Newspaper Page Text
i
'•A
VATICAN DOCUMENT
PAGE 7—July c 3,1980
Mercy Killing Violates Human Dignity
Suicide, Painkillers, Living Wills
VATICAN CITY (NC) - Here is
the official English text of the
Declaration on Euthanasia issued
June 26 by the Vatican Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Introduction
The rights and values pertaining to
the human person occupy an
important place among the questions
discussed today. In this regard, the
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council
solemnly reaffirmed the lofty dignity
of the human person, and in a special
way his or her right to life. The
council therefore comdemned crimes
against life “Such as any type of
murder, genocide, abortion,
euthanasia, or willful suicide”
(pastoral constitution, “Gaudium et
Spes” no. 27).
More recently, the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith has reminded all the faithful of
Catholic teaching on procured
abortion. (1) The congregation now
considers it opportune to set forth
the church’s teaching on euthanasia.
It is indeed true that, in this
sphere of teaching, the recent popes
have explained the principles, and
these retain their full force; (2) but
the progress of medical science in
recent years has brought to the fore
new aspects of the question of
euthanasia, and these aspects call for
further elucidation on the ethical
level.
In modem society, in which even
the fundamental values of human life
are often called into question,
cultural change exercises an influence
upon the way of looking at suffering
and death; moreover medicine has
increased its capacity to cure and to
prolong life in particular
circumstances, which sometimes give
rise to moral problems.
NO LITTLE ANXIETY
Thus people living in this situation
experience no little anxiety about
the meaning of advanced old age and
death. They also begin to wonder
whether they have the right to obtain
for themselves or their fellowmen an
“easy death,” which would shorten
suffering and which seems to them
more in harmony with human
dignity.
A number of episcopal
conferences have raised questions on
this subject with the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. The congregation, having
sought the opinion of experts on the
various aspects of euthanasia, now
wishes to respond to the bishops’
questions with the present
declaration, in order to help them to
give correct teaching to the faithful
entrusted to their care, and to offer
them elements for reflection that
they can present to the civil
authorities with regard to this very
serious matter.
The considerations set forth in the
present document concern in the
first place all those who place their
faith and hope in Christ, who,
through his life, death and
resurrection, has given a new
meaning to existence and especially
to the death of the Christian, as St.
Paul says: “If we live, we live to the
Lord, and if we die, we die to the
Lord” (Romans 14:8, cf. Philippians
1:20).
As for those who profess other
religions, many will agree with us
that faith in God the creator,
provider and lord of life — if they
share this belief — confers a lofty
dignity upon every human person
and guarantees respect for him or
her.
It is hoped that this declaration
will meet with the approval of many
people of good will, who,
philosophical or ideological
differences not withstanding, have
nevertheless a lively awareness of the
heights of the human person. These
rights have often in fact been
proclaimed in recent years through
declarations issued by international
congresses; (3) and since it is a
question here of fundamental rights
inherent in every human person, it is
obviously wrong to have recourse to
arguments from political pluralism or
religious freedom in order to deny
the universal value of those rights.
I. The Value of Human Life
Human life is the basis of all
goods, and is the necessary source
and condition of every human
activity and of all society. Most
people regard life as something
sacred and hold that no one may
dispose of it at will, but believers see
in life something greater, namely a
gift of God’s love, which they are
called upon to preserve and make
fruitful. And it is this latter
person, without violating a
fundamental right, and therefore
without committing a crime of the
utmost gravity. (4)
2. Everyone has the duty to lead
his or her life in accordance with
God’s plan. That life is entrusted to
the individual as a good that must
bear fruit already here on earth, but
that finds its full perfection only in
eternal life.
3. Intentionally causing one’s own
death, or suicide, is therefore equally
as wrong as murder; such an action
on the part of a person is to be
considered as a rejection of God’s
sovereignty and loving plan.
Furthermore, suicide is also often a
refusal of love for self, the denial of
the natural instinct to live, a flight
from the duties of justice and charity
owed to one’s neighbor, to various
communities or to the whole of
society — although, as is generally
recognized, at times there are
psychological factors present that
can diminish responsibility or even
completely remove it.
However, one must clearly
distinguish suicide from that sacrifice
of one’s life whereby for a higher
cause, such as God’s glory, the
salvation of souls or the service of
one’s brethren, a person offers his or
her own life or puts it in danger (cf.
