|
But the argument for euthanasia is different, and perhaps even more insidious. While, for all of the rhetoric, many still see abortion as inherently a selfish act: one person must die so that another's life may be better. But euthanasia and particularly assisted suicide masquerade as selfless acts.
Just as abortion is promoted with the benign sounding phrase "pro-choice" when it comes to euthanasia, we hear of 'death with dignity,' or of 'putting a person out of his or her misery.' In other words, of eliminating -- compassionately eliminating -- suffering.
But once euthanasia becomes legal, it becomes something more sinister. Abuses of so-called "voluntary euthanasia" in the Netherlands have been documented -- and extensively documented. For example, testifying before the California state legislature, Dr. John Whiffen of the California Family Council noted more than 25 percent of all euthanasia presently carried out in the Netherlands is involuntary. Involuntary!
The evidence from the Netherlands, as well as the Terri Schiavo case, illustrates clearly the dangers of going down this road. Does anyone seriously doubt that Terry Schiavo's "choice," exercised on her behalf by her husband, was anything other than a legal fiction?
If voluntary euthanasia is allowed in Canada, it will inevitably be followed by instances of compulsory euthanasia. Proponents will say: 'Why should people be denied their right to euthanasia simply because they are now incapable of expressing their choice for it?' Whether wholesale or piecemeal, people will be put to death without their consent by those who are willing to supply that consent.
But there is a more important problem with euthanasia and assisted suicide than its abuse. Suicide itself is an abuse.
First: There are few diseases today whose pain modern medicine cannot lessen. We need to take this message to the public: Most people, even the most seriously ill, can live out their natural lives with their pain greatly reduced.
Second: As with abortion, allowing doctors to become agents of death, as well as life, creates a serious conflict in their professional lives and it will change the way the medical profession practices medicine. For thousands of years, physicians lived by the principle of the Hippocratic Oath: "First of all, do no harm." Today, they are being told that their job is to cure some, while doing the ultimate harm to others. And isn't that exactly what Hippocrates sought to change?
In the pagan world of ancient Greece 2,400 years ago, when a doctor entered the room, one never knew whether he was coming to cure the patient or to kill the patient. After two and a half millennia, we seem to be going back full circle.
And how can a doctor who kills one patient move on to the next patient unaffected?
No Right to Suicide
Most important, however, is the fact that one has no right to suicide. Natural Law is clear that both the community and the individual benefit from the preservation of life and the traditional understanding of the law that the right to life is an absolute. The argument that freedom somehow demands that we allow suicide is sadly mistaken.
The philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote: "If freedom is the condition of life, it cannot be employed to abolish life and so destroy and abolish itself. To use life for its own destruction, to use life for producing lifelessness, is self-contradictory."
One cannot have the right to life, and transfer that right to another for disposal. If the right to life is inalienable; it remains so regardless of who seeks to violate it.
And there is another danger: The argument that euthanasia will be somehow limited is pure fiction. Once the door to euthanasia is open, it doesn't take long for people to be pressured to 'do the right thing' and commit euthanasia.
The call for "selfless" suicide has already begun. In Great Britain, as that country debates euthanasia, its leading medical ethicist, Baroness Warnock, told The Times of London in December that "In other contexts, sacrificing oneself for one's family would be considered good. I don't see what is so horrible about the motive of not wanting to be an increasing nuisance."
She also proposed creating a financial situation in which families might be more willing to put pressure on their loved ones to commit suicide. "Maybe it has come down to saying 'OK, they can stay alive but the family will have to pay for it.' Otherwise" she concluded, "it will be an awful drain on public resources."
But the elderly and the infirm are people, they are not drains on public and family resources. Is the love of a grandmother or grandfather any less valuable because it radiates from a hospital bed? But once the door to euthanasia is open, human life no longer has that absolute value.
And how did we get here as a society? How is it that our government came to regard human life as having so little intrinsic worth? How can we allow the destruction of the unborn, and soon, the life of anyone potentially in ill health? How can a government view those who most need protection as entitled to the least amount of protection? How have we managed to reduce the value of an individual human life to such a utilitarian calculus?
