PubMed1999
We are faced with difficult and complex questions that cannot be answered by stating great principles or ideological convictions, because they refer to painful situations, always singular, in which each individual, in a unique way, faces his life and his death. But the debate can draw on shared convictions and values. Thus, before being a way of assuming death, the Christian faith is fundamentally a way of welcoming the life, in all times and in its fullness, that Christ has given us. The whole Bible and in particular the ministry of Jesus bear witness to that fight for life, against the scandal of suffering and the powers of death that are a denial of the good work of God. Suffering is never, as such, acceptable or justifiable, and truth is never to surrender to it, as if it was a meaningful destiny. And so all suffering that can be avoided must be so. Regarding death, it is often held back in the margins of our lives and societies, as if it was a sort of setback for our human abilities and especially for medicine. Of course those abilities exist but death is not an illness. It's the natural mark of our human finiteness and there is a time when caring is not intended to cure, but to make up for life that defaults, alleviate suffering. That is why what is called to-day palliative caring is so important. Because even when medicine is powerless in front of illness, it can still do something for the sick. Because of all that, the believer can only be opposed to euthanasia which is, after all, only the exact replica of the useless prolongation of life by medical means it pretends to oppose. It's the same activism, the same pretense, the Bible fights, through which human beings want to remain the masters of life and death. But death is not given, except in deathly violence. As life, it is welcomed and is accompanied. The end of a life is still life. To die is to the live to one's last breath. And that questions the claim to die "with dignity" when life can no more be lived in a "dignified way". But what "dignity" are we talking about? To-day, do we not mistake it with the image of the modern individual, master of himself and a match for the world, assured of his physical strength and of his conscientiousness enabling him to consent. As if the image of dignity was always the same, at every age, for all types of illness or simply of existence. When that image of dignity gets shaky, one discovers sorts of dignity that do not answer those criteria, but that testify that any "body" can be a subject, and that we know nothing about it. Lastly, no law or moral authority, be they lax or restrictive, can suppress compassion, nor the ethical responsibility of the patient, of the doctors, of the family circle. None can take the place of the common requirement: go along with life up to death.