A couple of weeks ago, in urging prayer for the UK as the House of Lords took up Lord Falconer’s assisted dying bill, I quoted Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, Desmond Tutu, in his support for the assisted dying bill. Today, at the risk of creating a burdensome critique of Archbishop Tutu’s arguments, premise by premise, I would like to take a brief analytical look at Archbishop Tutu’s article in support of assisted dying which appears on The Guardian’s website.
The first paragraph of Tutu’s piece is not terribly controversial. He mentions how death is the “wonder of someone going to meet their maker,” and “the transition to a new life.” Indeed these things are true of all those who die in a state of grace. However, for those not in a state of grace, death goes from wonder to horror rather quickly. Still, we give the Archbishop here, the benefit of the semantically ambiguous doubt.
Tutu then launches into a sort of living will, describing how he would like his death to be marked; simply, modestly, and inexpensively. This costliness of prolonging life, either mechanically or through palliative care rapidly becomes a theme of Tutu’s piece. “My concern is not just about affordability; it’s my strong preference that money should be spent on the living,” he writes. And again: “Money should be spent on those that are at the beginning or in full flow of their life.” The way in which Archbishop Tutu tries to equate the cost of life and the quality of life is frankly disturbing; deeply disturbing.
He then share’s a couple of specific stories. The first story is about Nelson Mandela, of whom he says, “My friend was no longer himself. It was an affront to Madiba’s dignity,” when discussing the end of Mandela’s life. The second story is of a young man named Craig, who killed himself with sleeping pills and plastic bags because he considered another surgical procedure “unbearable.” “Craig wanted to end his life legally assisted…our legal system denied him and his family this dignity,” Tutu writes. “Craig’s thinking was crystal clear; he wanted autonomy and dignity.”
In all honestly, I find that preceding quote one of the most horrifying things I have ever read, and am stunned that it was issued from the pen of a Christian archbishop. Who is Archbishop Tutu to say that dignity is linked to autonomy? Does not the dignity of the person flow from the fact that he is created in the image of the living God? What has the dignity of the dying and sanctity of life to do with money? If such core doctrines are to be made as subjective as affordability, I shudder to think what the next step would be. Furthermore, while specific stories are marvelously effective at tugging at the emotions, they are not
Section 2277 of the Catechism has this to say about Euthanasia:
“Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable. Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his creator.”
God is the creator and sustainer of every life. Who are we to argue about whether a certain life, even our own, is affordable and autonomous enough to reach our definition of a quality life? Cannot the fact that the human being bears the image of the divine be enough to drive us to protect the sanctity of life? Unfortunately, as Archbishop Tutu shows, evidently not.
About The Contributor