John 15:14).
II. Euthanasia
In order that the question of
euthanasia can be properly dealt
with, it is first necessary to define
the words used.
obtain it for others. Although in
these cases the guilt of the individual
may be reduced or completely
absent, nevertheless the error of
judgment into which the conscience
falls, perhaps in good faith, does not
change the nature of this act of
killing, which will always be in itself
something to be rejected.
The pleas of gravely ill people
who sometimes ask for death are not
to be understood as implying a true
desire for euthanasia; in fact it is
almost always a case of an anguished
plea for help and love. What a sick
person needs, besides medical care, is
love, the human and supernatural
warmth with which the sick person
can and ought to be surrounded by
all those close to him or her, parents
and children, doctors and nurses.
III. The Meaning of Suffering for
Christians and the Use of Painkillers:
Death does not always come in
dramatic circumstances after barely
tolerable sufferings. Nor do we have
to think only of extreme cases.
Numerous testimonies which confirm
one another lead one to the
conclusion that nature itself has
made provision to render more
bearable at the moment of death
separations that would be terribly
painful to a person in full health.
Hence it is that a prolonged illness,
advanced old age, or a stfete of
loneliness or neglect can bring about
psychological conditions that
facilitate the acceptance of death.
Nevertheless the fact remains that
death, often preceded or
At A Glance
1) It is necessary to state firmly once more that
nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing
of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an
embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one
suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is
dying.
2) No one is permitted to ask for this act of
killing . .. nor can he or she consent to it. . . nor can
any authority legitimately recommend or permit such
an action.
3) Decisions on appropriate medical treatment in
individual cases must be made according to the
conscience of the sick person, his physician or others
responsible to speak for the patient.
4) Experimental medical techniques, even if they
are not without a certain risk, may be used with the
patient’s consent, but such treatment may be
terminated if the investment of instruments and
personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen or
the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or
suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he
or she may gain.
5) A refusal to make use of such measures is also
permitted by the Church when based on an acceptance
of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the
application of medical procedure disproportionate to
the results that can be expected, or a desire not to
impose excessive expense on the family or the
community.
6) Regarding suicide, the declaration called it
equally as wrong as murder because it involves a
rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan, a refusal
to love one self, the denial of the natural instinct to
live, a flight from the duties of justice and charity
owed to one’s neighbor.
7) Regarding Living Wills the document said, the
pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death
are not to be understood as implying a true desire for
enthanasia. In fact it is almost always a case of an
anguished plea for help and love.
8) On painkillers, it said, it is not right to deprive a
dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.
A person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her
moral duties and family obligations. He or she also has
to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for
meeting Christ.
9) The declaration asked for understanding of and
adherence to the church’s views from people with
philosophical or ideological differences. Since it is a
question here of fundamental rights inherent in every
human person.
a
consideration that gives rise to the
following consequences:
1. No one can make an attempt
on the life of an innocent person
without opposing God’s love for that
it
Beautiful Document
-Mrs. Quinlan
PATERSON, N.J. (NC) -- The Vatican’s new “Declaration on Euthanasia”
reaffirms “our beliefs that we did the right thing,” said the mother of Karen
Ann Quinlan.
Miss Quinlan, now 26, has continued to live in a coma after her parents
received court permission in 1976 to remove a respirator believed necessary to
keep the young woman alive.
“It’s a beautiful document,” said the young woman’s mother, Julia Quinlan,
in a telephone interview. She said the declaration “used terms that I feel
support everything we have done.”
Miss Quinlan has remained clinically alive since the respirator was
disconnected May 22, 1976. She was transferred from St. Clare Hospital,
Denville, N. J., to the Morris View nursing home in nearby Morris Plains, where
she survives with intravenous feeding and ordinary care.
Miss Quinlan had been found unconscious by her roommate on April 15,
1975, She was given emergency treatment at Newton Memorial Hospital and
then transferred to St. Clare Hospital.
In September 1975 Joseph and Julia Quinlan sought permission from the
Superior Court in Morristown to unplug the mechanical respirator believed
necessary to keep their daughter biologically alive. Permission was denied, but
the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision in early 1976.
Mrs. Quinlan said she believes the Vatican declaration “is a reaffirmation of
what we have been stressing for the last five years.”
“We have always stressed, however,” she added, “that our case was not
euthanasia, or mercy killing. We asked the court to allow us to put Karen in
God’s hands.”
Mrs. Quinlan said certain newspaper articles she has read on the Vatican
document are inaccurate in comparing Karen Ann’s case to mercy killing.
She said she especially liked the part of the document that refers to
“relieving a person of suffering without doing anything to cause her death.”
She added, “It is putting a person in God’s hands.”
“It is perfect timing for the Vatican to release this document,” she said.
“There has been so much discussion over the last five years about appropriate
medical treatment that this should clear up some of the issues.”
The Quinlans have used some of the money they have received from a book
they co-authored on their experiences and from movie and magazine rights to
open the Karen Ann Quinlan Center of Hope, a hospice in Newton, N. J.
“When I read the document I thought about the hospice,” Mrs. Quinlan
said. “The purpose of a hospice is to allow a person to die with dignity, to die
in God’s time and in a Christian way.”
Mrs. Quinlan said she had read sections of the Vatican declaration on June
26, the day it was released, while she was taping a television program for
WOR-TV, Channel 9, in New York City. Entitled “Karen Ann Quinlan - Five
Years later,” the program sponsored by the Brooklyn, N. Y., Diocese was to be
shown Sunday, June 29.
Etymologically speaking, in
ancient times euthanasia meant an
eeasy death without severe suffering.
Today one no longer thinks of this
original meaning of the word, but
rather of some intervention of
medicine whereby the sufferings of
sickness or of the final agony are
reduced, sometimes also with the
danger of suppressing life
prematurely. Ultimately, the word
euthanasia is used in a more
particular sense to mean “mercy
killing,” for the purpose of putting
an end to extreme suffering, or
saving abnormal babies, the mentally
ill or the incurably sick from the
prolongation, perhaps for many
years, of a miserable life, which
could impose too heavy a burden on
their families or on society.
It is therefore necessary to state
clearly in what sense the word is used
in the present document.
By euthanasia is understood an
action or an omission which of itself
or by intention causes death, in order
that all suffering may in this way be
eliminated. Euthanasia’s terms of
reference, therefore, are to be found
in the intention of the will and in the
methods used.
It is necessary to state firmly once
more that nothing and no one can
in any way permit the killing of an
innocent human being, whether a
fetus or an embryo, an infant or an
adult, an old person, or one suffering
from an incurable disease, or a
person who is dying. Furthermore,
no one is permitted to ask for this
act of killing, either for himself or
herself or for another person
entrusted to his or her care, nor can
he or she consent to it, either
explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any
authority legitimately recommend or
permit such an action. For it is a
question of the violation of the
divine law, an offence against the
dignity of the human person, a crime
against life, and an attack on
humanity.
It may happen that, by reason of
prolonged and barely tolerable pain,
for deeply personal or other reasons,
people may be led to believe that
they can legitimately ask for death or
accompanied by severe and
prolonged suffering, is something
which naturally causes people
anguish.
Physical suffering is certainly an
unavoidable element of the human
condition; on the biological level, it
constitutes a warning of which no
one denies the usefulness; but, since
it affects the human psychological
makeup, it often exceeds its own
biological usefulness and so can
become so severe as to cause the
desire to remove it at any cost.
According to Christian teaching,
however, suffering, especially
suffering during the last moments of
life, has a special place in God’s
saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in
Christ’s Passion and a union with the
redeeming sacrifice which he offered
in obedience to the father’s will.
Therefore one must not be surprised
if some Christians prefer to moderate
their use of painkillers, in order to
accept voluntarily at least a part of
their sufferings and thus associate
themselves in a conscious way with
the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf.
Matthew 27:34).
Nevertheless it would be
imprudent to impose a heroic way of
acting as a general rule. On the
contrary, human and Christian
prudence suggest for the majority of
sick people the use of medicines
capable of alleviating or suppressing
pain, even though these may cause as
a secondary effect semi-conscious
ness and reduced lucidity. As for
those who are not in a state to
express themselves, one can
reasonably presume that they wish to
take these painkillers, and have them
administered according to the
doctor’s advice.
