Mercy Killing: An Oxymoron
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy." (Matthew5:7)
Believe it or not, they call it "mercy"—but it can only be deemed "merciful" if you strip words of their meaning.
There was a time, not too long ago, when a merciful man or woman would go out of their way to help those who were suffering. They extended acts of kindness and compassion to those in need. Self-sacrifice and love for the less fortunate animated their actions.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Today, advocates of euthanasia argue that they are merciful when they kill the sick and handicapped. Sadly, this twisted notion of mercy is gaining ground around the world. The groups first targeted were the elderly, the severely handicapped, and the very sick. The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and the state of Oregon all allow doctors to prescribe deadly medicines to men and women with various medical problems.
Now, however, death advocates want to go further: they have set their sights on ailing newborns. Holland already allows seriously disabled children to be euthanized. Doctors in England, it was reported this week, are currently considering something similar. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has asked a bioethics council for a recommendation over whether or not to permit infant euthanasia. In its request, the Royal College said, "We would like the working party to think more radically about non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia as they are ways of widening the management options available to the sickest of newborns."
"Active euthanasia" as a way of widening management options? Killing a sick person is certainly a unique way of managing her problems! Of course, it is true that modern technology creates difficult choices when it comes to premature or profoundly handicapped babies. Such children may have no chance of survival, even when their lives are artificially prolonged using complex machinery. It is one thing for a parent and a doctor to forbear extraordinary care that would only prolong the dying process for the child. It is quite another thing, however, to administer deadly drugs to kill the child. The first case concedes a natural tragedy; the second intervenes specifically to bring about death.
The arguments in favor of infant euthanasia range from misguided to perverse. Of course, nobody wants to see babies suffer. Who wouldn't do everything in their power to help? Euthanasia, however, should not be a viable option. Newborn babies are human beings, too. Their humanity is not diminished because they are afflicted with a handicap or a fatal disease. Their moral significance is not lessened because their life span is shorter than normal. While they may be considered the "least" among us, it is precisely because of that status that we owe them a duty of kindness and care (Matthew 25:34-46). Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop were right when they stated, "The final measure of mankind's humanity is how humanely people treat one another."
To kill the child simply because she may face suffering is to suggest that those who suffer are better off dead. In my law practice I have represented many injured victims whose quality of life was so poor, or whose handicap or disfigurement so great, that onlookers declared that they would rather be dead than live under similar circumstances. Not so, however, for those who suffered with the handicap or disfigurement. They valued their lives and looked upon themselves as someone special. They preferred dealing with their handicaps to ending their existence. While advocates of infanticide and euthanasia often speak blithely about eliminating suffering by taking lives, all too often the suffering they want to eliminate is that of those who will live on after the object of their "mercy" has been disposed of. Is it really a fair trade to require the forfeiture of one's life to eliminate another's suffering or inconvenience?
It is no great leap to extend the logic that is used to justify the destruction of handicapped newborns to others as well. As Schaeffer and Koop observed in their compelling book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, "If we decide that a child with a chronic cardiopulmonary disease, short bowel syndrome, or various manifestations of brain damage, should be permitted to die..., what is to prevent us from eliminating an adult with chronic cardiopulmonary disease—who may be much more of a burden to his family than the child is?....Are we to extend the slaughter to all those who in one way or another become a burden or nuisance, or who stop us from enjoying our rights as we perceive them?"
Schaeffer and Koop's questions should be pondered today no less so than when they were first asked. Mercy is a quality very much in need if we are to fashion a just society. "Killing" and "caring" are not the same. If we are to be a just society, we must not confuse the two.
___________________________________________________
Ken Connor is Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC and a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represented Governor Jeb Bush in the Terri Schiavo case. Connor was formally President of the Family Research Council, Chairman of the Board of CareNet, and Vice Chairman of Americans United for Life. For more articles and resources from Mr. Connor and the Center for a Just Society, go to www.ajustsociety.org. Your feedback is welcome; please email [email protected].
