We have seen that starvation is the ‘prescription of choice’ for many Canadian doctors and hospitals; a simple, effective way of easing patients into death. Of course, we oppose it. But what do we do about it?
First, as pro-lifers, we have to make sure where we stand. Many “authoritative sources” tell us that our zeal is misplaced; that, instead of protecting life, we are prolonging dying by insisting on food and water until natural death. They claim that it is far more humane to let the natural death process occur than to prolong it cruelly through artificial nutrition.
Nutrition withdrawal
But we realize that no death process can be natural which withholds from the patient what he absolutely needs to live, and which can be provided without inconvenience to himself or to his caregiver. We know that it is not “humane” to substitute death by starvation for death by illness. And we understand, more than all this, that life is ultimately not ours to dispose of, and that a death according to the plan of God, whatever form it takes, is preferable to a death tailored to the will of the patient (or, worse still, his relatives or his doctor).
We find ourselves, then, opposed to most of the supporters of nutrition-withdrawal on this point. We accept suffering as a necessary part of our human condition, while they do not. It is important that we understand this fact, together with all its consequences.
Euthanasia conspiracy
What concrete steps can we take, then? There are many. First, we can keep informed about the euthanasia conspiracy. This is not difficult today. What may be more difficult, but what must be done, is to analyze the events taking place in the light of first principles. This will allow us to escape the “deathspeak” trap, to see clearly the full horror of the evil which is already at our doorstep, and to understand what we must do to oppose it.
Letters
Secondly, we can make sure there is pro-life input into the debate. There are good reasons why the media should present both sides of the issue, not least of which is that a good controversy “sells.” We should fill our “letters to the Editor” columns with well-thought-out objections to pro- euthanasia articles. We should telephone our television and radio stations expressing approval or disapproval of particular programs. We can even offer to appear on programs ourselves in order to present a counter-view. If we seem like oddities, the media will love us all the more.
Politicians
Then, of course, we can speak with our local MP. Most politicians are as reluctant to get actively involved in the euthanasia issue as they were with abortion. “Freedom of choice” is the approach most of them will take. It is our job to let them know that life is a sacred gift which no one but God can take away. And even those politicians for whom God’s rights are not a strong argument will see the consequences of making death a matter of choice. For example will depressed teenagers, abused wives, and the “pleasantly senile” elderly have this choice? Will anyone not have it? The politicians will stand firm on euthanasia only as long as they have well founded reasons to fear for their jobs if they do not.
Our neighbours
We should also speak with our friends about this. Many people honestly do not know what is happening. Raised on a profound respect for the medical profession, they cannot imagine that many doctors and nurses would practice active euthanasia if the law permitted it; that many Canadian hospitals use “nothing by mouth” orders liberally; and that there is a strong, influential, media-wise group of Canadians committed to introducing into our federal law the right to determine the time and manner of one’s own death and that of those under his power of attorney. And, just as in 1969, they have no idea that time is quickly running out.
Medical doctors
We have a right and an obligation to ask our doctors where they stand on euthanasia. In the moral vacuum which surrounds so much of what our medical practitioners do, a straightforward statement to your own doctor about terminal feeding can have significant consequences. If it doesn’t cause him to rethink his position, at least it will make him less likely to take the euthanasia mentality for granted. Unless opinions are held for strongly moral reasons, they generally weaken when opposed.
Sacrifice for our own
The final commitment, however, is ours. We who say we are pro-life must do some sacrificing to prove it. And this sacrifice must begin in our own families.
The arguments of those who support euthanasia in any of its forms make perfect sense if we deny just one fact – the existence of God. Without God, there are compelling – and even compassionate – reasons for allowing individuals to decide for themselves how and when they are to die. “It is not good medicine for a doctor to allow his patient to suffer – for Christ or anything else,” a medical ethics professor recently told his audience; and around the country, in hospital wards, in street-corner clinics, and in small private offices, thousands of medical professionals silently agree.
Some Christians have managed to create “crossless” Christianity. But the true message of Christ is not as pleasant as the one often preached. It is “hard as death,” as the Song of Songs says. It is the message of following in His footsteps, being obedient unto death, and laying down our lives for our friends.
Oppose starvation
We hear conflicting evidence about death by starvation. Some believe it is the body’s way of dealing with terminal illness, and that it is painless. Others believe that it is an immoral substitution of one kind of death for another. Starvation is accompanied by fever; the drying out of the respiratory tract, the stomach lining, and the brain cells; and by a parched mouth and incredible thirst. Both may be true in different circumstances. At this point, we simply do not know.
If we are clear where we stand on this issue, and if, as we saw last month, we are unwilling to make any compromise which would further the spread of euthanasia, we may have to make a decision which has profound implications. We may decide for ourselves and for all our loved ones, and for anyone for whom we have responsibility, that we will insist on the provision of food and water until natural death, insofar as these can reasonably be provided.
And we will insist this decision remain, whatever may tempt us to revoke it. For it is one thing to make it with full knowledge of all its positive implications, in relatively good health, and with no serious illnesses in our family. It is another thing entirely to remain committed to it when it means watching a moth suffer through several days of terminal sickness; or forcing a newborn to struggle for life with only a slim hope for survival; or, in our own last illness, ordering our family to keep us provided with nutrition even if this may cause us distress and prolong our dying.
Personal suffering
For either we mean our pro-life position or we do not. If we do, and if we remain committed to it when it begins to involve the very real possibility of personal suffering, we offer the strongest possible argument for what we believe. No letter to an editor, no discussion with an MP, no number of hours on a picket line can compare with the splendor of the witness of a simple man or woman who stays faithful to his principles in the fact of death.
If we do not have the gift of faith, let us at least commit ourselves to preserving our fidelity to what is right, and of most benefit to society, when our time comes to die.
If we do, let us promise now that, whatever else we may do in defense of life, we will offer to God our own death, and that of our loved ones, in sorrow for our sins and in union with Christ’s passion, without seeking to avoid suffering by choosing a way which may be easier, but which may also diminish our society’s reverence for life.
If we were looking for a way finally to tell God and the world that we apologized for a life of perhaps half-hearted commitment to the Gospel, what better way than by showing in this manner that “greater love than this no man has, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
