Euthanasia, Death and the Culture of Death: What Does a Culture of Life Look Like?
Canada has recently produced a fair amount of news about elderly, chronically ill, or just plain poor people put to death under their euthanasia laws. These laws have drawn criticism in Canada itself for the lack of controls in the death-process, and raised fears that those whom the government views as burdens will be increasingly prodded and poked to end their lives, rather than soak up healthcare resources, which in Canada are provided by the state.
The most common type of criticism leveled at euthanasia programs like the one in Canada and the Netherlands is the basic philosophical criticism that has animated the American pro-life movement; every life is sacred, created by God, killing God’s creatures without cause is a great sin, and we ought not kill out of social convenience, to save money or for efficiency, but instead care for our dependents, and so forth. These arguments certainly have merit, and apply quite aptly to the unborn. The euthanasia proponents normally fire back with arguments about pain, age, quality of life, uncurable illnesses and what it actually means to live- properly live, that is. We talk about a culture of life- but what does that mean? What should it mean?
Clearly, most people with some religious sensibility do not feel that all life is worth living. Many religions venerate martyrs- men and women who chose to die rather than abandon their faith. Soldiers who throw themselves into certain death are revered in most cultures, even when- especially when- the chances of survival are nil. We even have a kind of admiration for those that choose to not undergo painful and unlikely treatments that might extend their life a few more months, but rather go untreated- with cancer or some other serious disease- and die at home, rather than in the hospital. All of the above examples involve near-certain death; there is a human will in each of these circumstances- the martyr, the soldier, the cancer patient- that chooses death, yet we view these deaths as noble, rather than wasteful and tragic, as we view suicides.
Western culture of course deplores suicide, and the traditional Christian teachings of our ancestors was that suicide guaranteed eternal damnation. In the past, the Catholic Church would not conduct funeral services for persons who killed themselves, and they could not be buried in a Catholic cemetery. The idea behind this was that one’s life was not one’s own property, but God’s, and to destroy yourself was to wrongfully assert dominion over His creation. More recent explanations have focused on the sin of despair, that is, the lack of hope- failing to trust in God’s promise, if not in this life, than in the next. Nevertheless, there doesn’t seem to be much treatment of the modern arguments for euthanasia- that is, the issue of suffering.
Eastern religions tend to have more nuanced takes on self-destruction, assisted or otherwise. Buddhists tend to place primary importance on non-attachment and the avoidance of suffering, and have traditions whereby monastics end their own lives. Hindus and Jains see it as violence, disturbing the proper cycle of death and rebirth and thus forbidden; yet many exceptions exist, such as ascetic death by starvation, sati (suicide by immolation of a widow), and jauhar (banzai charges). But all of them condemn pure suicide as such.
None of these religions seems to have seriously considered the exact separate moral ramifications of euthanasia as such, which has some characteristics which set it apart from suicide. These considerations are:
1. Euthanasia involves other people in the act of killing. Traditionally, this would classify it as murder, not suicide, and all religions condemn murder. The moral ramifications are darker here as well; by what right do you stain someone else’s soul with that sin?
2. Suicide involves an act of will, but often, people that are euthanized are brain dead, mentally ill, or otherwise incapable of decision making. In what sense are they morally culpable and in what sense can they give consent? Is consent relevant in matters of life and death?
3. Euthanasia, at least in theoretical law of most nations, involves some sort of approval of the family members, although many dark cases have been alleged where people were put to death without the family’s say-so. To what extent can we rely on family consent when personal issues such as inheritance, animosity between children and parents, and financial considerations such as the cost of medical care could tip the scale in a decision to terminate someone’s life? To what extent can we reasonably even ask family members to make such a decision?
4. Finally, as always in Integral Nation, we have to consider our position that the law is a teacher, not merely a set of legal liabilities or criminal punishments. Laws have a way of setting public morality and influencing culture. If we are, or wish to become, a nation dedicated to the common good, where each organ in the state works symbiotically with all others for the benefit of the greater living whole (the State) than what effect will this have on such a feeling? What virtues does euthanasia promote, if any? Let me address these in reverse order.
