Back to the June 2005 Newsletter Index

Bioethicist Explores Pro-Life, Pro-Death Concepts

Are the terms “death with dignity” and “the sanctity of life” hopelessly and unalterably opposed?

They shouldn’t be, says Dr. Leon Kass.

“I don’t accept this polarization,” he told his audience at St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore April 27.

The two terms, which serve as the opposing rallying cries of the pro-euthanasia and pro-life camps, are not only compatible, but if rightly understood, go hand-in-hand, he said.

Dr. Kass, who is chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics, explored the terms, based on his study of the book of Genesis and on reason.

“In the strictest sense, ‘sanctity of life’ means life should not be violated; it should be protected, defended and preserved,” he said, adding, “If we could understand the proscription against murder, we could understand the sacredness of life.”

Why is the murder of a human being wrong?  The laws against murder are, of course, useful in civilized society, which requires order and peace, said Kass; yet, according to our law, killing not just the “unwilling,” but the “willing and nonwilling” is illegal.

Noting that our laws are founded on religious teachings:  the Sixth Commandment says “Thou shalt not kill,” he said, “Some people say murder is wrong because God says it is wrong.

“This argument, though plausible, is not satisfactory – even pagans and atheists think murder is wrong.”

Turning to Genesis, Kass pointed out that before the Flood, humans lived in the absence of law; might alone made right, and no one was safe.

After the Flood, however, in making His covenant with Noah, God declared:  “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has man been made.”

“Murder is to be avoided, not only to avoid punishment, but man’s divine-like status requires that we respect his life,” Kass explained.

The truth of the Bible’s assertion does not depend on Biblical authority, he asserted.  It is readily apparent that man possesses the god-like qualities of speech and reason, freedom, judgment, and moral concern.

“Bible or no Bible, it’s certain that human beings alone speak, plan, contemplate and judge.”

Therefore, the sanctity of life rests on man’s god-like dignity.

Yet, advocates of euthanasia argue that conditions such as dementia, senility, mental illness and debilitating infirmities, often accompanied by pain and suffering, impinge on one’s god-like dignity so much that death is to be preferred.

“There is nothing of human dignity in the process of dying,” admitted Kass – “only in the way we face it.

“The death with positive dignity we saw with Pope John Paul is something rare; it depends on the character of the soul.”

The deaths we most admire are of those who act with courage, he said; they set their affairs in order and continue to live and love as long as they can.

We need to think more about the nature of dignity itself, the bioethicist reflected.  

The word ‘dignity’ signifies worthiness, honor and nobility.

“In principle, it’s an aristocratic idea.  You can’t claim it; it’s not owed to you.  But courage, moderation and righteousness are not solely confined to a few.”

With proper encouragement, many of us can be open to these virtues; life provides numerous occasions, especially through adversity, to exercise them, he said.

Death with dignity, in short, is possible through a dignified attitude and behavior in the face of death.

Such an attitude requires the upkeep, as much as possible, with one’s dignified human intercourse with those around us.

The dying deserve respectful treatment from others, but, said Kass, “Often, the dying are reduced to ‘thing’-hood, objectification.

“Death with dignity requires that the dying person is at all times treated as the god-like person he is.”

Euthanasia, on the other hand, is undignified and dangerous, he said.

While ceasing treatment and allowing death to occur can in some instances be defended in principle, “You can’t write the rules in advance,” Kass maintained.

“Written documents and advanced directives are no substitute for loving thought.”

He noted that proponents of voluntary euthanasia ask, isn’t it dignified for a human being to put a god-like end to his existence?

“Is it really dignified to seek such an escape from one’s troubles?” countered Kass.  “How can I honor myself by making myself nothing?”

Though some would argue that legalizing euthanasia would increase human freedom because it would increase human options, Kass holds that it would actually constrain human actions.

Legalized euthanasia would “plague” every human being because of the pressure being placed on him to not be a burden to his family and society, he said.

In addition, non-voluntary euthanasia of the comatose, the senile and the psychotic can never be a dignified act for such people, said Kass.

“Many people in greatly reduced states still display human behavior in response to simple kindnesses, such as being offered a sip of water,” he observed.

“It does not follow that because we would not want to trade places with them that they do not have anything worth living for.”

Dr. Kass said he has no illusions that it is easy to live with a Karen Ann Quinlan, a Nancy Cruzan, or a Terry Schiavo.

“But we should reject the counsel of those who argue in favor of euthanasia and assisted suicide.

“We will never relate decently to people if we have the option of making them dead.”

Dr. Kass, a professor at the University of Chicago, has written and taught on the issues raised by modern biological advances for thirty years.

He has published eight books, including The Beginning of Wisdom:  Reading Genesis; The Ethics of Human Cloning (with James Q. Wilson); and Toward a More Natural Science:  Biology and Human Affairs.

Dr. Kass’s talk was the 2005 John Carroll Lecture on Religion and Society, part of a series sponsored by St. Mary’s Seminary