Euthanasia… ‘we don’t let animals suffer like this’

Meet Chantal Sebire. She is inflicted with esthesioneuroblastoma, a terminal cancer of the naval cavity which progressively diminishes sight, taste and smell, and is accompanied by irrevocable brain damage.

The BBC’s Will & Testament blog tells us that the French courts will not permit doctors to assist her suicide because under French law it is permissible to withhold life-sustaining treatment, but nothing may be administered to provoke death. ‘In other words, "passive euthanasia" (withholding treatment) is legal, while "active euthanasia" (deliberately acting to end a patient's life) remains illegal.’

The blog’s author is clear where his sympathies lie, stating starkly: ‘The consequence of this court decision is that Ms Sebire now faces months or years of living with a progressively more painful and debilitating condition. During that time, she may decide to refuse all medical assistance except pain relief. Alternatively, she could decide to travel to Switzerland, Belgium or the Netherlands, where assisted suicide (under certain circumstances) is legal.’

And there the issue is left for discussion.

Well, Cranmer is more than a little irritated by this sort bland and oblique moralising, which is devoid of any analysis of either the politics or the theology of the tragic situation. And let us all agree that this poor woman’s condition is indeed tragic, and no-one can pretend ‘to understand how she feels’, and neither should any comment detract from the dignity with which she endures her affliction, or underestimate that her suffering must be profoundly psychological, emotional, spiritual as well as physical.

But the question of euthanasia is reduced to a question of liberty – she should be free to terminate her life at a time of her choosing – and assisting her would be the ‘Christian’ thing to do.

While Cranmer agrees that the decriminalisation of suicide in 1961 made a modicum of sense insofar as one could never achieve a successful prosecution of the successful and ought to express compassion toward the unsuccessful, the liberalisation of the law on euthanasia would be a dangerously amoral development, as the Lords Spiritual asserted when the issue was last presented to Parliament.

But this is not simply a theist perspective; it is consistent with the principles of Enlightenment secularism also. Natural law – what constitutes right and justice - is common to all mankind. The Greeks and the Romans articulated this in their philosophy, setting the foundation for St Paul and later philosophers. Thus did Cicero write of ‘true law, right reason, diffused in all men, constant and everlasting’, and St. Paul reflect on ‘what the law requires is written in their hearts’ (Rom 2:15). Hobbes defines the law of nature as ‘a precept of general rule found out by reason by which a man in forbidden to do anything which is destructive of his life’.

Opposition to ‘do anything which is destructive of life’ is one of the few general rules which unites all of the world’s religions. The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church states: ‘Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick and dying persons. It is morally unacceptable’ (para.2277). Pope John Paul II reflected in his encyclical ‘Evangelium Vitae’ that ‘we see a tragic spread of euthanasia, disguised and surreptitious, or practised openly or even legally. As well as for reasons of misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering, euthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and weigh heavily on society’. And more recently Pope Benedict XVI stated that ‘freedom to kill is not a true freedom but a tyranny that reduces the human being to slavery’.

The Orthodox and Protestant churches have expressed similar views, most notably the Baptists, who concluded that ‘a Christian should never recommend, or help with a suicide of an unsaved person because that would hasten the unsaved person's damnation and prevent any chance of repentance. It is an affront to God to take one's own life, both for reasons of his sovereignty but also because any murder is an attempt to annihilate his image in man (Gen1:26f)’.

Similar sentiments opposing euthanasia may be found in the scriptures and/or ethical traditions of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Suffering is natural to the human condition, and the end of life does not need hastening but loving; there should be no easy escape, but dignity and care. Assisted suicide is as morally repugnant as abortion; indeed, Cranmer is hard-pressed to comprehend those who repudiate the former while supporting the latter, for both are concerned with the termination of the seemingly deficient or unwanted; both have the distaste of eugenics – ending the ‘unworthy’ life. Just as the legalisation of abortion was never intended to open the floodgates that it evidently has, so the legalisation of euthanasia would mutate over the decades, and eventually lead to the ‘humane’ termination of all those who simply cannot be bothered to continue. What will doubtless begin with volunteers will eventually include conscripts; the ‘right’ to die may easily become and expectation, and will certainly eventually become a duty.

Killing is not healing. In a culture that worships youth, beauty and physical fitness, the elderly, ugly and disabled may be seen as revolting, but they are also made in the image of God. And just like he did at Calvary, they must be exhorted to suffer and endure with dignity whatever life throws at them. And then, with Job, shall they know that their redeemer lives. And in the meantime, unlike with Job, they need friends and comforters around them who can make them see that their life has worth, and that their witness is profound.