(Editor’s Note: The following is reproduced with permission from Rev. Edward Holland and Rev. Harlan Limpert on behalf of Interfaith Clergy for End-of-Life Options. It originally appeared in the News Tribune of Duluth, Minnesota. Rev. Holland is a Methodist minister from Shoreview, Minnesota, and Rev. Harlan Limpert is a Unitarian Universalist minister from Hopkins, Minnesota. — KTB)
We represent an association of Minnesota clergy, including six Christian denominations and Reformed Judaism. After reading the column, “We’ve denied assisted suicide for good reason,” posted Aug. 31 at duluthnewstribune.com, we felt compelled to speak out.
As faith leaders, we have witnessed first-hand the suffering of many people in the last months, weeks, and days of their lives. We have held the hands of people who have “fought the good fight” against cancer, ALS, and so many other progressive, terminal diseases. Their doctors and nurses have performed every miracle of modern medicine and provided every means of comfort. Yet the suffering of these terminally ill individuals continues.
Compassion means more than empathy for, or “suffering with,” another. The definition of compassion also includes a desire to help alleviate the suffering of others. That is why we support the option for a gentle, peaceful death through medical aid in dying.
When state legislatures authorize medical aid in dying, it gives individuals the option to ask their doctor for a prescription they may self-ingest to peacefully end their suffering once they are in the final stages of their illness. Medical aid in dying is already authorized in nine states and Washington, D.C.; bills to authorize it have been introduced in 28 states, including Minnesota.
Medical aid in dying is not suicide, assisted or otherwise. Suicide refers to people who are mentally ill and end their life prematurely, often violently. People who want access to medical aid in dying want to live, but their disease is going to kill them no matter what. They simply want some measure of control in their last days to avoid unbearable suffering.
A majority of Americans and a majority of Minnesotans support authorizing medical aid in dying. According to LifeWay Research, an Evangelical Survey Research organization, more than half of all Christians (59%) find medical aid in dying to be morally acceptable, including Catholics (70%) and Protestants (53%).
Despite the evidence and statistics, people of faith may differ in their views about medical aid in dying, and each may make different decisions as they face the end of their life. Some find deep spiritual meaning in suffering while others find meaning in the exercise of personal autonomy. No one way is more “right” or “moral” than another. What’s important is to recognize that all perspectives are valid and should be respected. No one religious viewpoint should dictate what’s spiritually right for others. Ultimate questions of life and death belong with the person who is dying, not with the government or any religious entity.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, who spent many years training in a Jesuit Seminary, wrote this as he signed the California End-of-Life Option Act into law: “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain. I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”
I am suffering terrible pain and impairment from two doctors who maimed my feet. I am not terminally ill but still suffer terribly. Suffering can be caused by all kinds of forces like poverty, imprisonment, illness, mental problems, marital problems, etc. All suffering humans should be allowed the same right of exit as we allow our dogs.
I’m reminded of a quote from Forrest Church, Unitarian Uinversalist theologian :
“Death is not a curse to be outwitted no matter the cost. Death is the natural pivot on which life turns, without which life as we know it could not be. A pro-life-support position is not always a pro-life position. When we can no longer hold on with purpose, to let go is to die with dignity and grace.”
So true. Couldn’t be said any better.
If MAiD is seen as so morally acceptable by people of faith, then why does such a miniscule percentage of the terminally ill population in the US states where it is legal ever opt for it? Yes, there may be difficulty in finding supportive doctors to provide the necessary assessments or pharmacies to fill prescriptions of the lethal medication. Yes, the medications may be costly for some, since (to the best of my knowledge) no health insurance or Medicare Part D drug plan covers them. Yes, some hospitals, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes do not allow it on their premises. But there’s probably more going on here. Most people realize a spade is a spade. It’s still a deliberate premature ending of life — a suicide. Most people may like the idea in theory, but would never commit suicide, be it be a legally-acquired prescription, a gun, rope, or knife. They are more courageous than that. They are also intelligent enough to realize that with proper hospice care (and terminal palliative sedation as an absolute last resort), there is no reason to take one’s life prematurely.
Sue — As an ordained hospice chaplain, I can say that many people of faith support MAiD but don’t choose it simply because of the religious stigma imposed by churches that misquote scripture and sometimes invent it. For example, “sanctity of life” does not appear in the Hebrew or Christian Bible but that phrase is thrown around by fundamentalists and religious authorities as if it were. Likewise, there are six scripture references to someone causing their own death, but in none of those instances is the person condemned for doing so. Some, such as Samson, are actually regarded as biblical heroes for having “sacrificed” themselves. And as far as I’m concerned, it takes more courage to end life on one’s own terms than to hang on as long as possible. The latter is what society expects us to do, and those who succumb to that pressure are largely driven not by courage but by fear and obedience to authorities whose main purpose is to maintain their authority. Also, contrary to popular opinion, pain management is not even one of the top five reasons for self-deliverance. Those reasons are: 1) losing autonomy; 2) life no longer enjoyable; 3) loss of dignity; 4) losing control of bodily functions; 5) burden to family/friends. Many of my hospice patients were in no discernible pain, but they still asked me if there was a way to accelerate the dying process simply because they were ready.
In addition to the excellent response provided by Kevin Bradley to Sue McKeown’s comments, I’d like to raise a questions to Ms. McKeown:
If your loved one jumped from the flaming towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11 to escape imminent and unavoidable death by fire, would you wish to have their death certificate state “Suicide” as the cause of death? I can’t imagine you would. Some 250 people in those circumstances, knowing death was certain, chose what likely was a less painful death.
So, too, do a certain number of people, knowing their death is near, choose a more peaceful way of dying. Why not give them that option? If it’s not right for you, fine, but why deny others that option?
Great analogy Harlan…..totally agree.