"My name is Teague. I am eleven years old, and have really severe cerebral palsy. The Latimer case in Saskatchewan has caused me a great deal of unhappiness and worry over the past few weeks."

I feel very strong that all children are valuable, and deserve to live full and complete lives. No one should make the decision for another person on whether their life is worth living or not.

I have a friend who had cerebral palsy, and he decided that life was too hard and too painful. So he really let himself die. I knew he was leaving this world and letting himself dwell in the spiritual world. I told him that I understood that the spiritual world was really compelling, but that life was worth fighting for.

I had to fight to live when I was very sick. The doctors said I wouldn’t live long, but I knew I had so much to accomplish still.

I have to fight pain all the time. When I was little, life was pain. I couldn’t remember no pain. My foster mom, Cara, helped me learn to manage and control my pain. Now my life is so full of joy. There isn’t time enough in the day for me to learn and experience all I wish to. I have a family and many friends who love me. I have a world of knowledge to discover. I have so much to give.

I can’t walk or talk or feed myself. But I am not “suffering from cerebral palsy.” I use a wheelchair, but I am not “confined to a wheelchair.” I have pain, but I do not need to be “put out of my misery.”

My body is not my enemy. It is that which allows me to enjoy Mozart, experience Shakespeare, savour a bouillabaisse feast, and cuddle my mom. Life is a precious gift. It belongs to the person to whom it was given. Not to her parents, nor to the state. Tracy’s life was hers “to make of it what she could.” My life is going to be astounding.

Teague Johnson
North Vancouver

Teague died May 29, 1995. His life was indeed astounding.
Reprinted with permission from the Vancouver Sun, Dec. 9, 1994

---

 The better response to patients in pain is not to kill them, but to make sure that the medicine and technology currently available to control pain is used more widely and completely. According to a 1992 manual produced by the Washington Medical Association, Pain Management and Care of the Terminal Patient, “adequate interventions exist to control pain in 90 to 99% of patients.

COULD IT HAPPEN IN CANADA?

In 1935, Nazi Germany launched a program of involuntary sterilisation in order to prevent the weakest members of German society from reproducing. This was quickly followed by involuntary euthanasia or death selection on institutionalised severely mentally handicapped persons and was then extended to institutionalised psychotic and psychopathic patients. the silence of most German doctors about this crime soon led to the passing of the Nuremberg Laws for the purification of German blood. The way was then paved for a total eugenics program and for the subsequent holocaust.

1. FOR CLASS DISCUSSION: What would have allowed such a situation to get out of hand the way it did? Is it possible for this to happen in Canada?


---

DO HANDICAPPED PEOPLE RECEIVE LESS PROTECTION UNDER CANADIAN LAWS?

In October of 1993, Robert Latimer of Battleford, Saskatchewan, carried his severely disabled daughter Tracy out to the cab of his pickup truck and then proceeded to pipe in carbon monoxide until she died. Latimer was later charged with second-degree murder. This charge carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment without a chance of parole for 10 years.

On December 1, 1997, a Saskatchewan Judge ruled that a father should receive a more lenient sentence than required by law and sentenced Latimer to two years in prison.
 
Unable to walk, talk or feed herself, the girl weighed less than 40 pounds at death. Latimer said he acted to end the “suffering” of his daughter, who had cerebral palsy and had had repeated operations on her back, hips and legs. Latimer's wife, Laura, told jurors she had wished for death for Tracy but had been too cowardly to end the girl's life herself.
 
2. FOR CLASS DISCUSSION:  Could this decision lead handicapped  people to feel that they are second-class citizens? Could this decision lead some handicapped people to fear that someone else’s compassion may lead to their deaths? Could this decision ‘open the doors’ to legalized euthanasia in Canada?
 

  Back to Index

The purpose of this column is to allow our young students the opportunity to ask questions concerning pro-life issues and sexuality.
 

Q. What does Euthanasia mean?

A. The word euthanasia comes from two Greek words: ‘Eu’ which means good and ‘thanatos’, which means death, so euthanasia simply means a good death. No one would argue with the notion of having a good death but the real argument arises in how that should be achieved.
 
Those who wish to kill believe that it is permissible to deliberately engineer the death of a human being who is suffering. We Catholics however know that only God has the right to take life. That right has not been given to us. If we kill even when we think we have good reason, we are stealing God’s rights and that is a grave sin.

Q. What is a ‘good death’?

A. The only good death is death at peace with Jesus. However, the word ‘euthanasia’ has come to mean 5 very different things and only the last of these is in accord with the teachings of Jesus and His Church.

