Before I go any further let me make it clear that I am not minimizing the pain suffered by many people. In fact, I am often shocked at the amount of sadness and pain there is in the world. Clearly those victims of it need compassion and assistance; the question is how does one define “compassion” and “assistance”?
Perhaps what I will remember most about Pope John Paul II is the way he faced the final years of his life as his body deteriorated from Parkinson’s disease. I can visualize him standing by open windows, uncontrollably shaking, waving to the flock. John Paul understood suffering and dignity . . . and that is why he insisted that others see him in that broken state. Our Lord suffered the greatest of indignities and the most painful of deaths, and the Polish Pontiff wanted us all to understand that suffering, when embraced, is redemptive and not de-humanizing. When we suffer we walk in the shoes of Christ. One of the wonders and beauties of Christianity is that our Lord doesn’t ask us to accept anything that he himself didn’t also face. We can shake our fists and cry out in anguish to God for our suffering, but we cannot accuse of Him “of not knowing what this pain is like.”
It is often argued by right-to-die advocates that “it is my life, so I should be able to end it as I choose”. No, it is not your life. As The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes clear, “We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of” (Catechism 2280). Herein lies the fallacy of the right-to-die movement. Only those who have brought about their own lives have the right to dispose of it. Since none of us have created ourselves, we do not have the moral right to eliminate ourselves.
Besides the spiritual arguments there are other problems with assisted suicide. First off is the contention that this initiative will only apply to those who are terminally ill. How does one define “terminal”? Chris Carlson, who was press secretary to former Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus, is spearheading the coalition against the Washington State initiative. In 2005, Carlson was diagnosed with cancer and was declared terminal, and yet three years later his illness is dormant: “’That points to a major flaw in this initiative. Doctors can, with some authority, tell someone they have six months or less to live,’ Carlson said. ‘I was supposed to be dead two years ago, but I'm still here.’"
Add to that the question of whether the sufferer is clear-minded enough to know that ending their life is what they truly desire. Individuals go through stages before they accept their impending death. Anger and depression are normal psychological states that precede acceptance of terminal illness. The sufferer’s desire for immediate death may be a manifestation of these temporary states of mind.
No, suicide is not the answer. The time and money being spent to pass this right-to-die measure would be better spent on research for better pain medications or on initiatives that provide terminally ill patients with psychological care equivalent to the medical attention they receive.
Donald Tremblay
