16. The Tragedy of Brittany Maynard


Regretfully, Brittany Maynard—the 29-year old woman diagnosed with glioblastoma (terminal brain cancer)—took her own life on November 1st.  She moved to Oregon from her home in California so that she could take advantage of the state’s “death with dignity” law, passed in 1997.  I will not convict Brittany Maynard of some irredeemable sin nor will I call her a coward.  But I will take to task the Christians who support this grisly, inhumane, and impersonal law and reprimand them for their moral cowardice in the face of the seductive platitudes and dishonest pressures of the world—all of which can ultimately be traced back to Satan, the “father of lies.”  I will also attempt to forge a solution to the plight of euthanasia—one that can be embraced and promoted by people of any religious faith (or no faith at all) and is consistent with our common, inherent, and immutable human dignity, properly understood.

Over at The Huffington Post, Reverend Chuck Currie wrote a piece called “BrittanyMaynard Made A Moral Choice.”  Yes, Maynard did make a “moral choice”—if by moral, he means “of a moral nature.”  If, however, he means that the choice was “moral”—as in “good”—then it is my duty to disagree wholeheartedly.  The piece is a quandary to me because the good reverend actually sympathizes with and endorses Maynard’s decision to kill herself!  His main claim reads as follows:

Death with dignity is not about freedom, at least not in the way Archbishop Sample understands it.  [The Archbishop holds the view that there is no freedom to be found in choosing death and that we need to accept death as a force beyond our control in order to experience true freedom.]  We cannot escape death.  There is no freedom to change the reality of human existence.  Too often we try to pretend there is by tying ourselves to machines and medicines that prolong both life and suffering.  Unimaginable human suffering need not precede eternal life.  Jesus sought to end suffering.  It is difficult to hear a Christian extol suffering as a virtue.

Why, pray tell, Rev. Currie, is it difficult to hear a Christian extol suffering as a virtue?  After all, it was not beneath God Himself to suffer for His creatures—rebellious and wicked ones at that—a gruesome, torturous, and ignoble death on a cross.  If suffering is not beneath even the Son of God, why is it that you believe that we, His mere creatures, have a right to simply “opt out” of life because it hurts?  It sounds to me as though we have a replay of the Garden of Eden on our hands: the reverend—out of a fear of death—has bought the serpent’s empty promise—“you will be like gods, who know good and evil”; euthanasia is the fruit of the tree of which we are forbidden to eat, and Man, yet again, is falling for the tempter’s lies and deceit.

Here’s the thing, reverend: life is always good; life is always intrinsically good, in fact.  Without life, all other rights and social goods of which we speak and to which we cling—rights to liberty, property, free speech, etc.—are merely illusory because life itself is the prerequisite—the ground, so to speak—for them all.  Life does not become “bad,” “evil,” “not worth living,” or “inherently worthless” just because suffering, grief, a loss of autonomy and/or rationality, or something else (or a thousand other something-elses) enter the picture.  Nor do pleasant and noble sounding euphemisms—“aid in dying,” “death with dignity,” “the right to die”—alter the reality that euthanasia is murder perpetrated upon a sick, scared, and “consenting” individual.  (Think about how desperately you desire—what you would not give—to end something as minor as a particularly nasty stomachache.  Consent?  Really?)  Problems, setbacks, and hardships in life only make an inherently good gift—life—more unpleasant or difficult to bear.  Yes, sometimes life is a cross, reverend, but it is always one that we should bear gladly for nothing other than sheer love of our Blessed Lord, supported and strengthened by His Divine graces, favor, and especially the Sacraments.  Jesus said it Himself: “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:27).  For these people, this is their cross.  It is not to be thrown off and cast aside—none of them are, big or small.

Rev. Currie then proclaims that “[U]nimaginable human suffering need not precede eternal life,” but this is a false application of the reality of mercy, the virtue of courage, as well as a dubious view of God Himself.  Yes, God is a “god of love” as he says, and it is precisely because of this awesome reality (not in spite of it) that we should, in our sufferings, rest in God—who is Love Itself—not kill ourselves to escape His embrace.  Christians are called to be courageous, not commit suicide when the going gets rough.  Rev. Currie’s view would enshrine in the minds of people the notion de facto that only the truly “heroic” (in some Western, secularized sense of the word—think Superman) could suffer till natural death (i.e., without recourse to suicide drugs or some other means) what Maynard had suffered.  No, all Christians are called to a life of heroism in Christ, not just the “best ones.”  But Rev. Currie’s standard would implicitly lower that bar, signaling to Christians (and others) the world over that only the “heroes” can endure the entirety of end-of-life suffering.  Try telling that to the early martyrs (i.e., “regular” people) when they were being devoured by lions, reverend.

