Christine McDonald

Dr. Idziak PHI 318

PAS Research Paper- Revised
23 January 2015
The Ethics of Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Catholic Perspective
I believe that, as Catholics, we are called to live out the Gospel message
of Jesus with fervor, perseverance, and conviction. Therefore, we have an
obligation to challenge the ideas of the world that contradict this Gospel
message and enlighten our brothers and sisters of the truth. One such idea
that has become a hot issue over the years is physician-assisted suicide (PAS)
and whether or not it should be legalized. Approaching this issue from a
Catholic perspective, I believe that it is ethically impermissible to allow the
legalization of physician-assisted suicide to occur. I will use Catholic teachings
and the ethical theory of principlismthe principles of autonomy, beneficence,
and nonmaleficenceto argue the reasoning behind my ethical judgment.
I will begin by explaining these principles in order to give background
and a better understanding of how these principles are applicable to my
argument. The principle of autonomy entails acknowledging that persons
right to hold views, to make choices, and to take actions based on personal
values and beliefs (Ethical Dilemmas 2nd ed. 4). The principle of beneficence is
the duty to act in ways that help people or promote their welfare (Class Notes)

and is connected to the principle of nonmaleficencethe duty to act in ways

that do not cause harm to people (Class Notes). In the case of physicianassisted suicide, these principles are used to argue both sides of the issue.
However, the proponents of PAS are misguided in the true meaning of these
principles. Let me elaborate further.
First, the phrase death with dignitymade especially popular by the
late Brittany Maynard who chose PAS to avoid the terrible suffering her
terminal brain tumor would cause in her final months of lifemakes us believe
that there is dignity in choosing this way to leave this world. However, this
argument fails to recognize what true human dignity and the freedom to choose
are. According to the Reverend William Joensen, human dignity is the very
nature of our existencea nature that is good and irreplaceable (Personal
Interview). Because we are each made as a unique image of God, we have an
inalienable, inherent worth that can never be duplicated. Catholics also believe
that all life is sacred [] is a gift from God and that we are merely stewards,
not owners, of our lives (Ethical Dilemmas 1st ed. 132). Therefore, if God is the
giver of human life and dignity, then taking life is [only His] prerogative
(Ethical Dilemmas 1st ed. 133) not oursa clear violation of patient autonomy
as many proponents of PAS would argue.

Furthermore, death with dignity is defended as allowing the one

suffering to exercise their autonomy because most who choose PAS have lost
much of their everyday autonomy to their illnessa top reason for those who
choose PAS (Compassion and Choices Interview). The choice to die on his or
her own terms is a dying persons last chance at making a decision on their
own. In reality, however, the push for this choice to be made legal is a
threat, not an aid, to authentic human freedom (USCCB 3). While many PAS
advocates believe that human dignity is violated [] when we are forced to go
through an agonizing period of pain and suffering before our lives end (Ethical
Dilemmas 2nd ed. 151), human dignity and freedom are actually violated when
one chooses to deliberately end his or her life. According the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), a choice to take ones life is a
supreme contradiction of freedom, a choice to eliminate all choices (USCCB 4).
Therefore, PAS is an obvious violation of true autonomy.
Secondly, because of our human dignity, it is implied that we not only
respect the self-determination of the individual, [but also] act with beneficence
[and] nonmaleficence (Catholic Health Association). But how do we act with
beneficence and nonmaleficence with regard to those who are suffering? Those
who favor PAS argue that this form of relieving or ending pain and suffering
would promote the welfare of the person suffering. In other words, it could be

said that PAS is favored by the principle of beneficencethe duty to act for the
benefit and welfare of others (Ethical Dilemmas 2nd ed. 199). Furthermore,
physician-assisted suicide is defended as [an] act of compassion in relieving
pain (Ethical Dilemmas 2nd ed. 150). But where these points fall short is in
their understanding of human suffering and what true compassion is.
The question of why there is suffering is not new to humanity, especially
to Catholics. We ask ourselves, If God is all powerful, and truly seeks our
good, then why does He allow bad things to happen to people? Why does God
allow all the suffering we experience in this life, if He loves us and is allpowerful and all-knowing (Cross)? These questions are valid questions, but,
especially in the case of PAS, we must understand that there is a distinction
between what pain is and what suffering is. Richard Hall distinguishes
between suffering and physical pain:
Suffering is, perhaps, better described, not in the same terms of pain
but as an experience of the mind. It is fuelled by disappointment, anger
and resentment, loneliness, a wish not to be a further burden on society
or family, to name but a few. The condition can be terrible but can rarely
be addressed by drugs [as is physical pain]. It can certainly be totally
relieved by deliberately killing the person but is this genuinely a humane
response?
In a nutshell, suffering and pain are not synonymous, and if we are truly to act
in accord with the principle of beneficence, ending someones life is not the
answer. There are other options to cope with suffering of mind and spirit and

with physical paincommunity and palliative care. Suffering and physical

pain may be frightening and burdensome for one to endure, but they are not
meant to be experienced alone.
When a member of the Body of Christ is suffering, we are called to act
with compassion and mercy. However, true compassion never cancels out the
object of our mercy (Joensen) compassion literally means to suffer with
(Snyder and Sulmasy 212) not to eliminate the sufferer. Therefore, PAS is not
truly compassionate:
True compassion alleviates suffering while maintaining solidarity with
those who suffer. It does not put lethal drugs in their hands and
abandon them to their suicidal impulses, or to the self-serving motives
of others who may want them dead. It helps vulnerable people with
their problems instead of treating them as the problem. (USCCB 4)
True compassion requires us to acknowledge that human beings are made to
be in relationship with one another. Individual decisions do not affect
individuals alone. According to the principle of relationality from the Catholic
Health Association, we have responsibilities to others and to the common good
of society. Therefore, when someone is suffering, it is the responsibility of
family, friends, and society to do good for the one sufferingto surround
patients with love, support, and companionship, providing the assistance
needed to ease their physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering (USCCB 5).
However, this does not imply that we eradicate the existence of the one

