The late Ronald Dworkin (1931-2013) was a prominent and influential scholar of United States constitutional law and jurisprudence. In his book, Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (1993) he states that “Abortion, which means killing a human embryo, and euthanasia, which means killing a person out of kindness, are both choices for death.” We may set aside his inaccurate description of all those who are aborted as “embryos,” and his assumption that people are euthanized out of “kindness,” and give him credit for providing a direct object for a person’s “choice”. Those who call themselves “pro-choice” are usually squeamish about identifying exactly what their choices bring about. Dworkin is bold enough to say that abortion and euthanasia choices result in death. In this single sentence, he succinctly and accurately encapsulates our present moral climate as a Republic of Choice within a Culture of Death.
In this same work, his enthusiasm for the freedom that choice represents, allows him to state that “Abortion chooses death before life in earnest has begun; euthanasia chooses death after it has ended.” It would seem that Dworkin’s enthusiasm for freedom has given him license to invent a new characteristic of a developmental stage of the unborn, while denying the all too obvious fact that only those whose lives have not ended are eligible for euthanasia. There is no biological basis for asserting that at one stage, the fetus is not developing “in earnest,” and at another stage it is. As a matter of fact, the cellular development of the unborn is more prolific than it is at any other stage of life. After age forty, the human organism plateaus, so to speak, or, in Professor Dworkin’s terminology, no longer continues “in earnest”. Moreover, euthanasia ends a life; it does not bring death to a subject that is already dead.
Unbridled freedom (or unrestricted choice) has a peculiar consequence. It generates its opposite. Too much air causes the balloon to burst, thus, causing it to lose all its air. When stretched too far, the rubber band snaps, thereby becoming tensionless. Before we sit down to feast on our new found freedom, however, we should examine the collateral effects that that unbounded freedom produces. Dostoevsky warned many years ago that “Boundless liberty leads me on to boundless tyranny.” His is a warning that should not go unheeded. A single, isolate value—freedom—cannot produce a balanced society.
The word “enantiodromia” (enantios, meaning “opposite” + dromia, meaning “running” is a term that was originally used by ancient Greek philosophers. It refers to the phenomenon of something turning into its opposite. It found an important place in the psychology of Karl Jung. The motion picture The Lives of Others (2006) offers an example of enantiodromia to illustrate how a person devoted to a communist regime can break out of that mould to become a humanist of an altogether different stripe.
An ongoing development in Canada exemplifies how too much choice can lead directly to denying choice to others. The majority report of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted suicide reflects an acute sensitivity to the plight of those who are suffering. What its members seem less sensitive to is the importance of safeguards that would prevent euthanasia from becoming what some have called “a new medical growth industry”. The report is a recommendation that Canada’s Criminal Code be amended to allow physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists to put people to death. The suffering could be either physical or mental, terminal or non-terminal. Moreover, the Report states, in three years euthanasia could be extended to “competent mature minors” of any age. Therefore, euthanasia could be extended to a wide range of subjects as well as to a wide range of “assistants”. This range, according to the Report, could also include those suffering from poverty or social isolation. Even those who are not suffering in any way, could make themselves eligible for euthanasia through advance application for their deaths. All publicly funded hospitals would be required to offer these services.
If Parliament accepts the recommendations of the Joint Committee, Canada would take its place on the forefront of euthanasia along with the Netherlands and Belgium. Among a number of critical questions that can be raised involves the freedom of choice of those who work within the medical profession and do not want to assist in the death of another person. This question also applies to institutions, especially Catholic hospitals, whose mandate is directly opposed to killing people.
If euthanasia in Canada does become something like a growth industry, this would mean that fewer member of the medical profession who oppose assisted killing would be allowed to act in accordance with their conscience. One person’s choice could violate another person’s conscience. Such a situation would logically discourage conscientious people from entering the world of medicine in the first place. Secular society becomes more efficient when there is uniformity of opinion, where everyone agrees on the reigning ideology of the day. However, this Orwellian nightmare, that is intolerant of reasonable dissent, is a way of mechanizing health care and losing sight of the dignity of both the patient and the health care worker. In such an environment, Ronald Dworkin’s assertion that euthanasia is an act of kindness seems stretched to the breaking point. A Culture of Death has little patience with the afflicted. It is not a kindly act to kill someone, nor is euthanasia a branch of health care.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. He is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario, an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College in Cromwell, CT, and a regular columnist for St. Austin Review. His latest works, How to Remain Sane in a World That is Going Mad and Poetry That Enters the Mind and Warms the Heart are available through Amazon.com.
Articles by Don:
