Once upon a time, physicians used to place a feather beneath the nose of a patient to see if he or she was dead or still breathing. Modern science eclipsed such methods, but at the same time brought with it new dilemmas, like Euthanasia, Physician-Assisted-Suicide (PAS), and DNR (Do-Not-Resuscitate).

They are sticky modern issues which can easily strike at the heart of our religious and moral convictions.

Etymologically speaking, the Greek term “euthanasia,” meant “good death,” i.e., a morally and spiritually honorable death. Today, the same word is used to denote “mercy killing,” — that is, putting an end to suffering by killing the patient.

Concerning “mercy killing,” the Council of the Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1989 stated: “The social commitment of the physician is to sustain life and relieve suffering. When the performance of one duty conflicts with the other, the preferences of the patient should prevail. . . . However, the physician should not intentionally cause death” (emphasis added).

The AMA’s firm stance is in agreement with the Codes of medical ethics, such as the Geneva Declaration (1957), the Helsinki Statement of the World Health Organization (1964), and the Hippocratic oath of ancient Greece: “I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients, and never do harm to anyone. I will never prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause death” (480 B.C.).

In our days, new medical technologies are truly exciting. Modern science has given us a spectacular century. In medicine, our medical geniuses have delivered a host of miracles: heart and other organ transplants; machinery that can pump for our hearts and breathe for our lungs; surgery to remove cancerous cells and repair broken bones.

On the other hand, Dr. Kevorkian & Co. seem to have lost their understanding of the sanctity of human life. Today, more and more people insist that they can assume God’s prerogative to decide who should be born and when life should end.

Therefore, medical and religious authorities are concerned about the potential deleterious effects of legalizing or endorsing medically assisted euthanasia, and they warn about a “slippery slope.” Their concern is that once medically assisted euthanasia is legalized for the terminally ill who request it, the killing of other groups might easily follow. These “other groups” could include the physically and mentally handicapped, the elderly, and perhaps even members of specific ethnic, racial or religious clusters, as witnessed during Yugoslavia’s “ethnic cleansing.”

An earlier example of a “slippery slope” can be seen in the history of Nazi Germany. Hitler’s euthanasia program began in 1939 with the enactment of his decree “Vernichtung Lebensunwerte Lebens” (“Destruction of Lives Which Are Unworthy of Being Lived”). The initial victims were physically and mentally handicapped. But the Nazi definition of “unworthy” soon expanded, and millions who were labelled “unfit and unworthy” died in concentration camps like the one at Auschwitz, where the doomed entered through a gate bearing the cynical slogan: “Arbeit Macht Frei” (“Work Makes You Free”).

In his book, Exile in the Fatherland, published by Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Pastor Martin Niemoller described the Nazi “slippery slope” this way:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist.

“Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Trade Unionist.

“Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.

“Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. . . .”

In Nazi Germany, a socially advanced nation was transformed politically and morally almost overnight. The recent Dutch practice is every bit as troubling as earlier German precedents.

Giving doctors the legal power to kill their patients is a dangerous public policy. Even a strong advocate of legalized medical killing such as Dutch scholar Dr. H. J. Leenen admits that an almost total lack of control on the administration of euthanasia currently exists, “and the present legal situation makes any adequate control of the practice virtually impossible.”

In Holland, the main argument in favor of euthanasia has always been that patients have the right to make their own end-of-life decisions. Yet, over the past 20 years, Dutch euthanasia practice has ultimately given doctors, not patients, more and more power. The question of whether a patient should live or die is often decided exclusively by the doctors.

In the overwhelming majority of Dutch euthanasia cases, doctors — in order to avoid additional paperwork and scrutiny from local authorities — deliberately falsify patients’ death certificates, stating that the deaths occurred from natural causes. Thus, despite long-standing, court-approved euthanasia guidelines developed to protect patients, abuse has become an accepted norm.

At present, concerning euthanasia, a newly proposed Dutch law would lower the age of consent for obtaining it from 16 to 12 years. It would allow a doctor to administer a lethal injection on request to anyone age 12 or older, regardless of parental objections.

Cardinal Adrianus Simonis of Utrecht, Netherlands, president of the Dutch bishops’ conference stated: “We completely disagree with the proposed new law. It would worsen the situation which is already wrong. In addition, it would deprive parents of their duty and right to assist their children.”

(History’s irony is, that during World War II, Holland was the only occupied country whose doctors refused to participate in the German euthanasia program.)

In the U.S., the Congress is ready for a Senate floor debate on pro-life legislation. The bill in question is the Pain Relief Promotion Act (H.R. 2260, A. 1272), a measure to encourage use of federally controlled drugs for pain management without allowing assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The Act contains a lot that should be welcomed both by doctors and patients. For instance, it provides $5 million a year in training-grants for health professionals to improve pain control for the critically and terminally ill.

The bill passed 271-156 in the House of Representatives last October, and on April 25, it has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and cleared for Senate floor action.
On April 25, the Judiciary Committee’s Senator Gordon Smith, R-Ore., — his voice cracking with emotion — urged his fellow senators to pass the Act.

Senator Smith said that in his capacity as bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he continually made rounds at St. Anthony’s Hospital, a Catholic institution in Pendleton, Oregon, in the Diocese of Baker.

“On many occasions, I shared with parents the unspeakable joy of welcoming newborn babies into this world. On others, I suffered in heart-breaking sorrow as I tried to comfort the critically ill, or hold the hands of those who lay at the brink of eternity,” Bishop Smith said.

The Pain Relief Promotion Act, which has 43 Senate sponsors, is supported by more than 40 groups including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the Catholic Health Association, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, and American Medical Association (AMA).

On the other hand, the Act has ignited a firestorm of protest from Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, whose state has legalized physician-assisted suicide, and also from a few medical groups which don’t think assisted suicide is such a bad idea.

The Vatican’s “Declaration on Euthanasia” (1980) by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith summarizes well the Catholic tradition:

It is necessary to firmly state that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, and a crime against life.

The Vatican’s firm stance inspired Dr. Diane Coleman, the leader of the Michigan-based anti-euthanasia group “Not Dead Yet.” According to her, the hospice concept offers an alternative way of dying that makes mercy-killing both unnecessary and undesirable. She calls the relatively new movement “Physician-Assisted Living” (PAL). The PAL initiative establishes a patient’s “Bill of Rights,” under which individuals could indicate their desire for a dignified death and palliative care. However empty the patient’s pocket, the “Bill of Rights” guarantees to the patient a team of doctors, nurses, and clergy to minister to the physical, emotional, and spiritual demands of dying.

Finally, we should remember that by committing suicide we would put ourselves under the judgment pronounced on Judas Iscariot: “Better for that man if he had never been born.”  

Reverend Robert G. Fin was born in Hungary and studied for the priesthood in Rome. He was ordained in Czechoslovakia in 1943 and taught Latin and Russian in Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary. He was put into a concentration camp with other priests in Hungary in 1950 and escaped to the United States in 1951. He joined the Gannon University faculty in 1953 in Erie, Pa., where he taught Russian. Fr. Fin is now semi-retired, but continues to teach in the Adult Education and Kids College departments at Gannon.

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents April 2001

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page