1. DEATH WITH DIGNITY. Promoters of death with dignity regard dignity as the supreme good, not life itself. Therefore where ‘dignity’ no longer is seen to be present, it would be permissible to terminate that patient’s life. A doctor holding this view would allow a patient to die a natural death only so long as dignity was deemed to continue. There are two problems with this viewpoint.

 a) The concept of dignity is very elusive and difficult to define. Dignity for one person may mean something very different to another.

 b) Even if we could define dignity, whose definition should take precedence, the patient’s, the family’s or the doctor’s? If the patient’s ideas are to dominate the decision, the patient may be suffering a great deal or may be afraid of future suffering or may be severely depressed and so makes a biased and non-objective decision coloured by his feelings and pain. If the family’s decision is to be taken, the family will either be prejudiced by a false compassion for the suffering of their loved one or be desirous of saving themselves the bother of having to care for him or may even have a death wish for the patient for such reasons as hatred or greed for their inheritance. If the doctor’s definition is to prevail that too will be biased by his own moral or immoral views on life, his own dedication or lack of it to the healing art and perhaps whether he likes to play at being god or not. Death with dignity is too vague a notion and when people are challenged to define dignity it is like trying to get half of a wet trout. There is no clear objective logic, only a set of vague subjective impressions.

2. MERCY KILLING. This simply means the use of medical technology for the deliberate purpose of inducing death. It is an act of killing and can be done actively by legal injection or passively by withholding life sustaining fluids and food, or simply by refusing to give simple ordinary medical care. Mercy killers are dominated by their feelings, not their thinking. Feelings belong to the realm of our animal nature, while thinking is what distinguishes us from the lower animals. God does not want our feelings. He wants our wills and He wants our wills to conform to His Divine Will. Pity tries to justify killing. Enlightened thinking rejects it.

3. DEATH SELECTION. This is the ultimate end point of any euthanasia policy. What is at first a restricted procedure to the very worst of cases, soon degenerates into including more and more sick persons. Eventually it becomes easy to step over the final line and justify killing for other reasons ... posing an obvious threat to the habitual criminal, the aged, the mentally and physically handicapped and the psychotic.

4. VITALISM. This is the disordered opposite of euthanasia …  using extraordinary medical procedures even when all that is being achieved is the cruel prolongation of the dying process. For vitalists, prolongation of suffering is merely an acceptable side effect. The Catholic Church does not subscribe to this view.

5. AGATHANASIA OR BENEMORTASIA. This position holds that life in and of itself is not the absolute good. While it cherishes and values all human goods such as life, freedom, integrity and dignity, it regards God and God alone as the supreme good. Life, while it is a good, need not be clung to at all costs. To use medical technology merely to prolong the dying process would be immoral. A person has the right to refuse medical treatment, which causes unacceptable suffering. The principle of Agathanasia also holds true that, while a doctor may not kill a patient, he can allow his or her patient to die. This is a very important point. If I kill a sick person by a fatal injection or by withholding the food and water he needs, then I have chosen to kill and I stand in violation of the moral law. If however, I know that a patient is dying and I honestly recognize that the disease is not reversible, I will humbly accept the natural progression of the disease, concentrating on relieving suffering at all times and accompany the patient to his or her death with compassion and without extraordinary heroic measures.

 Agathanasia is in accord with the teachings of the Catholic Church on death and dying. The Church teaches that the morality of death is rooted in the natural law by which we all possess an innate instinct and respect for life which has to be deliberately paved over if we are to become takers of life. This teaching is founded upon the words of Jesus Christ in Scripture and the two thousand year tradition of the Church.

 May Jesus fill you all with a deep love and respect for your own life and the lives of all human beings from conception until natural death. Amen
 

Your friend,
Deacon Dr. Bob
Priests for Life, Canada Board Member

•  Raising our voices can stem the tide against ‘mercy killing’
by Fr. Raby
Reprinted in part with permission from
The Catholic Register, Dec. 9/96

 
Hitler couldn’t do it in the 1930’s, but we are going to try again in the 1990’s.

Sixty years ago Hitler tried to convenience the people of Germany to accept euthanasia as a way of ridding society of some of its problems and the cost of caring for the elderly, the mentally afflicted or anyone he considered a drag on the “Master Race.”

The people revolted when they found out mentally defective children were being killed by Hitler’s doctors who went along with his plans. The people in pre-war Germany wouldn’t go for that, but during the war the will of the people didn’t need to be considered therefore the world got a good look at what happens when one group decided who is fit to live. The Holocaust showed that.

Now the idea of euthanasia is being presented as a very logical thing when persons find life difficult and the elderly and sick become an economic burden. At its recent policy convention, the federal Liberal party gave its support to assisted suicide.

Of course government hasn’t come out and said this is a primary objective yet, but before long we will hear how neither government nor insurance companies can afford care for the old and sick, the great savings to be reaped if monies did not have to be allocated to care for these people.

Cuts in health care that see the closing of hospitals, pushing mentally ill people out of institutions into the community, form the thin edge of the wedge - the wedge being euthanasia, “mercy killing,” “assisted suicide” or whatever term camouflages the direct killing of these “burdens” to society.

