End of life issues in Canada are again at stake as Francine Lalonde introduces yet another Private Members’ Bill seeking the legalization of Physician Assisted Suicide (McQueen, 2009, p.1). While debate over the bill in Parliament is of importance for politicians and concerned citizens alike, it is worthwhile to note that there is a crucially important argument that needs to be considered in a theological, social and ethical sense. This argument brings pertinent reflection to the potential, detrimental changes that could occur in Canada if euthanasia is legalized.  Such reflections ponder over the harmful repercussions that the potential changes assisted suicide would hold for Canadians at large and the health care community in particular. Of essential importance is the potential destruction of the social responsibility that health care communities possess for those it holds in relationship with it. These relationships exist namely with the interdisciplinary team members that unite together for the common goal of patient care, and the patients that bind these inter-relationships together at the heart of the health care system. If legalized, euthanasia would drive the function and goals of the health care community in a downward spiral towards the complete disintegration of the relationships it currently upholds. Furthermore, it will allow patients requesting euthanasia to destroy the relationships of the health care community from within.

Humanity-as Relational and Social Beings

Man is a social being and the very essence of his existence revolves around the relationships he has with himself and others.  Relationships are a basic element in the cornerstone of human lives. As Rahner points out, “human existence, wherever we may meet it, is always found to be existence in the world, is always necessarily being with others, community” (Rahner, 1993, p. 121). Man, through his various relationships in society with others, creates communities. These communities serve to support and build up man in his everyday existence. They are the support systems that man inherently needs to progress and sustain the various elements of his life. Mankind participates in relationships for a variety of purposes, be it work, speech, or love, something more is still needed to bring people together. This ‘something more’ is a “third thing which is as yet extrinsic to the human person” and calls for people in their united efforts to partake in some activity that requires the presence of a relationship (Rahner, 1993, p.121).Whether these elements are comprised of work or leisure, mankind inadvertently aids or destroys others through the building blocks of relationships and community.

A community is built upon the strength of the relationships of its individuals. More specifically, a community relies on the strength of the relationship of its individuals helping one another. This is not to be misconstrued with communistic ideas that seek to diminish the concept of people for the sake of the community and industry by destruction of social classifications and distinctions (Marx, Engels, 1848, p.10). Rather people-as social beings- assist one another through the vehicles of relationships and community. This interconnection with others rises out of the “fact that being human always points, and is directed, to something, or someone, other than oneself-be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself-by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love-the more human he is and the more he actualizes himself” ( Frankl, 1984, p. 133). The relationship of love between people is particularly realized in the concept of social responsibility posited through fraternity and solidarity.

Man and Meaning-Connecting Society to Social Responsibility

This ‘fraternity’ as Rahner puts it is “another term for love of neighbor, and… love of neighbor, in turn, embraces the mystery of a love for God which is the totality of the true fulfillment of one’s existence” (Rahner, 1983, p.72). This sense of fraternity, or brotherhood, has strong ties to a relationship with others because it is an extension of love for God that allows a person to love another.  This love provides for the care of the wellbeing of others. By this relationship, people as caregivers posit a purpose to a suffering population through the solidarity of their works. Solidarity can be defined as the “direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part III, Ch. II, Art. III Part III, 1993) which consolidates the relationship between Christ and man, or the justice that is due to the love man has for Christ.    

Mankind’s relationships, which serve as the building-blocks of a community are founded on a desire to find meaning. The ultimate understanding of this meaning is based on a love between mankind and God. This love is exemplified by the principles of solidarity and fraternity which in turn, guide social responsibility. With such principles and responsibility in mind, the society of a health care system can be built upon relationships of meaning to safeguard and protects the lives of all people. This is because the health care team, from interdisciplinary and patient viewpoints alike, recognizes the value of each life in relationship to each other. The legalization of euthanasia would threaten the societal relationship of a health care system. Euthanasia would disregard the meaning each life holds within the system as part of a structure built for the purpose of each person to care for one another.

Euthanasia-Affirming the Rights of Others?

Ultimately, euthanasia poses more problems than providing a misconstrued ‘right to die’ (McQueen, 2009, p.4) or a painless killing (Thompson, 1995, p. 465) as its proponents hold. Euthanasia threatens the very foundations of humanity constructed through societies to find meaning in their relationships with others. The health care system serves as a society within a society. It is purposely set up to find meaning in the lives of the sick within society at large. Just as the death of a loved one by euthanasia has “repercussions for society as a whole” (McQueen, 1995, p. 4) due to the devastating effects of the decision to be cut off from the relationships of said loved ones, euthanasia upsets the community of the health care system and in fact, acts in reverse transcription of its functional coding. Instead of affirming the rights of patients requesting assistance to be killed, the euthanasia issue serves to threaten the rights of the people in the health care system. These rights are to find meaning in the human relationships they encounter in the society of the health care system and to preserve this community both as professionals and patients by upholding and caring for the sick until the moment of death.

This moment of death is the only one event in humanity that is utterly without community or relationship with other human beings. This event is where “everyone must die his own death in supreme loneliness” (Rahner, 1993, p. 122). It is only in the isolation of death that one is completely alone and at once entirely free as a human, (for one is liberated from a community and acts entirely as an individual) for which God is still there. The ultimate understanding of man’s search for meaning in life is based on a love between mankind and God. As the only accessible being outside the realm of human community at all times, God is still deeper than man at man’s deepest and most ultimate level (Rahner, 1993, p. 122). Even at a time when man finds himself utterly abandoned, at the most severe point in suffering ( as one might refer to death as the climax or end in suffering) God is still accessible by way of his loving mercy. Ultimately, God offers a relationship at all times, even when a person cannot.

To assist in the taking of another’s life would be to deprive them of the opportunity to find the ultimate meaning of life. This meaning is man’s relationship with God, and even if man does not find it in life, he may still find it in death. To cut off such an opportunity through euthanasia would be a destructive act both relationally and socially. In this way, man’s search for meaning would be unquestionably destroyed. Just as the Nazi’s had no more right in attempting to destroy Frankl’s life in the destruction of a camp society, (Frankl, 1984, p.21-115) health care professionals and patients alike have no right to destroy the society of the health care community through the use of euthanasia. The health care community exists to serve man in his search for meaning in life, even through the course of sickness and death.

References:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1995, an Image Book, Doubleday, Toronto.
Frankl, V.,  1984, Man’s Search for Meaning, Pocket Books, New York.
Marx, K., Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx/Engels Internet Archive (Marxist.org) 1991, 2000, 2004, p. 1-10.
McQueen, M., 2009, The Questions of Physician-Assisted Suicide in the UK and Implications for Canada, Bioethics Matters, Canadian Catholic Bioethics Institute, Vol. 7, Num. 5, pp1-4.
Rahner, K., Lehmann, K., Raffelt, A., Egan, H. (eds) 1993, The Content of Faith, Crossroad, New York
Rahner, K., 1983, The Love of Jesus and the Love of Neighbor, Crossroad, New York.
Thompson, D. (ed), 9th ed, 1995, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford.