2 of 5 in series by Sarah Moon

“Let’s agree to disagree.” This is a sure-fire way to end an uncomfortable conversation with no resolution or understanding on the horizon. Many times, when I have either said or heard these words it is because I argued a position on a parallel street with no hope of intersecting with the other person. It is essential to define foundational terms and core beliefs to any policy discussion, so that it does not end in an “agree to disagree” moment.

We looked at the word dignity in our last article, and my goal was to allow the reader to acknowledge that people hold different ideas of human dignity and what it is. Those examples and the ones that will be presented in this article are common beliefs held in my professional, academic, and social circles. Of course, this are not all the beliefs out there, but it is a start. The same goes for the word freedom. Depending on your country of origin, faith background, parents’ influence, etc. you may have various ideas of what freedom is. Along with the idea of dignity, freedom is at the heart of the euthanasia debate and is a broader discussion needed before engaging in a policy debate. In this article, I will present a starting block for discussing freedom by introducing two different ideals­— American liberty and Christian virtue.

Since its conception, America was a country of unrestricting liberties. Freedom was about removing barriers to allow people to make their own choices. Lately, I have seen an intense focus on individual freedoms to do whatever one wants as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. This view of freedom is the foundation for the rise of radical autonomy and individualism. Take care of yourself and don’t get in the way of others. From what I’ve experienced, this idea of freedom is won in the court room. We are seeing more and more laws permitting and even protecting behavior that was once a question of morality. Judges and policymakers have become the gatekeepers of morality, and the law seems to be the ideal way of life rather than a starting block for virtuous living.

We are now free to decide just about anything in life. Take Planned Parenthood v. Casey for instance, Justices David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and Sandra Day O’Connor argued that matters “involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”[1] This sounds like a denial of absolute truths about human existence and human dignity that has been bestowed on each person by God. Pope Saint John Paul II argued that this subjective and relativistic view of liberty and freedom “leads to a serious distortion of life in society.”[2] This distortion has allowed Americans to be the superior power and judge of a human’s life instead of God. To be able to see that side of freedom, we must step back yet again and see what the Church has to say about freedom at its fundamental level.

Christians must look no further than Genesis in the story of Cain and Abel to understand Christian freedom. “’Am I my brother’s keeper?’ (Gen. 4): A perverse idea of freedom” is bolded as a title in St. John Paul the Great’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae. [3] He contrasted Cain killing Abel in Genesis to our modern-day threats to human life like euthanasia. When Cain questions if he is Abel’s keeper, we learn that God has entrusted us to each other because of the freedom we have to tend and care for one another He goes on to say, “the roots of the contradiction between the solemn affirmation of human rights and their tragic denial in practice lies in a notion of freedom which exalts the isolated individual in an absolute way, and gives no place to solidarity, to openness to others and service of them.”[4] The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes human freedom as, “the power given by God to act or not to act, to do this or to do that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.”[5] Right away we can see the difference between “American freedom” and “Christian freedom” by focusing on the word responsibility. Every human action has a consequence that humans attempt to foresee and take into consideration before doing said action. Sometimes the consequence is not what we predicted, for better or for worse.

In the Catholic tradition, our responsibility is to choose the morally good, and God gives us grace and strength to choose the good and be in communion with Him through the sacraments, especially Reconciliation and the reception of the Eucharist. This idea shifts freedom from “doing whatever we want” to a responsibility “to do what is right.” Acknowledgement of consequences occurs in both views of freedom, but I believe the American ideal puts too much emphasis on most actions being morally neutral to keep the peace amongst diverse populations. On the other hand, Christian freedom has comprehensive and divine guidelines on what is right and wrong. The ten commandments in the Old Testament and the beatitudes in the New Testament offer the Christian an outline or blueprint on how to reject evil and how to accept and do good.

Furthermore, Catholics can look to the Catechism for further guidance. “Freedom makes people responsible for their actions to the extent that they are voluntary, even if the imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or sometimes cancelled by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, inordinate attachments, or habit.”[6] The Church is saying that since people have a choice, they will be held accountable for their actions. However, in Her wisdom, the Church also acknowledges that sometimes we are not free to choose the good, God will see that, and Christians can have hope in his justice and mercy.

All people have their own idea of what freedom is. They will also have an opinion on how to best obtain freedom. Understanding those core beliefs in yourself and others are primary to any policy debate. It means that people must meet each other one-on-one and be patient with what may seem like a tedious task of defining terms. However, in the long run, I believe it will provide a foundation and level of understanding of where people are coming from when discussing prescriptive measures like implementing policies at any level of government or an organization. For the euthanasia debate, starting with what freedom means to a person will eventually lead to, “will allowing euthanasia make us more free?” This is the question we all must answer for ourselves.

[1] O’Connor, Sandra Day, Anthony M Kennedy, David H Souter, and Supreme Court of The United States. U.S. Reports: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833. 1991.

[2] John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, encyclical letter, Vatican website, March 25, 1995, http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM, sec. 20.

[3] John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, encyclical letter, Vatican website, March 25, 1995, http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM, sec. 18.

[4] John Paul II, Evangelium vitae, encyclical letter, Vatican website, March 25, 1995, http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM, sec. 19.

[5] Catholic Church. 2006. Compendium, Catechism of the Catholic Church. 363. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[6] Catholic Church. 2006. Compendium, Catechism of the Catholic Church. 364. Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Sarah Moon, MPH studied public health administration and policy at the University of Minnesota and currently is studying Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas. She works as a middle school science and math teacher at a classical Catholic school in the Twin Cities area.

