On
November 6, voters in Massachusetts and California decided – by a
close margin in both states – not to legalize assisted suicide. This was a
victory for life. But what if Massachusetts and California had followed the
states of Washington, Oregon, and Montana, along with a number of countries in
Europe, in legalizing assisted suicide?
I have
to question the implications of the fact that these bills were even proposed to
the voters. Why is our society pushing for the legalization of voluntary death,
when there are so many advances in medicine?
For
centuries pain was part of life, assumed, accepted, and never questioned; but
now we can go to the hospital to prevent infections, cure a sickness, recover
from an amputation, have a heart transplant…even eliminate a headache. So why
are we concerned about ending life because of suffering when, supposedly,
medicine gives us the power to relieve suffering?
The key
to this discussion is to acknowledge that when we eliminate religion from a
culture, when we deny moral values and human dignity, we’re left with our own self-preservation
as our only ethical guiding light.
When
justice and human dignity are no longer a priority, we go to every length we
can to prevent suffering and to create comfort. As with numerous other areas of
life, like education, sexuality, marriage, friendship, and leisure, our culture
teaches us that it’s all about our personal satisfaction. When there is no ultimate
respect for human dignity, it’s natural for men to elevate health to their highest
goal in life.
But how
is health related to death? A recent essay from First Things gives an explanation
for the relation between the two: “When eliminating suffering becomes the
overriding purpose of a society, people can easily come to perceive that it is
proper to accomplish the goal by eliminating the sufferer.”
The
author continues,
Elevating “health” to the ultimate purpose of
society turns it into something other than health. The original definition of
the term is elasticized to include a hedonistic sense of entitlement to obtain
whatever our hearts desire. Health becomes understood as a prophylactic, if you
will, against suffering.
With
this mindset, it seems normal to want to end a life because it’s causing pain.
But will this legalization turn into an open passage to suicide? What is the
difference between someone who wants to die because his physical pain is too
much to handle and someone who no longer wishes to live because life is too
hard or the sadness of losing a loved one is too painful? Who will determine
what level of suffering is necessary in order to apply for legal death?
Let’s take the question further. What if a person has the power
to decide for someone else that his or her life is filled with
pain or distress, as was the case with Terri
Schiavo in Florida in 2005? Or to decide that someone else’s
life is causing him or her to suffer, so he or she has the right to eliminate
that suffering by eliminating the other
person? (This is an argument used to support abortion, when an unborn baby
causes financial or personal inconvenience to the mother.) Has our society
drifted so far from ethical moorings that we would legalize murder on demand?
The author of the First
Things essay describes our moral situation:
In such a milieu,
ethics become transitory because we justify our behavior by feelings rather
than robust principles of morality—which after all, sometimes require us to
eschew what we want and what feels good in order to do what is
right.
It is
obvious that when there is no religion in a society there is no respect for
life. MARRI research in 95
Social Science Reasons for Religious Worship and Practice explains many
more consequences of the decline of religion. How long will we allow this
decline and its consequences, all in the name of “health” and “freedom from
suffering,” to go on?
No comments:
Post a Comment