South Australian Voluntary Euthanasia Society
The following article is from the SAVES newsletter, The VE Bulletin, Vol 15, No 1, Mar 98
The Catholic Position on Voluntary Euthanasia
The official Catholic position on euthanasia is well
known. It is irrevocably opposed, claiming any form
of euthanasia to be murder regardless of circum-
stances. It is well known that this rigid position
creates difficulties for many Catholics in reconciling
their concept of a loving God with the apparently
needless suffering that some experience in the
process of dying. Not so well known is that it can
also create problems for Catholic theologians who
perceive inconsistencies in such a narrow
interpretation of this aspect of the Catholic doctrine.
Some of these theologians have offered an alternative
interpretation of Catholic belief in which voluntary
euthanasia is in harmony with God's will.
One such theologian is Dr Jacques Pohier, DD, PhD.
Dr Pohier, now 70, became a member of the
Dominican Order in 1949 and, as such, a preacher,
priest and theologian. He obtained a PhD in
psychology in Montreal, Canada, and was a
professor at, and later Dean of, the Pontifical Faculty
of Theology of the French Dominicans (Le
Saulchoir).
His theological points of view increasingly departed
from those of the Roman Catholic Church Hierarchy
(RCCH) until, in 1979, he was banned by the
Vatican from preaching, reading the mass and
teaching theology. Five years later, he left the
Dominican Order.
He was then appointed full time administrative
secretary of the French voluntary euthanasia society,
Association pour le Droit de Mourir dans la Dignite
(ADMD). He became a member of the Board in
1989 and was Chairman of the Society from 1992 to
1995.
SAVES has prepared a short precis of a nine-page
paper by Dr Pohier. The paper was presented at the
10th International Congress of Medical Law held at
Jerusalem in August 1994 entitled "A Positive
Catholic Viewpoint in Favour of Voluntary
Euthanasia". It was subsequently published in
French in the Congress Papers and an English
translation presented at one of the fringe meetings at
the 1995 Melbourne Conference of the World
Federation of Right to Die Societies.
Bill Mettyear
A PRECIS OF DR POHIER'S PAPER
In his paper, Dr Pohier identifies the different
concepts of euthanasia and God held by regularly
practising Catholics who support legalising voluntary
euthanasia and those who do not. He starts with the
official RCCH position set out by the Congregation
of the Doctrine of Faith, 5 May 1980:
|
By euthanasia, we mean an action or omission
which, in itself or in intention, causes death for the
purpose of eliminating all suffering ... No-one can
request such a homicidal action [underlined by
Pohier] for him or herself or for another person for
whom he or she is responsible, or even to give such
consent to it, explicitly or implicitly.
|
Thus the RCCH, in common with the legislation of
many countries, make no distinction between
euthanasia and murder no matter what the
circumstances. In so doing they place the focus on
the action of the agent in carrying out requested
euthanasia rather than on the right of the individual
to make that decision for him or herself and therefore
to seek and receive assistance.
Dr Pohier goes on to explore a situation where the
RCCH does acknowledge a right to exercise control
over death, namely the right to refuse possibly
burdensome life prolonging treatment. He draws
attention to a key factor in the Catholic conception of
the human being, and of God in his role in the
creation of and the Covenant with human beings, that
they have to exercise responsibility over their own
lives. In the use of aggressive therapy or the use of
intensive and exceptional treatments for patients with
no chance of surviving an incurable illness, the
RCCH considers that the responsibility of the human
being can include the decision as to the time of death
and that it is the patient, not the doctor or family,
that should make the decision. This was made clear
by Pope Pious XII:
|
The rights and duties of the doctor correlate with
those of the patient. In fact, the doctor has no
rights separate from or independent of the patient:
in general, he can act only with the patient's
authorisation, either explicit or implicit (direct or
indirect) ... The rights and duties of the family, in
general, depend on the assumed wishes of the
unconscious patient, in the case of an adult or
person sui iuris. (Pious XII, "To Doctors and
Anaesthetists", 22 November 1957)
|
Thus the autonomy of the patient allows him or her
to accept or refuse intensive treatment. The
consequences that follow from this teaching of the
RCCH are detailed in the following quotation, also
from the declaration quoted above dated 5 May
1980:
|
In the absence of other adequate remedies, it is
permissible, with the approval of the patient, to
have recourse to means available through advanced
medical technology, even if these are still only at
an experimental stage and may not be entirely
without risk. The patient, by accepting such
means, will even be able to show generosity in the
service of mankind.
It is also permissible to suspend the use of such
means whenever results do not meet expectations.
But for such a decision to be made, consideration
must be given to the reasonable desires of the
patient and of his/her family and also to the
opinions of the specially skilled medical
practitioners who may, for example, deem that the
investment required in terms of equipment and staff
is disproportionate to any predictable results and
that techniques used impose constraints or
sufferings on the patient out of all proportion to the
benefits that may be obtained.
In the case of imminent and inevitable death,
despite all means used, it is also permissible to
make the decision not to undertake treatments that
would only bring about a precarious and painful
respite, without, however, suspending the normal
care provided to the patient under such
circumstances. The doctor could not therefore
blame him/herself for failing to have provided
assistance to a person in danger.
|
Dr Pohier, having demonstrated that in such
circumstances the RCCH properly recognise personal
autonomy in influencing the duration of life, turns to
the inconsistency in the teaching on voluntary
euthanasia where personal autonomy is denied. He
analyses the three assumptions in faith on which the
RCCH base their opposition to voluntary euthanasia:
- God is the source of all life and is therefore the sole master of life.
- For God the importance of human life is so great that God alone, not humans, can have control over death.
- God's way of giving.
He provides four pages of examples and analysis to
support his contention that the RCCH, in using these
three assumptions of faith, do no more than state
what they apparently regard as self evident. In fact,
they fail to explain why, given the nature of the
Creation and the Covenant, there can be no
circumstances in which humans may choose
euthanasia.
Dr Pohier's paper concludes:
|
There is no reason, founded in the Christian
faith, for the RCCH not to extend its previous
declarations on the refusal or acceptance of
aggressive therapy or intensive and exceptional
treatments and to apply them to voluntary
euthanasia and medically assisted suicide. It is
the responsibility of the person concerned, and of
that person alone (doctors, carers and family
only ever being the agents delegated and the
means of ensuring that the patient's wishes be
observed), to decide on the conditions of his/her
survival and of his/her death.
Clearly, in this latter case, as in all other fields
where individual freedom and the individual
conscience have to assume responsibilities, the
person concerned may behave well or badly.
From a Christian point of view, this may or may
not be an occasion of sin. The point is not to
make voluntary euthanasia a morally neutral act,
either from a personal or social point of view.
It is simply a matter of recognising that even if
voluntary euthanasia may, in certain cases, be a
mistake, it can be recognised by society as a
human right and can be recognised by the
Churches as an act that may be virtuous and, we
will even go so far as to use the words, "fitting",
"right" or "holy".
Should this be cause for surprise when it is a
question of exercising control over death? We
must realise that this applies to a number of
other "natural" acts in life, such as forming a
couple and a family, having a child, building a
society, in science and in art. Death is another
"natural" stage of life. Human beings must
undertake all the stages and all the works in
their lives with freedom, in conscience, with
reason and love. Christians consider that God
deems this to be good ("God saw everything that
he had made and indeed it was very good",
(Genesis, 1, 31)) and that, for better or worse,
God prefers a covenant, with all the risks and
rewards involved, with human beings throughout
all the different stages that make up the essence
of their life and also, therefore, at the moment of
death.
|
Further information on this and related issues is available from the SAVES.
|
|
