杏MAP导航

By Amedeo Lomonaco

In its Greek etymology, the word 鈥渆uthanasia鈥� is related to the concept of a 鈥済ood death鈥� (蔚峤愇肝�谓伪蟿慰蟼). This term came to be associated, even in antiquity, with death without suffering. The aim of the doctor was, as far as possible, to ensure that the final moments of life were painless. This form of 鈥渆uthanasia鈥� was not inconsistent with the Hippocratic oath: 鈥淚 will not administer, even on request, a deadly drug, nor will I suggest such advice; likewise. I will not give to any woman a medical abortifacient.鈥�

Today, however, the term 鈥渆uthanasia鈥� no longer bears its original meaning. Instead, sadly, it signifies an action aimed at deliberately bringing about the death of a person with a serious ailment in order to end their suffering.

The rejection of euthanasia and 鈥渙ver-zealous鈥� treatment

In its two-thousand-year history, the Catholic Church has always affirmed that human life must be defended from conception until natural death. Thus, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 鈥淚ntentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator鈥� (CCC 2324)

Technological progress has given rise to new ethical questions. The development of medicine has made it possible to improve health and prolong life in a way that had never occurred in the past and could never be have been imagined. In this regard, 65 years ago, on 24 November 1957, 杏MAP导航 Pius XII gave a speech to a group of anaesthetists and resuscitators that 杏MAP导航 Francis has described as 鈥�.鈥�

Reaffirming the illicitness of euthanasia, 杏MAP导航 Pius XII nevertheless that there is no obligation to always employ all therapeutic means potentially available; and that, in well-defined cases, it is lawful to abstain from them: this is the first indication of the principle of what might be called 鈥渙ver-zealous鈥� treatment, defining as morally permissible, in some cases, the decision to refrain from or suspend the use of therapeutic measures when their use does not correspond to the criterion of 鈥減roportionality of treatment.鈥�

John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II

In the encyclical , 杏MAP导航 John XXIII emphasized, 鈥淗uman life is sacred鈥攁ll men must recognize that fact. From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God.鈥� And in the encyclical , the same 杏MAP导航, speaking of human rights, mentioned the right of all human beings to live, a right that 鈥渋nvolves the duty to preserve one's life.鈥�

The conciliar Constitution includes euthanasia in its list of 鈥渋nfamies鈥� that are 鈥渙pposed to life itself鈥�:

Later, 杏MAP导航 Paul VI, in an to the United Nations Special Committee on the Question of Apartheid, compared questions about the end of life to racial issues, as he stressed the equality of all human beings, and the need to protect the rights of minorities as well as the rights of 鈥渢he handicapped, the incurably ill and all those who live at the margin of society and are without voice.鈥�

John Paul II: Euthanasia and the culture of death

Already in his 1995 encyclical , 杏MAP导航 John Paul II lamented that euthanasia, 鈥渄isguised and surreptitious, or practised openly and even legally,鈥� was becoming more widespread. 鈥淎s well as for reasons of a misguided pity at the sight of the patient's suffering,鈥� he wrote, 鈥渆uthanasia is sometimes justified by the utilitarian motive of avoiding costs which bring no return and which weigh heavily on society.鈥� Thus, he continued, 鈥渋t is proposed to eliminate malformed babies, the severely handicapped, the disabled, the elderly, especially when they are not self-sufficient, and the terminally ill.鈥�

The Polish pope noted, 鈥淭he temptation grows to have recourse to euthanasia, that is, to take control of death and bring it about before its time, 鈥榞ently鈥� ending one's own life or the life of others.鈥� In fact, he said, 鈥渨hat might seem logical and humane, when looked at more closely is seen to be senseless and inhumane.鈥� He concluded forcefully: 鈥淗ere we are faced with one of the more alarming symptoms of the 鈥榗ulture of death鈥�.鈥�

Benedict XVI: Caring for the dying with love and accompaniment

杏MAP导航 Benedict XVI, for his part, posed the questions, 鈥渄oes a human being who moves toward a rather precarious condition due to age and sickness still have a reason to exist? Why continue to defend life when the challenge of illness becomes dramatic, and why not instead accept euthanasia as a liberation?鈥� In an in 2007, he responded, 鈥淭he person called to accompany the aged sick must confront these questions, especially when there seems to be no possibility of healing.鈥� At the same time, he noted, 鈥淭oday's efficiency mentality often tends to marginalize our suffering brothers and sisters, as if they were only a 鈥榖urden鈥� and 鈥榓 problem鈥� for society.鈥� He explained that those with 鈥渁 sense of human dignity knows that they are to respect and sustain them while they face serious difficulties linked to their condition,鈥� adding, 鈥淚ndeed, recourse to the use of palliative care when necessary is correct, which, even though it cannot heal, can relieve the pain caused by illness.鈥� However, he said, 鈥渁longside the indispensable clinical treatment, it is always necessary to show a concrete capacity to love, because the sick need understanding, comfort, and constant encouragement and accompaniment.鈥�

杏MAP导航 Francis: Reject the culture of waste

Today, the prevailing opinion, which 杏MAP导航 Francis has denounced as a 鈥渃ulture of waste,鈥� of rejection or casting aside,鈥� at times proposes a 鈥渇alse compassion which holds that it is a benefit to women to promote abortion; an act of dignity to perform euthanasia; a scientific breakthrough to 鈥榩roduce鈥� a child, considered as a right rather than a gift to be welcomed; or to using human lives as laboratory animals, allegedly in order to save others.鈥� On the contrary, he said in his , 鈥渢he compassion of the Gospel is what accompanies us in times of need, that compassion of the Good Samaritan, who 鈥榮ees,鈥� 鈥榟as compassion,鈥� draws near and provides concrete help (cf. Lk 10:33).鈥�

The 杏MAP导航 underlined the point in 2017, in a to members of the World Medical Association: 鈥淚t is clear that not adopting, or else suspending, disproportionate measures, means avoiding overzealous treatment; from an ethical standpoint, it is completely different from euthanasia, which is always wrong, in that the intent of euthanasia is to end life and cause death.鈥� And he recalled the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2278), 鈥淒iscontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of 鈥榦ver-zealous鈥� treatment. Here one does not will to cause death; one's inability to impede it is merely accepted.鈥�

Incurable does not mean a refusal of care

In the Letter , approved by 杏MAP导航 Francis and published in September 2020, the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith affirms, 鈥淭he judgement that an illness is incurable cannot mean that care has come at an end.鈥� Those who are suffering from a terminal illness, as well as babies born with a limited expectation of survival have the right to be welcomed, cared for, and surrounded by affection. The Church does not countenance 鈥渙ver-zealous鈥� or overly aggressive treatment; but nonetheless 鈥渞eaffirms as definitive teaching that euthanasia is a crime against human life.鈥