Additionally, no one is saying that we must endure all suffering, always.  We have access to very creative and effective pain management treatments nowadays.  Do they always work?  Probably not, but that fact actually makes no difference in this discussion.  Pain does not make suicide a viable option.  Pain is pain; it is not an excuse to kill oneself.  Extraordinary means of care need not be utilized, but ordinary means must be.  We are not permitted to kill ourselves to avoid discomfort (massive though that discomfort may be) when ordinary means may preserve our lives.  Try the Catechism on this one.

Now, as for what can be done to stem the tide in this particular flare-up of the broader culture war.  Obviously, the legislative process is a must: if we can keep laws like Oregon’s off of the books to begin with, then there is nothing to rail against or to support.  Media portrayal also needs to be monitored.  Coverage of stories like this cannot be allowed to be so sympathetic—at least not without a fight.  Brittany Maynard committed suicide.  In any other more “traditional” context (e.g., she hung herself), that fact would be regrettable and would be lamented with a thousand tears and a thousand wails.  Now, her action is hailed by society as “courageous,” as if it is the only viable option for someone in her situation, but this, as we will see, is wrong.

There are many good arguments against euthanasia—practical, legal, philosophical, and scientific.  Humanlife is inviolable because of our inherent and immutable human dignity.  The current “right to die” movement will slowly but surely morph into the ugly “obligation to die” movement.  The widespread proliferation and societal acceptance of euthanasia will lead to the abuse of the weakest and most vulnerable in our societies.  Euthanasia promotes a conception of radically autonomous freedom heretofore unseen in entirety of the drama that we call human history—one where the will and desire of the individual is absolute and comes at the expense of the traditional notion of Man as an interdependent and indispensable part of a community of persons.  Laws like Oregon’s will act as teacher, making it more likely that people seek out euthanization—something that they might have been less likely to choose otherwise—as the law conditionssociety to be more accepting toward euthanasia.  And, finally, the act itself—necessarily utilizing medical professionals whose formal charge is to (at the very least) “do no harm”—will create a warped perception of what medicine is for: life and healing, not death.  While all of these are worthy and powerful arguments, there is one in particular upon which I would like us to focus.

The most important thing for us to do as Christians (and any other people of faith and of good will who abhor suicide) is to love these peopleThese people do not want to dieThey want to be loved.  They want to not feel like burdens.  They want to be loved.  It is only when we enter into their suffering, mirroring Christ Himself who suffered for and with us, that the deathly pallor and utter despair that these people feel as they crawl toward death can be transfigured and so reflect the salvific nature of Christ’s Passion.  When we suffer with them, we participate in the divine economy of grace and mercy, mysteriously atoning in some invisible way (though in no way less real because of that) for the sins of Man.

A large majority of people (at least in Oregon) cite the “fear of being a burden” as the reason for their seeking euthanasia—not because of any unmanageable pain or existential crisis.  That should tell us something.  Love is the answer!  It is staring us right in the face, and we fail to see it.  Either that or we will not see it.  It is too pure and noble for our culture now, I fear.  As soon as something is inconvenient or makes demands of us, we run.  Marriages are delayed (in part) because they require sacrifice.  Abortions are had (in part) because babies are a burden, a hassle, a drag on resources and “free living.”  The societal ethos (typified currently by this euthanasia discussion) of avoiding suffering at all costs is poisonous and must be repudiated and beaten back.

It is time we step up to the plate and realize that Man is a social creature, made for community with his neighbor through and with God.  Man is made for love; indeed, it is his highest calling, given to him by Almighty God.  It is time we start showering the people in these terrible plights with all the love that we can possibly muster.

Love conquered the world once.  I am confident it will do so again.

After all, real people’s very lives depend on it.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Deion,

    Thanks for taking the time to write on this unfortunate incident. Lots of people commit suicide out of despair. Ms. Maynard caused scandal by highlighting it and encouraging it under certain circumstances. I hate to see more young souls influenced by her actions and by the media making her a celebrity.

    After my younger brother committed suicide back in high school, I found many other students coming to me for help with their friends who are also thinking about committing suicide. Glory be to God, even back then when I was an atheist, God was able to use me and the tragedy in my life to help counsel others. I pray for my brother even to this day. And sometimes, I like to think, he's helping me on my pilgrimage on earth -- wherever he is.

    God bless you, Deion. I pray that should a soul on your campus be in need of a counselor, that Our Good Lord will use you as His instrument to console them back to life. Our Father...

    ReplyDelete