1 of 5 in series by Sarah Moon.

“Death with dignity,” “healthy dying,” “dying well,” and “compassion and choices.” What do all of these words have in common? All of these phrases have been used to describe active voluntary euthanasia in America. The true definition is not actually that far off though. Euthanasia has its roots in Greek. Eu meaning good or well and Thanatos meaning death. So quite literally, euthanasia is a ‘good death.’ This etymology lesson is important to me as someone who studied both public health and biology because I tend to disagree with many of those colleagues by rejecting the notion that active voluntary euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide (referred to as euthanasia here on out), constitutes a good death.

I was introduced to the reality of death at the age of ten, when I lived with my dying grandmother. My mother was tending to both of her aging parents, and I lived at their home on and off as well to help after school. I don’t remember many specifics from that time, but I do have a fond memory of my mom modeling unconditional love and profound respect to them as she chauffeured them to every doctor’s appointment, cooked every meal, and helped them get ready for bed each night. Once my grandmother died, I witnessed the incredible loss and grief of my mother. However, what I was left with was a beautiful model of love, sacrifice, and suffering by both my mother and grandmother during my grandmother’s last days on Earth.

This was quite different from various experiences in graduate school while I was pursuing a Master’s in Public Health Policy. Many academics, doctors, researchers, and policymakers have devoted their lives to revamping and improving the palliative and hospice care systems. Palliative care, which is a specialty in medicine focused on symptom relief and comfort regardless of whether the patient is dying or not. Hospice is also a program to relieve symptoms but has a focus on the actively dying. A patient may start in palliative care and transition into hospice. Aging still is a hot topic for public health professionals, but it seemed that euthanasia was always attached to those discussions in a both/and fashion. We must improve palliative and hospice care and support euthanasia. However, I found myself preaching to the choir about more funding for palliative care but preaching to an empty church when it came to euthanasia. The difficult thing about approaching euthanasia is the fact that people that I have encountered on both sides of the debate have the same end, a good death albeit through different means. Both sides want to show respect to the dying by acknowledging their dignity and freedoms, but Americans can’t seem to get on the same page with what human dignity and freedom is and its origins. Both sides want to alleviate suffering, but my experience has been that our fundamental understanding of suffering is so different that people end up arguing on parallel streets never to intersect.

Over the next few weeks, I wish to take a deeper dive into this pressing issue and highly debated policy topic. For myself, I have found it helpful to bring to light the common ground each side shares for more fruitful discussions to emerge. To start off, I think it is prudent to familiarize ourselves with the language of the movement in order to properly judge its fruit.

I will give credit where credit is due. The marketing of this movement/belief/practice is phenomenal. I have read numerous policy briefs calling euthanasia, “Death with Dignity.” More specifically in Minnesota, there is a House bill that seems to reappear annually referred to as “Compassion and Choices.” These word choices are beautifully selected albeit incredibly misleading. Today, I want to focus on the word, dignity.

Human dignity, “What is it? Who confers it upon us? Why is it worth fighting for?”

Human dignity is fundamental in the Catholic tradition. It is defined at length in the Catechism with 176 pages devoted to the topic. Human dignity is the inherent value of each person because he or she was made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). Expanding on Genesis, the Catechism teaches that, “The divine image is present in every man. It shines forth in the communion of persons, in the likeness of the unity of the divine persons among themselves (CCC 1702).” By these definitions we can rightly judge that God has conferred dignity on us before we were even born. If it is inherent, it can’t be taken away by any human act. I like to think about human dignity as something that can be clouded rather than taken away. An act of violence or injustice can cloud my view of my human dignity, but it cannot dispose of it. The Catholic Church works to uncloud this dignity for every person by stressing its importance in papal encyclicals and addresses, homilies, catechesis classes, and the seven teachings of Catholic Social Teaching. If it is a gift given by God, then we mustn’t take it lightly, and we must protect it.

Proponents of euthanasia also stress the importance of human dignity. On the home page of the Death with Dignity National Center website, there is a statement that begins with, “At Death with Dignity National Center, we value the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings.” I failed to find a more thorough description, but there is common language to use as a starting point. Additionally, Oregon passed a “Death with Dignity” law back in 1993 allowing euthanasia for its citizens. Again, we have common language but no real definition or reflection on dignity. Lastly, the American Public Health Association (APHA) supports euthanasia as a public health measure, but I could not find any writing diving into how euthanasia brings dignity to a person or how we, as humans, have inherent dignity.

My point is that most supporters of euthanasia believe that people have worth and dignity, so the mission in these initial conversations is to really understand each other when we say those words. “What is it? Who confers it upon us? Why is it worth fighting for?” These are questions that I don’t have the all the answers to but seek to lay a solid foundation when speaking about this issue.

Words hold meaning and are powerful tools. Words can inspire people to act. My plea to the reader is that you engage in difficult and uncomfortable conversations about euthanasia with your friends, family, and colleagues but in a respectful and effective way. I believe that taking the time to discuss each person’s view of human dignity, where it comes from, and why it’s worth fighting for are essential components before any debate about euthanasia.

Sarah Moon, MPH studied public health administration and policy at the University of Minnesota and currently is studying Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas. She works as a middle school science and math teacher at a classical Catholic school in the Twin Cities area.