|
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 is available
from: Hon Secretary, SAVES, PO Box 2151, Kent Town, SA 5071, Australia
Fax + 61 8 8265 2287 or email info@saves.asn.au
|
