“In the absence of faith, we govern by tenderness. And tenderness leads to the gas chamber.” — Flannery O’Connor

Mocking Compassion: 

Euthanasia Beyond Belgium

by Mary Jo Anderson

Belgium has given us a warning: We have arrived at a fork in the road and now must choose our path. A recent Pew poll reports that one third of Evangelicals support assisted suicide for terminally ill persons. And surprisingly, 55 percent of white Catholics and 33 percent of Hispanic Catholics think suicide is a moral choice for the terminally ill. Just days after the Belgian law was passed, noisy “compassionate” voices in the United States urged America to follow Belgium’s lead. 

Beware of the compassionate. Catholic author Flannery O’Connor wrote shocking stories. Each tale climaxed at “a moment of grace” when the main character, jolted by the sudden realization of their false “compassionate,” self-serving life, was forced to choose—or reject—truth. Modern Western cultures have had a jolt. On February 13, the Belgian parliament voted 86 to 44 in favor of a bill that permits euthanasia for very young children. We can no longer pin a wig over the bald truth of the culture of death.

The controversial bill, already approved by the Belgian senate in December, erected flimsy thresholds, such as “constant and unbearable physical pain” and consent of parents. A pediatric psychologist will be consulted to insure that the child is “capable of discernment” and understands the gravity of the choice. The law takes effect when Belgium’s King Philippe signs the measure. His signature however is merely symbolic; withholding it will not forestall the law, though it would stand as a significant moment in Belgian history. Some pediatricians and the Catholic hierarchy opposed the bill.

Among few others, Flemish Christian Democratic senator, Els Van Hoof fought the bill. “They [children] can’t drink before they’re 16. They can’t smoke before they’re 16. They can’t vote before they’re 18. They can’t marry before they’re 18. They can’t be punished because they don’t have the competence. But when they talk about life and death, they can decide? It’s not coherent,” the Senator said. Others insisted the measure is part of the development of Human Rights, and all should have self determination of their own death. How, precisely, this differs from suicide is never articulated.

Brussels is an urbane city, the seat of the European Union. It is a symbol for modern progressive political and cultural values. The nation had approved euthanasia for citizens over 18 years of age in 2002. Just last year Belgian twin brothers, 45, deaf and going blind chose to die rather than face their future in an assisted living facility. Their case is instructive as it points to the direction that a “death with dignity” mentality always leans—any sorrow or discomfort can be “unbearable” thus requires the compassion of euthanasia. Had compassion—and not death—been the goal, professionals could have worked with the twins to teach new methods of communication, new ways to maximize their lives together. The brothers were not terminal nor in physical pain.

And yet their case is held up as a modern understanding of the “right to die.” At the international level, a so-called “right to die” is thought to be a compassionate, advanced policy. It has surfaced in various official reports, conferences and documents. In 2011 the Holy See Mission attended a United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva where it strenuously opposed the creeping language of death, such as, “issues of patient autonomy in respect of deciding to end life.” Just days ago, Quebec proposed a law to permit lethal injection for an undefined “end of life” situation in which the person has no means to alleviate pain.

............

Read more: www.crisismagazine.com