Government and insurance companies will promote the passage of a euthanasia bill because of economics, the legal “safeguards” that make it look extremely restrictive, but are soon ignored, as in abortion today. And as took place in Holland, where elderly people are now afraid to go to a hospital for fear of the fatal injection.

After the economic argument stresses how much would be saved,  will the unemployed and welfare cases be in the next line of  injectionables.”?

This would be very desponding pessimistic if we just had to stand by and watch it happen. But we don’t. We have two courses of action. We can deluge our MPs with letters telling them where we stand, and insist they present our view and not their own or the party line that ignores it. We can besiege heaven with our prayers asking God to intervene and send us leaders who don’t think they can play God.

There is a third action too - have men and women with sound Christian moral standards run for office in the coming elections.

Editors Note: Students can make a difference. Elected politicians know that you are their future and that the decisions they make will affect you. Make your voice known. Write a letter to your provincial or federal Member of Parliament today. MAKE IT A SCHOOL OR CLASS PROJECT!
 

 
 Take this short quiz to find out what you know about Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide....

Question 1.

Question 1.

Euthanasia refers to a voluntary choice limited to dying people.
 
  A. True      B. False

THE RIGHT ANSWER

Question 2.

Which countries now have legalized euthanasia?

A. United States      B. Canada    C. United Kingdom    D. The Netherlands
E. Germany              F. Australia

THE RIGHT ANSWER

Question 3.

Mercy Killing and Euthanasia mean the same thing.

  A. True   B. False

THE RIGHT ANSWER

Question 4.

Pain Can Be Controlled:

A. Half of the time
B. 75% of the time
C. 90 to 99% of the time
D. Never

THE RIGHT ANSWER

 

-----------------------------------------------------------
ANSWERS TO QUIZ

Answer #1.

False. Often a family member or even a doctor will make the decision for the patient.

BACK TO QUESTION 1

Answer #2.

2. Australia's Northern Territory became the first jurisdiction in the world to legalize euthanasia in May 1995. It is also technically illegal in the Netherlands (Holland) where there is a law against euthanasia but doctors have been exempted from prosecution.
 

BACK TO QUESTION 2

Answer #3.

True. Because the motive for euthanasia is often alleged to be one of compassion, such as a desire to end the suffering of another person, the terms euthanasia and mercy killing are used interchangeably.

BACK TO QUESTION 3 Answer #4.

C. 90 to 99% of the time.

BACK TO QUESTION 4

EUTHANASIA: FALSE MERCY: FALSE COMPASSION

The tragedy of euthanasia is that many are fooled by this false mercy, this false compassion. In society today there is a prevailing tendency to value life only in terms of pleasure and well being. Suffering must be avoided at all costs. The culture of death advocates see euthanasia as logical and humane, evident in a selfish attitude preoccupied with efficiency, convenience and comfort, viewing the elderly, infirm and disabled as intolerable and burdensome. The culture of life advocates view euthanasia as senseless and inhumane, a perversion of mercy, an action of omission which of itself and by intention causes death, with the purpose of eliminating all suffering. “True compassion leads to sharing another’s pain. It does not kill the person whose suffering we cannot bear.” (The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II, #68)

In the false mercy approach, some lives are judged as not worth living. (i.e. in the Latimer family tragedy, the father killed Tracy, his daughter, a cerebral palsy patient, by carbon monoxide poisoning) in the true mercy approach, all lives have equal value and are worth living. “No one should make the decision for another person on whether their life is worth living or not ... Life is a precious gift. It belongs to the person to whom it was given. Tracy’s life was hers to make of it what she could.” (Teague Johnson, Cerebral Palsy patient, 11 years old, died in 1995)

What is involved here is the temptation of Eden: to become like God who “Knows Good and Evil” (Gen. 3:5) God alone has the power over life and death; “It is I who bring both death and life”. (DT 32:39) God exercises this power with wisdom and love. When man usurps this power, as in the case of abortion or euthanasia, he is enslaved by selfish and foolish thinking. His actions lead to injustice and death. The life of the weak is put into the hands of the strong. A sense of trust and justice is undermined and lost in society.

In confronting suffering and death, the way of true mercy involves caring and sharing, evident in companionship, sympathy and support for the individual in the time of trial, as in palliative care. Living to the Lord and dying to the Lord is the Christian approach. “None of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord; so then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. (ROM 14:7-8)

Living to the Lord means recognizing that suffering, while still an evil and a trial in itself, can always become a source of good, if it is experienced for love, by free choice, through sharing in the suffering of Christ.

Dying to the Lord means experiencing one’s death as an act of obedience to the Father, ready to Passover, to end our earthly pilgrimage, to celebrate our eternal birthday, at the time chosen by God. (PHIL 2:8; JN 13:1)

Back to Index

 Back to Index

Back to Index