Thursday, December 02, 2004
EUTHANASIA
I've just reviewed the statistics that Robert has posted on euthanasia deaths in The Netherlands.
I had read in the past that it had become a problem. But those numbers are much graver than anything I've read. I have Wesley J. Smith's book, _Forced Exit_ here but have not yet had time to read it.
Whatever moral decisions we make regarding end of life issues are rules we will face ourselves in the not too distant future.
One of the negative consequences of modern medicine is that many of us will find ourselves in the position to make moral decisions about the life of a loved one. Anyone who has had to do that knows how much of a burden it can be. In some situations the decision is not a one-time event. It entails a series of small choices that do not lead to immediate death, but may lead to death in the long term.
As medicine advances, we can keep alive, with the use of ever increasingly greater intervention, people who could not live without that intervention. And so we will have to make those decisions.
James Dobson brought up this concern 10 or more years ago, posing the dilemma that it may result in such choices as do we pay Mom's nursing home bill or Johnny's college tuition? How do you make such a decision? What if it comes down to medicine or groceries? As the population shrinks, there will be no escaping it.
A nursing home bill will eat up the entire gross income of the major breadwinner of a family, and still require more cash. Long term hospital intervention can be even more expensive. We have no money trees. We have already cashed in the "emergency fund" in the form of Mom going back to work, which makes home care of sick people a non-option. Health insurance relieves some of the burden, but Medicare is paying ever less of the bill as those bills get higher.
It appears from Robert's statistics that Holland has made the decisions already. Sick people are a drain on the economy, so doctors have been given legal permission to eliminate them. Are their handicapped and elderly citizens now afraid to go to the doctor? Because that is where this logically will lead.
What did God have in mind? Did He not want us to learn how to prolong life? Does He favor letting nature run its course without medical intervention? If we answer no to that question, then must we answer yes to the use of that intervention in any and every case without discrimination? The Church says no and gives guidelines for making decisions that we must interpret when we are in that situation, but it is never black and white. It is not as simple as reading the guidelines and making a choice. There are always the nagging alternatives, and there is always hindsight which is 20-20.
Since we measure everything in terms of money, the financial aspect of medical intervention cannot be dispensed with. No one will talk about it when the life of a loved one is at stake, but it won't go away. What if it exhausts the financial resources of a family? What if a life is prolonged that will only succumb to the inevitable end six months later, while that prolonging used up all available funds? We are all under a death sentence. It isn't a question of "if" but of "when". And frequently when the crisis comes, the loved one is not able to make choices for himself.
What's more, we cling to life. Under the most horrible circumstances we will still cling to life. When treatment can prolong our life a mere matter of days or weeks, some of us will still want that treatment. In fact some people are so desperate to prolong life that they turn to cryogenics.
As Catholics we believe in an afterlife which can take the sting out of death if we will let it. Not everyone does. If there is no hope of heaven, there is good reason to cling to life. In fact, even a Catholic may cling because of the fear of hell.
If we can't go where Holland has gone and where Oregon has gone, where can we go? How can we keep the advances in medicine and still have a moral and ordered society? I haven't seen any good answers out there? Have any of you?