Every society must make a fundamental choice. It must choose whether it will respect and protect every human being equally or whether it will be a society in which the lives of some are protected, while the lives of others are not. Every society has to some degree struggled with this choice.
And in the recent past we have seen societies struggle with treatment of slavery, aboriginal peoples, religious and racial minorities as well as the poor, the elderly, the sick and the handicapped. All societies make a choice of a fundamental option for a Culture of Life or for a culture of death. Canada now faces that choice, so does the United States.
The Culture of Life is Not Easy
We do not propose a Culture of Life because it is easy -- to the contrary, we know it to be hard. We propose a Culture of Life because it is right and because only such a culture is consistent with the great dignity and value of every human life.
Many of my Brother Knights and I had the privilege last month of spending some time with a great Canadian: Jean Vanier. Have we so soon forgotten the inspiring example of one of Canada's greatest sons? In his book Becoming Human, Jean Vanier reminds us, as does his life's work, that by opening ourselves to those who the world perceives as weak, different, inferior -- we actually learn ways of becoming greater persons ourselves. Of living lives of greater compassion, trust and understanding. It is these people who the world considers in some ways to be subhuman, that teach us values that allow us to strive to be superhuman.
I will always remember the words of a man from Calcutta that Mother Teresa once brought into her Home for the Dying. He said: "All my life, I have lived like an animal, but now I will die like an angel." How simply, how clearly, he presented the choice before us!
Governments tend to measure compassion by spending money. Jean Vanier and Mother Teresa remind us that something much more is needed.
I think all of us know in our hearts which form of compassion is most compatible with the great dignity of every human person.
For years, the right to life movement focused almost exclusively on abortion -- and rightly so -- for it was defenseless unborn humans who were the first to have their lives sacrificed. Now we must continue in our efforts, ever more strongly, to protect the unborn -- and more decisively still, to protect the old and the sick as well.
Though we cannot hear their voices, they have called us. Though we cannot see them, we stand with them. Though we may never know any of them, their cause must be our cause.
We are gathered here this week as a line of defense for those who the law refuses to defend. To speak out for those who have no voice. We pledge to do all that we can to end abortion and these other terrible attacks on human life. We stand with, and we stand for those, who cannot stand for themselves, who cannot speak for themselves.
And we seek no reward for our work. Those we support can do nothing really for us in a material sense. We have answered a call that is not based on a quid pro quo, but on a principle as old as humanity. Life is the greatest gift we have but it is a gift that when denied to one is diminished for all.
I just flew to Ottawa from Washington, D.C. And Saturday, I flew to Washington, D.C., from Mexico City. And I was thinking, having been in the capitals of these three great countries in less than a week, how much those of us who live in North America have in common. A common spiritual heritage. A common heritage of freedom.
And in this age of globalism, how is it possible that the borders in North America are raised higher and not lower. Some may ask why is someone from Connecticut here in Canada talking about these issues. It's because of that -- it's because we share a common destiny as North Americans, as people of faith, as people who are committed to the fundamental human rights issue of our day. And because of that we must stand together, we must cross borders. And I invite you all to come Washington next year for the March for Life in the United States because we must be helping each other. Our cause is a common one.
And so I want to just say to you, in closing, that I am extremely proud of my Brother Knights here in Canada who have stood so firmly in recent months in defense of marriage. Who have stood for the cause for life. Who are on the front lines of the defense of life. And I am proud to be associated with each of you in this common effort, an effort in which we are so dedicated.
As I was listening to the great National Anthem of Canada, I was thinking that the most patriotic cause is the cause for life. It's the most patriotic cause because in it contains the destinies of our countries. The destiny of our countries must be a Culture of Life! It cannot be a culture of death! That cannot be the promise of these great countries in North America that we hand onto our children and our grandchildren.
It must be a bright future where every human being is valued, every human life is respected, and every human person -- his potential, her potential -- is recognized, promoted and given the freedom and the opportunity to fully develop in the way God intended when he created that life here on earth, but also, as His Eminence said, for eternity.
And so with that, God bless Canada! God bless the United States. God bless our cause for life!
|