The Greeks strongly felt that not all life was worth living, and that the essence of life was tragedy- death, ignominy and an afterlife that was in no way something to look forward to. Their concept of the virtuous life was to exceed the boundaries set for mere mortals and to reach for greatness, despite knowing that such brief brilliance was but a flash in the pan, and that nemesis waited for those who did so, a force of cosmic jealousy intent on cutting mortals down to size for daring to approach the gods. Their idea of life was one lived for a few moments of excellence, and training throughout for those rare opportunities- war, piracy, victory in athletic contests, producing works of great art or for displaying extreme rectitude in the face of terrible consequences. A life without the preconditions for reaching this state- the life of slaves, women, barbarians- was of very little consequence for them, as the valorization of Socrates’ death shows. Certainly, their casual cruelty made sense within their worldview, just as it made sense to the Spartans to throw deformed infants from Mt. Tygetos. But our culture has been baptized since then, Athens met Jerusalem, and such predatory morality no longer satisfies our ethical hunger.
We, in our modern age, must assert that life has some value intrinsically. If we must teach this, then we must take this admittedly bare proposition and pair it with proscriptive morality- what life is for, why it has some intrinsic value. That value must be virtue, not virtue as the internal state of the hermit or ascetic, but virtue as action- virtue is fundamentally a social action, as morality and good are determined within a social web of values. Our statement on this is that as long as one can draw breathe, one can pursue virtue, even if it seems small or inconsequential at the time. Even displaying stoicism in the face of extreme suffering is a virtue and can set an example for those around you.
Regarding the family and their role in death: We honor family as a vital suborganism of the State. Like any living thing, the family has organs- its constituent members- that it cares deeply about, that are vital to its functioning, just as an organ is vital to the functioning human body. This is why families often never recover from the loss of a family member- or if they do, they always feel the loss of that person, like an amputee who feels phantom pain in their missing limb. It is unethical to force impossible choices on people, especially regarding family members. The idea of foisting such a choice on a family is itself wrong; pairing such a choice with financial incentives is some sort of diabolical trolley problem that should have no place within a properly ordered State. Why? No virtue can result from such a choice, and therefore, it should never be made. We do not support lose-lose propositions.
Consent and will: Here we must reaffirm the traditional view- your body does not belong to you. Instead, you belong to your parents and ancestors; your children; your wider family members and finally to the State and God. We do not think consent- even if it were possible for the very ill in these situations to give, which is debatable- is relevant. We are not liberals. We do not subscribe to liberal individualism. People are not free-floating atoms, but are instead single nodes in a very large matrix. Every act and reaction in society will have knock on effects, and will ripple out and effect all of us, and even the dying have no right to set this example of despair and loss of hope. Despite the horror of terminal illness, we must insist that the condemned use this time to make an example for all of those affected by their situation- all of us, in the end balance. This means that some choices are not delegated to individuals; instead, we must do our duty in trying times. If this sounds cruel to you, it is only because life itself is cruel, and that is not the fault of all of us here- one must take that up with the Creator.
Finally, in what sense is it moral or good policy to place responsibility for killing onto another person? If such killing is not warranted socially or religiously, the person requesting death is essentially making an unethical request, and attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for self-destruction by foisting the sin of the act on others. Did washing his hands help Pilate? Millions curse him in their liturgies. Do you really have custody of your life such that you can consent to your own murder? This we have already answered in the negative. Religiously, can you in good faith put those consequences on another’s soul? If you have any faith, you must answer “no”. Socially, does it benefit the State to have a class (in this case, doctors) who have impunity to kill patients if they request it, or the paperwork is filed correctly? How will this effect the profession? It cannot be positive, and the medical profession must be held in high esteem. What message does this send when the State allows people to be medically killed? It says that you ought to dispose of yourself if you are a burden, and we don’t really care about you, or that you don’t matter. It says that your economic function is what is important about you; we must insist that we are not homo economicus, but rather, the political and social animal.
For these reasons, we must reject euthanasia, although the author has significantly more sympathy for euthanasia advocates than for pro-choicers, simply because death and suffering is both inevitable for all of us and a difficult part of life that we would all like to avoid. But if we are to build the State, it must begin with examples of virtue. Sometimes, the way one conducts themselves in the final hours of their life can make all the difference.