The issues surrounding developing an ethic relating to euthanasia are complex.
One of the confusing factors for Christians in the medical profession is about "quality of life". Quality of life is a means of measuring a persons emotional, social and physical well-being, including their ability to function in the ordinary tasks of living. The argument goes that using these assessments of the quality of life that a person can experience or hope to experience acts as the foundation upon which decisions are made about the continuation or termination of life.
The 'termination of life' that arises from the quality of life assessment is not always through euthanasia. It most often comes through the form of ceasing treatment. Given the name 'palliative care' this philosophy means stopping treatment that would hope to cure disease or extend life. Focus is moved instead to treating the symptoms, most often pain relief.
Why do we resist all moves towards assisted suicide or euthanasia but maintain that it's okay to stop treatment and move towards palliative care? The outcome is the same, so what's the difference? Should we support moves towards palliative care? Or should we seek to extend life through expensive, painful treatment which will have only limited effectiveness?
In one hand we want to affirm the sanctity of life. Human life is inherently valuable [insert scriptural evidence]. Yet in the other hand we must acknowledge the pain of sin. More than that we must acknowledge the pain of pain. While valuing human life we want also to alleviate pain and suffering where possible. Is there a way of valuing life while seeking to minimise pain? Is there a way of valuing life through ending it?
WIthout developing these thoughts in detail there are a number of points that I think help frame the discussion,
1. Palliative care is an attempt to reconcile the tension between valuing life and alleviating pain. I believe it is successful in this. No one likes to see others, especially their loved ones, in pain. When medical intervention will have minimal results with increased suffering for the patient it is an expression of love to not undergo treatment. For example in later stage cancer, chemotherapy potentially increases life expectancy by a few months but will result in greater physical sickness for the patient in the remainder of their life. By ceasing treatment; which inevitably decreases life length, we are actually holding our value of life. We are saying that life is not an abstract idea but it is an individual. In caring for the person through alleviating pain, we are valuing life.
2. I understand that this logic sounds very close to a justification of euthanasia. However at that point I would counter with a second consideration which is there is a difference between actively seeking to end a life (euthanasia) compared to the more passive ending of medical treatment (palliative care). If you have a consequentialist ethic you will see the end result is the same, but in my mind there is a world of difference. It's not a matter of "leaving it to God." Rather it is in my mind impossible to value life by actively seeking to end it through euthanasia, but it is possible to value life in ceasing treatment.
3. Removing ourselves from the quality of life ethic there is a deeper problem of societal values. It is captured excellently here. The choice of someone to end their own life through assisted suicide is often lauded as a great victory of autonomous choice. It is the decision of the individual to finish what is theirs; namely, their life. But this great exercise of autonomy is not truly a magnificent example of free choice. The individual makes this decision not in a vacuum but amongst the value placed on their own life by others. The value an individual places on their life is amidst a society which values youth, sees the elderly as inconvenient, views people with disabilities as of decreased value and importance, the endless lust for youth and beauty. If society says I am expendable I will see myself as expendable. So like in most discussions, as we turn the attention to ourselves we must ask how am I contributing to the desire of people to end their lives? How am I communicating the value of life in the values I hold as most desirable.
Thoughts?
What about quality of death? There's something to be said for the peaceful, but not rushed, death palliative care provides.
ReplyDeleteIt is a fine line. It's a pretty hard line to draw, obviously.
But I think palliative care is as different as you suggest it is - and it's about providing comfort for someone who values their life but is confronted with the reality of death.
Everyone dies. We would be heartless if we didn't try to provide some pain relief on the way to death for those who are incurably sick.
Hey mate,
ReplyDeleteCouple of thoughts
1. Talk about euthanasia, death, etc needs to revolve around and stem out from the news about the resurrection. It is from this point that our ethics of death are made.
2. A great little statement that I have used when speaking about the topic is 'maximising care not minimising suffering'. I stole the line from Meilander book on Bioethics. I think it captures how to move forward on a lot of fronts.
Dave
Thanks Dave, helpful thoughts. As I'm only just beginning to form my views on a lot of these issues, ideas which help frame the discussion are really beneficial.
ReplyDeleteIzaac,
ReplyDeleteGood on you for thinking through this topic. I know for me college certainly gave me good structures from which to start.
Yeah, I'm looking forward to college. I'm currently trying to memorise the 24 ways of saying 'the' in Greek. The language learning could be a degree in itself, let alone the learning in all these other areas.
ReplyDelete