Resisting the Culture of Death

"Death Skull" by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, October 12, 2017

Resisting the Culture of Death (two ways)

1. Support Bill 34

I support Manitoba's Bill 34, which provides conscience rights to healthcare professionals who refuse to kill or help kill patients.

Introduced by Health Minister Kelvin Goertzen, this bill is presently making its way through the Manitoba legislature.

Why is Bill 34 important? Because medicine should care for those who suffer, not kill them.

Also, we should heed the lessons of history.

Consider this passage from Dr. Leo Alexander (1905-1985), medical advisor to the U.S. Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, in which representative Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity (this is from Dr. Alexander's paper "Medical Science Under Dictatorship," New England Journal of Medicine, July 4, 1949):

 "Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived."

Dr. Alexander continues: "This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in the category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans."

Dr. Alexander warns: “But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitatable sick."

I don't believe a Nazi Party is on Canada's horizon (thank goodness). But I do believe that some philosophical principles of what Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) called the “culture of death" are becoming prevalent in our society.

Medical, social, and psychological problems require medical, social, and psychological solutions—not killing.

If we're concerned about suffering patients, then we should increase the quality and availability of palliative care, not require doctors to kill.

2. Stop discrimination against pro-life Members of Parliament

I think the Liberals' blocking of pro-life MP Rachael Harder as chair of Canada's Status of Women committee is unjust.

Yes, I have pro-life biases. So don't take my word on this. Instead, consider the following extended quote from the pro-choice editors of The Globe and Mail:

“The Liberal government of Justin Trudeau has sent a terrible message by blocking the election of a Conservative MP to the position of chair of the House of Commons committee on the status of women solely because of her opposition to abortion."

“Think of it this way: Were Rachael Harder, the Alberta MP in question, fired from a job in a private company, or from the public service, for the same reason, she would be the victim of a violation of her Charter rights...."

“The right to abortion is one we support, but there is a higher principle at play here—the right to hold beliefs, and to act on them legally, without interference from the government, and without being discriminated against by society."

“The Liberal government's shameful actions this week send a contrary message—that it is perfectly acceptable in Canada to discriminate against people who oppose abortion."

Some pundits defend the Liberals by arguing that a pro-life appointment to the Status of Women committee is like appointing a racist to the Human Rights Commission. But this is a faulty analogy.

Racists have no good reasons for their racism. However, pro-lifers like Harder have good reasons for their pro-life position. There is scientific evidence, e.g., biological humanity of the unborn, and moral principle, i.e., all human beings have the right to life—whether young or old, black or white.

Canada's Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that Canada's parliament should limit abortion justly, suggesting a gestational-age approach. To date, Canada's governments have failed us.

Most Canadians now favour at least some abortion restrictions: e.g., no abortion merely because baby is a girl, no late-term abortions.

Clearly, our democratic government should encourage parliamentary debate, not unjust discrimination that favours the culture of death.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence. 



For further reading on the issues of abortion and physician-assisted suicide (a.k.a. medical assistance in dying), please see Apologia archives for my columns on these topics.

For an insightful 3-minute video by some Manitoba healthcare professionals who favour Bill 34, please see Call for Conscience - Manitoba. 

Physician-assisted killing

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, March 3, 2016

Physician-assisted killing

If you think physician-assisted killing is wrong, it's time to oppose it.

Yes, the Supreme Court of Canada calls it "physician-assisted dying." But this is a euphemism, a nice way of describing what is in fact not nice (like "going to the washroom" is a nice way of saying "going to take a piss"). Physician-assisted dying suggests comfort care at the end of life, but in actuality refers to doctors directly killing patients.

Yes, it's good for objecting doctors to insist on conscience provisions, i.e., insist that if a doctor thinks physician-assisted killing is wrong, then he/she shouldn't have to do it or make referrals to others who will.

But this is not enough. Think about it. If you think killing patients is truly wrong, as, say, slavery is truly wrong, then it's not enough not to be required to own slaves or not to have to refer slave-buyers to slave sellers. We must object that slavery itself is wrong, period, and wrong for all.

Perhaps objecting doctors may only be required to provide accurate information about physician-assisted killing. If so, keep in mind that although it may not be wrong to be required to provide accurate information about slavery, it would be wrong if this information included directions about where to purchase a slave.

Manitoba's College of Physicians and Surgeons might object (as they do) that "Physicians must not impose their moral or religious beliefs about physician assisted dying on patients." But isn't the college (and Canada's Supreme Court) imposing the moral belief that life is no longer the default position and so the patient must choose to live or be killed (patients already have the choice to say no to extraordinary and burdensome treatments that merely prolong dying) and so doctors must ensure (by referral or providing accurate information/ directions) that somebody kills them?

Intellectual health warning: Somebody is having their philosophical cake and eating it too!

I am troubled. I believe we have not learned our philosophical lessons from history.

