon, and Washington. This spring advocates are strongly promoting “death with dignity” bills in Connecticut and other states.
Public support for assisted dying has grown in the past half-century but depends in part on terminology. In a Gallup Poll conducted last May, 70 percent of respondents agreed that when patients and their families wanted it, doctors should be allowed to “end the patient’s life by some painless means.” In 1948 that share was 37 percent. Yet in the same 2013, poll only 51 percent supported allowing doctors to help a dying patient “commit suicide.”
About 3,000 patients a year, from every state, contact the advocacy group Compassion & Choices for advice on legal ways to reduce end-of-life suffering and perhaps hasten their deaths. Giving a fading patient the opportunity for a peaceful and dignified death is not suicide, the group says, which it defines as an act by people with severe depression or other mental problems.
But overt assistance to bring on death, by whatever name, remains illegal in most of the country. Opponents say that actively ending a life, no matter how frail a person is, is a moral violation and that patients might be pushed to die early for the convenience of others.
“The church teaches that life is sacred from conception through to natural death,” Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico told legislators at a recent breakfast as he criticized the court decision there. “This assisted-suicide thing concerns me,” Sheehan added. “I foresee dangerous consequences.”
Homily hint: A helpful Catholic contribution to this important ethical question is found in this article on the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ website.“The outcome of our society's debate on physician-assisted suicide may depend on how well we communicate—and act upon—a similar message," the article says. "We are living at a time when some doctors and lawmakers think that the best solution for some patients' suffering is to give them lethal drugs for suicide. Catholics committed to the dignity of each human person must insist: 'Kill the pain. Not the patient.' "
In January a district court in New Mexico authorized doctors to provide lethal prescriptions and declared a constitutional right for “a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying.” Last May the Vermont legislature passed a law permitting it, joining Montana, Oregon, and Washington. This spring advocates are strongly promoting “death with dignity” bills in Connecticut and other states.
Public support for assisted dying has grown in the past half-century but depends in part on terminology. In a Gallup Poll conducted last May, 70 percent of respondents agreed that when patients and their families wanted it, doctors should be allowed to “end the patient’s life by some painless means.” In 1948 that share was 37 percent. Yet in the same 2013, poll only 51 percent supported allowing doctors to help a dying patient “commit suicide.”
About 3,000 patients a year, from every state, contact the advocacy group Compassion & Choices for advice on legal ways to reduce end-of-life suffering and perhaps hasten their deaths. Giving a fading patient the opportunity for a peaceful and dignified death is not suicide, the group says, which it defines as an act by people with severe depression or other mental problems.
But overt assistance to bring on death, by whatever name, remains illegal in most of the country. Opponents say that actively ending a life, no matter how frail a person is, is a moral violation and that patients might be pushed to die early for the convenience of others.
“The church teaches that life is sacred from conception through to natural death,” Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico told legislators at a recent breakfast as he criticized the court decision there. “This assisted-suicide thing concerns me,” Sheehan added. “I foresee dangerous consequences.”
Homily hint: A helpful Catholic contribution to this important ethical question is found in this article on the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ website.“The outcome of our society's debate on physician-assisted suicide may depend on how well we communicate—and act upon—a similar message," the article says. "We are living at a time when some doctors and lawmakers think that the best solution for some patients' suffering is to give them lethal drugs for suicide. Catholics committed to the dignity of each human person must insist: 'Kill the pain. Not the patient.' "
Source: An article by Erik Eckholm for the New York Times