suffering. To do such a thing is contrary to their dignity as a human being

deliberately choosing to end ones life and to eliminate suffering does not
validate a persons dignity. Rather, we are called to be in communionto be in
solidaritywith the one suffering:
Dignity is present whether the person suffering feels it or not. We can
affirm the good of our being of who we are and who others are even when
they are most vulnerable, dependent, or disabled in doing things that
give them meaning. We have to do this for each otherloving others in
that moment shows they are persons who matter and are of worth.
(Joensen)
In short, we are called to serve our suffering brothers and sisters by being
present to them in their suffering and showing them that there is meaning in
sufferingit is not without purpose.
Just as the suffering of the cross that Jesus Christ carried opened the
gates to heaven, so too does our human suffering prepare us for our eternal
home:
God always has a good purpose in allowing suffering, even when that
purpose is inscrutable to us. We always have a choice in our suffering,
whether to trust God as our loving Father, and receive the good gift that
He is giving us, or to rail against God in distrust and anger, as though we
know better than He does what is ultimately good for us. (Cross)
So, if we truly believe in upholding and promoting a persons welfare, then
should not sufferingas mysterious and painful as it can bealso be
considered a good that promotes a persons eternal welfare?

In addition, deliberate death need not be an option for ending physical

pain because there have been major improvements in the medical field of
palliative carea practice that promotes true compassion. As I previously
mentioned, PAS advocates see that ending someones pain in this way is seen
as the only option to promote their welfare. According to Barbara Coombs Lee
the president of the pro-PAS organization Compassion and Choicesthe
problem is that medical science has conquered the gentle and peaceful deaths
and left the humiliating and agonizing to run their relentless downhill course
(ProCon.org). She and many other PAS supporters are ignorant to the fact that
there have been many advances in recent years in pain and palliative care
treatment (Stevens). The World Health Organization defines palliative care:
[It is] an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their
families facing the problem associated with life-threatening illness,
through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early
identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and
other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual. (Hall)
For example, over the years hospice has become incredibly successful at
managing patients symptoms and making them comfortable, has become
incredibly individualized, and has allowed patients to feel good while living
(Hospice of Dubuque Interview). Palliative care is the truly compassionate
option because it views the suffering person as a full human personmind,

body, soul, and spiritand allows those in connection with the person to be
truly compassionate.
Choosing a deliberate death is not the compassionate option because it
views the suffering person only as someone in physical pain and/or suffering
and chooses to completely ignore the dignity, the hopes, the dreams, the
relationships, the fears, and the memories of the person. This choice also
denies the opportunity for loved ones to grow. For example, Brittany Maynard
chose to die with dignity because she did not want the memories of her loved
ones to be tainted by seeing her suffering through the dying processa
nightmare scenario for [her] family (Maynard). But what about the growth in
wisdom, character, and compassion (Pavone) that her family could have
experienced by suffering in solidarity with her? Deliberately choosing to hasten
the inevitable death of someone who is terminally ill is the opposite of true
compassionit does not even give the chance for true compassion to exist. The
presence of true compassion allows others to share the hurt where possible,
bring companionship to the abandoned and peace to the frightened (Hall). So
in a sense, suffering can benefit the person and those who come to the aid of
the one sufferingthus favoring both principles of nonmaleficence and
beneficence.

I think that the legalization of physician-assisted suicide is wrong from a

Catholic perspective because, despite the catchy death with dignity mantra
used by its advocates, it is a direct violation of the human dignity of the one
suffering and does not allow true compassion to be cultivated by othersthus
violating the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. Rather,
suffering should be viewed as something that brings good out of evil for all
involved, just as the cross of Christ did. We will never be able to eliminate
suffering from this world, so, instead, we should focus our efforts, energy, and
finances on ways to alleviate sufferingon ways of being there for each other
rather than eradicating our very being through death.

Works Cited

Cross, Brian. A Catholic Reflection on the Meaning of Suffering. Called to

Communion. 09 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 January 2015.
Hall, Richard J. Euthanasia and Palliative Care: Philosophical and Ethical
Considerations. The Catholic Medical Quarterly. 62.2. (2009): 19-20.
Web. 18 January 2015
Idziak, Janine. Class Lecture Outline. 05 January 2015.
---. Ethical Dilemmas in Allied Health. 2nd Ed. Kendall Hunt Professional, 2010.
Print.
---. Ethical Dilemmas in Allied Health. 1st Ed. Simon & Kolz Publishing, 2000.
Print.
Joensen, Fr. William. Personal Interview. 18 January 2015.
Stevens, Kenneth. "Pain and Physician-Assisted Suicide What Is Going On?"
Physicians for Compassionate Care Education Foundation, 28 Aug.
2008. Web. 23 Jan. 2015
"Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?" ProCon.org, 13
Oct. 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.
Snyder, Lois, and Daniel Sulmasy. "Physician Assisted Suicide." Web. 22 Jan.
2015.

Pavone, Fr. Frank. "Brief Reflections on Euthanasia." Euthanasia. Priests for

Life, n.d. Web. 22 Jan. 2015.
Maynard, Brittany. "My Right to Death with Dignity at 29." CNN. Cable News
Network, 02 Nov. 2014. Web. 21 Jan. 2015.
To Live Each Day with Dignity: A Statement on Physician-Assisted Suicide.
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 16 June 2011. PDF file. 21
January 2015.