But the intensive use of painkillers
is not without difficulties, because
the phenomenon of habituation
generally makes it necessary to
increase their dosage in order to
maintain their efficacy. At this point
it is fitting to recall a declaration by
Pius XII, which retains its full force;
in answer to a group of doctors who
had put the question: “Is the
suppression of pain and
consciousness by the use of narcotics
— permitted by religion and morality
to the doctor and the patient (even
at the approach of death and if one
foresees that the use of narcotics will
shorten life)? ”
The pope said: “If no other means
exist, and if, in the given
circumstances, this does not prevent
the carrying out of other religious
and moral duties: Yes.” (5) In this
case, of course, death is in no way
intended or sought, even if the risk
of it is reasonably taken; the
intention is simply to relieve pain
effectively, using for this purpose
painkillers available to medicine.
However, painkillers that cause
POPE JOHN PAUL meets with the First Family of the United
States in the Vatican. The weekend following the historic meeting
the Holy Father issued the new updated statement on Mercy
kKilling. The Document was issued through the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
unconsciousness need special
consideration. For a person not only
has to be able to satisfy his or her
moral duties and family obligations;
he or she also has to prepare himself
or herself with full consciousness for
meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns:
“It is not right to deprive the dying
person of consciousness without a
serious reason.” (6)
IV. Due Proportion in the Use of
Remedies
Today it is very important to
protect, at the moment of death,
both the dignity of the human
person and the Christian concept of
life, against a technological attitude
that threatens to become an abuse.
Thus, some people speak of a “right
to die,” which is an expression that
does not mean the right to procure
death either by one’s own hand or by
means of someone else, as one
pleases, but rather the right to die
peacefully with human and Chrstian
dignity. From this point of view, the
use of therapeutic means can
sometimes pose problems.
In numerous cases, the
complexity of the situation can be
such as to cause doubts about the
way ethical principles should be
applied. In the final analysis, it
pertains to the conscience either of
the sick person, or of those qualified
to speak in the sick person’s name, or
of the doctors, to decide, in the light
of moral obligations and of the
various aspects of the case.
Everyone has the duty to care for
his or her own health or to seek such
care from others. Those whose task it
is to care for the sick must do so
conscientiously and administer the
remedies that seem necessary or
useful.
However, is it necessary in all
circumstances to have recourse to all
possible remedies?
In the past, moralists replied that
one is never obliged to use
“extraordinary” means. This reply,
which as a principle still holds good,
is perhaps less clear today, by reason
of the imprecision of the term and
the raniri nrotnrpss maHp in thp
r - i o — "*—
treatment of sickness. Thus some
people prefer to speak of
‘‘proportionate’’ and
“disproportionate” means.
In any case, it will be possible to
make a correct judgment as to the
means by studying the type of
treatment to be used, its degree of
complexity or risk, its cost and the
possibilities of using it, and
comparing these elements with the
result that can be expected, taking
into account the state of the sick
person and his or her physical and
moral resources.
In order to facilitate the
application of these general
principles, the following
clarifications can be added:
— If there are no other sufficient
remedies, it is permitted, with the
patient’s consent, to have recourse to
the means provided by the most
advanced medical techniques, even if
these means are still at the
experimental stage and are not
without a certain risk. By accepting
them, the patient can even show
generosity in the service of
humanity.
— It is also permitted, with the
patient’s consent, to interrupt these
means, where the results fall short of
expectations. But for such a decision
to be made, account will have to be
taken of the reasonable wishes of the
patient’s family, as also of the advice
of the doctors who are specially
competent in the matter. The latter
may in particular judge that the
investment in instruments and
personnel is disproportionate to the
results foreseen; they may also judge
that the techniques applied impose
on the patient strain or suffering out
of proportion with the benefits
which he or she may gain from such
techniques.
— It is also permissible to make do
with the normal means that medicine
can offer. Therefore one cannot
impose on anyone the obligation to
have recourse to a technique which is
already in use but which carries a risk
or is burdensome. Such a refusal is
not the equivalent of suicide; on the
contrary, it should be considered as
an acceptance of the human
condition, or a wish to avoid the
application of a medical procedure
disproportionate to the results that
can be expected, or a desire not to
impose excessive expense on the
family or the community.
-■ — When inevitable death is
imminent in spite of the means used,
it is permitted in conscience to take
the decision to refuse forms of
treatment that would only secure a
precarious and burdensome
prolongation of life, so long as the
normal care due to the sick person in
similar cases in not interrupted. In
such circumstances the doctor has no
reason to reproach himself with
failing to help the person in danger.