Consider the following passage from Dr. Leo Alexander (1905-1985), medical advisor to the U.S. Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, trials in which Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity (this passage is from Alexander's paper "Medical Science Under Dictatorship," The New England Journal of Medicine, 241:2, July 14, 1949):

"Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived."

Dr. Alexander continues: "This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in the category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitatable sick."

I don't believe that there is a Nazi Party on Canada's horizon (thank goodness). But I do believe that some of the deep philosophical principles of what Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) called the Culture of Death are becoming prevalent in our society.

Surely we should instead encourage a culture of life wherein palliative care (which can manage physical pain 90-95% of the time) and social supports (for the sufferers and their care-givers) are better funded and more accessible across Canada.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing," is a wise saying attributed to Edmund Bourke and others.

For goodness' sake, then, we must resist the culture of death and insist that medical, social, and psychological problems require medical, social, and psychological solutions—not physician-assisted killing.

Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.

Further reading: 

• Apologia: Physician-assisted suicide
• Wesley J. Smith, "Canada declares war on Christian doctors and nurses", First Things, March 4, 2016.
• Douglas Farrow, "Canadian Culture of Death: An open letter", First Things, March 3, 2016. (Be sure to read the PDF.)

Are we ignoring a philosophical lesson from history?

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

(The Carillon, May 31, 2012)

Are we ignoring a philosophical lesson from history?

Part of my job as a philosophy professor is to teach a course on ethics once a year, so I regularly examine various ethics books that may be helpful to my students, and I pay attention to discussions of issues relating to life and death.

In fact, I've been thinking about and attending to topics relating to ethics for years—going back even into my childhood. I remember nervously giving a speech on Adolf Hitler to a grade 8 class when I was in grade 6, and I remember part of my preparation involved looking at William L. Shirer's book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. (My parents had an extensive home library. They also survived the Nazi occupation of The Netherlands.)

Over the years I have noticed a trend in Canada, a trend towards an acceptance of the philosophical view that there is such a thing as human life not worthy to be lived.

If the reader hasn't noticed this, then I urge him/her to think of the growing acceptance in the medical profession of death as a solution to various problems. Think of the prevalence of abortion; think of the recent slippage into the acceptance of what some thinkers call "post-birth abortion"; think of the present movement to promote the legalization of physician-assisted suicide for the elderly and terminally ill.

Think, too, of the growing acceptance of the ethic of utilitarianism, the ethic that what is right is what maximizes the utility or happiness/pleasure for the greatest number. Significantly, the utilitarian ethic tends not to be connected with the more traditional view (in the West) that human life per se is sacred or has objective (intrinsic) moral worth.

Couple this growing acceptance of utilitarianism with the present generation's penchant for popular movies that positively portray so-called mercy killing.

Think of the Academy Award winning Million Dollar Baby, in which Clint Eastwood is an old boxing coach who kills his young female boxing student, played by Hillary Swank, because she has become quadriplegic. Or think of the Emmy Award winning You Don't Know Jack, which treats euthanasia proponent Jack Kevorkian (1928-2011, a.k.a. "Dr. Death"), played by Al Pacino, as if he—Kevorkian—were a saint.

Keep in mind that in these films the emotion-laden pros of euthanasia are emphasized without a sustained careful examination of the cons. Keep in mind too that a characteristic of propaganda is that it usually doesn't present pros AND cons, or if it presents any cons, it presents them weakly.

I don't mean to sound alarmist, but I am troubled. I suspect that we have not learned our philosophical lessons from history.

Consider the following passage from Dr. Leo Alexander (1905-1985), medical advisor to the U.S. Chief of Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, trials in which representative Nazis were convicted of crimes against humanity (this passage is from Dr. Alexander's paper "Medical Science Under Dictatorship," which appeared in New England Journal of Medicine, July 14, 1949):

 "Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived."

Dr. Alexander continues: "This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in the category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitatable sick."

Dr. Alexander also points out that the German people were encouraged in this "subtle shift" by movies depicting euthanasia in a positive light. Alexander writes: "Lay opinion was not neglected in this [pro-euthanasia] campaign. Adults were propagandized by motion pictures, one of which, entitled 'I Accuse,' deals entirely with euthanasia. This [1941] film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis; in it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room."

Significantly, in the 2010 film You Don't Know Jack, when Dr. Jack Kevorkian assists with the suicides of some of his patients (at least 130 assisted killings in total), there usually is a sympathetic colleague in the room, and throughout the movie we are treated to beautiful musical accompaniments by the likes of Johann Sebastian Bach.

I don't believe that there is a Nazi Party on Canada's horizon (thank goodness). But I do believe that some of the deep philosophical principles of what Pope John Paul II (1920-2005) called the culture of death are becoming prevalent in our society.

We should remind ourselves and our children that medical, social, and psychological problems require medical, social, and psychological solutions—not killing.

P.S. For further related reading, please check Apologia archives on abortion and physician-assisted suicide.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, Ph.D., is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)