Death With Dignity?

Citizens of Massachusetts will go to the election booths this Tuesday November 6th to vote on the Massachusetts "Death with Dignity" Initiative, appearing as Question 2 on Massachusetts general election ballots.

According to the text of the initiative, the proposed law would allow for medical professionals to prescribe death-inducing drugs to terminally ill patients, ending their lives. Under the initiative, the definition of a terminally ill patient is one who has been granted six of fewer months left to live. In order to be given the lethal drugs, a patient would have to be mentally able to make their own medical decisions and would have to consciously give verbal and written consent. Patients would be required to submit their request orally twice and witnessed in writing, with the initial verbal request being made fifteen days prior to the written request and the second oral request.

The initiative would also allow for blood relatives to assist their loved ones in making these requests.

Supporters of the initiative believe that it would give terminally ill patients dignity and control over their deaths, and would alleviate their suffering.

Opponents of the initiative believe that it is morally wrong, and that beneficiaries of terminally ill patients could abuse the provisions presented by the proposal.

The Catholic Church believes that some cases of in-active euthanasia are morally acceptable, i.e. the removal of a tube or respirator. To understand this, one needs to understand the distinction that the Church makes between ordinary (or proportionate) care and extraordinary (or disproportionate) care. For the Church, ordinary/proportionate care is care and aid that is considered morally obligatory and must be administered under all circumstances. Examples of such care include the administration of food and water by normal means. Extraordinary/disproportionate care is care and aid that is considered to be above and beyond all that is morally obligatory and is optional due to burden, futility, and expenses.  Examples of such care include the administration of oxygen and artificial nutrition by nasal-gastro (NG) or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes.

For example, the Church believes that it is morally acceptable to remove artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) if 1) death is imminent or soon, 2) if it is futile or if the person is not benefiting from it or assimilating to it, or 3) if it is painful or harmful to the patient.

However, the Church never condones active euthanasia, in which the injection or overdose of a lethal cocktail is administered with the intent of killing.

This goes against the National Conference of Catholic Bishops' foundational mandate, saying the life should be protected from conception to natural death, such as the natural death which would ensue after the removal of an artificial tube. The administration of such legal drugs does not cause a natural death and thus violates the mandate.

While giving the patient autonomy, the administration of such lethal drugs is playing God by trying to control life, something which only God can do.

Additionally it goes against the fifth commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and is a participation in evil and violates the medical principle of integrity and totality.

To find out more about Question 2 and the Massachusetts "Death with Dignity" Initiative, you can visit here: Suicide Is Always A Tragedy