LONDON, OCT. 10, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor spoke out against an assisted-dying bill being considered in Britain, warning that the "right to die can become a duty to die."
The archbishop of Westminster made that comment on the BBC One’s "Sunday AM" program, in regard to the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill being debated today in the House of Lords.
He was asked by the interviewer whether the matter of death is "not an intensely personal thing which should be left to the individual and not to churches?"
"It’s not only a personal thing," the cardinal responded, "it’s a common thing and I think the churches have a right to say what they deeply believe regarding the sanctity of life and also regarding the consequences of particular actions.
"With regard to assisted dying and this bill of Lord Joffe, first of all I’d say, with the growth of hospices, which care for the dying — and I’ve been to many — there’s no doubt that there are now ways of palliative care that we didn’t have before and therefore that great moment, or moments, or time of going to the next life, of dying is a very important moment and time in a person’s life — "
…Meanwhile, in Glasgow, Scotland, Archbishop Mario Conti, the vice chair of the joint Bioethics Committee of the bishops’ conferences of Britain and Ireland, made a statement on the assisted-dying bill.
"Legally assisted suicide is the first step to getting rid of the elderly and the terminally ill," Archbishop Conti said. "Those who deny this are so focused on the particular question that they fail to see the broader consequences.
"Such a law would change the role of doctors subtly but significantly from carers of the sick to dispatchers of their patients. Legislators, medical personnel and patients alike should resist this move.
Exactly right, the right to die will become the duty to die. We too easily make people feel like a burden for daring to stick around when they should just off themselves "with dignity." The misplaced compassion of those who see their relatives suffering move to try to put an end to it instead of doing what they can to enter in to it and to reduce their suffering. Archbishop Mario Conti is also right but in many ways doctors have already become dispatchers instead of healers. Abortion has already entered in to corrupt the medical profession from life-saving to life-taking.
9 comments
A similar bill is being presented in the Canadian House of Commons in November. Lord have mercy on this country! First “re-defining” marriage, now re-defining life. Makes for a scary place.
One of the reasons I’ve stayed luke-warm at best over the idea of a constitutional ammendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (sheath your torches–I’m not denying that) is that such things as life, marriage, etc. are not for the government to define. They’re completely out of the government’s jurisdiction. So, dear government, stop trying to define human life and fix the potholes in my street as is your job!
How can the government defend human life, if it cannot define human life?
I see a lack of defense.
We love Conti, he’s a Catholic. And not stupid or mad. And a bishop. Something went right!
Death with dignity?
As Dr. House points out, there is no dignity in dying. Only the living can gain dignity.
As I said in a discussion about healthcare on “Open Book,” this is one reason “universal healthcare” makes me worry.
Many people want the British or Canadian healthcare system here – but how free, under socialized medicine, would a Catholic hospital be to follow the Catholic religious and ethical directives they are now bound to follow? How long before all hospitals would be required to provide abortions, sterilizations, or – I see it coming – euthansia and assisted suicides?
Nobody answered that question on Amy’s blog, but I don’t think it’s a silly concern.
The good cardinal nailed it on the head with “the duty to die”! When Jack Kevorkian was killing people in my state, it didn’t take me long to see that most of the “assisted” were women who had the mindset that they were “burdens” to their husbands or families. They could have used counseling and maybe pain management – but not death. Many advocates of assisted suicide talk of “life not worth living”, but the reality is that the focus is on financial burdens or an unwillingness to care for someone with a disability. If we allow euthanasia in our money-hungry, youth-obsessed culture, you better believe we’ll be hearing talk of “duty to die”.
Can’t you just hear the awkward conversations in the hospital room, after the doctor has said that there are two alternatives, long term care or “death with dignity”? It would start with “Mum, we just don’t want you to suffer,” and go rapidly downhill from there. We all have to make it clear to our own children, on paper, that we’re quite comfortable with the idea of being a royal pain in the kiester when we’re old, and we absolutely reject and prohibit any sort of “assisted dying”.