PHYSICIAN ASSISTED SUICIDE: BISHOPS SILENT OR DIVIDED ON THE PRACTICE

In America, it is the law that individual States have the power to regulate, allow or prohibit assisted suicide.

 It should be noted that, in 1997, in the cases of Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that there is no Constitutional right to assisted suicide, and that states therefore have the right to prohibit it. 

Advocates of assisted suicide saw this as opening the door for debate on the issue at the State level.

Nine years later, the case of Gonzales v. Oregon was brought to the United States Supreme Court in 2006. The Justices ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill.

Now, a little more than a decade later, a large majority of Americans say euthanasia should be legal throughout the country, a reversal from the 1940s and 1950s when most thought the practice should be prohibited. Sixty-nine percent say that a doctor should be allowed to end a patient's life by painless means if the patient requests it, up from 36% in 1950. 

In 2016, California became the most populous State to pass a law allowing terminally ill patients who meet certain criteria to ask their doctor for life-ending medication. The legislation came as a result of the case of Brittany Maynard, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in California, where physicians previously were barred from prescribing medication to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. Maynard ended her life in Oregon, where the practice was legal.

Since the passage of that law, over 134 terminally ill citizens of California have ended their lives by way of physician assisted suicide.

But, while 69% of Americans say physicians should be allowed to end patients' lives by painless means, only 51% say they would consider ending their own lives if they personally had a disease that could not be cured and they were living in severe pain.

California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico are the only states presently allowing physician-assisted suicide. California, often a bellwether for change throughout the U.S., may persuade other states to consider passing legislation permitting physicians to allow terminally ill people to end their lives. 

While Americans appear to be solidly comfortable with the practice, the nation appears to be divided on the moral acceptability of the practice according to social researchers.  But, as one surveys the frequency with which the Catholic Bishops address and condemn the practice, one is shocked by their apparent silence and indifference with regard to the practice.  That silence will be the eventual justification for more and more Catholic to consider physician assisted suicide to be a morally acceptable means of ending life in terminally ill situations and circumstances.

But when Catholic Bishops are indeed bold enough to even address the practice, it appears that there is little common agreement among them regarding its moral ramifications.

In Canada, for example,two groups of Canadian Catholic Bishops have issued instructions for pastors regarding the pastoral care of people planning assisted suicide. 

One group of bishops tells priests that Catholics planning suicide cannot receive the Sacraments. The other group of Bishops leaves that question open.

Citing the teachings of Pope Francis, the Catholic bishops of the Atlantic territories write that people considering suicide “deserve our compassionate response and respect.” While the decision to commit suicide is contrary to Christian morality, they note that the individual may be suffering from depression or other emotional difficulties that prevent a full consent of the will. The bishops conclude that ‘the pastoral care of souls cannot be reduced to norms for the reception of sacraments or the celebration of funeral rites.”

However, in a sharply contrasting document, the Catholic bishops of Alberta and the Northwest Territories argue strongly against accepting an individual’s choice of suicide. They, too, urge pastors to show compassion and understanding for those contemplating suicide, but they emphasize that such people should be made aware that “euthanasia is a grave sin.”  If a Catholic asks to be anointed before suicide, the Alberta and Northwest Territories Bishops write, the Priest has “the duty to implore the sick person with gentle firmness to turn away from this determination in repentance and trust. If the person, however, remains obstinate, the Anointing cannot be celebrated.”

Once again, if the Bishops themselves cannot find common ground regarding the morality of such once very clear Catholic teaching regarding euthanasia and the sanctity of human life, what is the average member of the Catholic faithful to conclude other than decisions regarding these matters are subject to personal discretion and choice.

We are experiencing a new age of moral relativism creeping into the Church to a degree once considered unthinkable.  The consequences of such a development will be severe and regrettable for generations yet to be born.