Thursday February 25, 2010
English Catholic Bishops ‘Welcome’ Assisted Suicide Guidelines Condemned by Pro-life Movement
By Hilary White
LONDON, February 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Despite urgent warnings from the British pro-life movement and shouts of triumph from euthanasia campaigners, a statement from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has “welcomed” newly published legal guidelines on the prosecution of assisted suicide cases, saying they have given “greater protection” to vulnerable people.
The new guidelines will allow relatives to help loved ones commit suicide without being prosecuted as long as they have not gained personally by doing so.
While pro-life advocates and the country’s leading euthanasia campaigners agree that the guidelines from the Director of Public Prosecutions are a major step forward in the fight to allow assisted suicide, Archbishop Peter Smith of Cardiff, the head of the English bishops’ Responsibility and Citizenship office, wrote today, “I welcome the revised Guidelines published by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) this morning.”
“In issuing these Guidelines it is clear that the DPP has listened very carefully to, and taken account of, the many representations made to him during the consultation.” Smith said the “concerns” of the bishops over weakening the protection under the law for the disabled, suicidal and the seriously ill had been met.
Under September’s draft guidelines, he said, “There also appeared to be a presumption that a spouse or close relative would always act simply out of compassion and never from selfish motives.
“These factors have been removed from the new Guidelines which now give greater protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.”
He praised the “greater stress” on the lack of any change in wording of the law itself, saying that “all cases will be investigated and that no one is being given immunity from prosecution under these Guidelines.”
Veteran political pro-life campaigners have reacted by calling the archbishop’s comments “very disturbing.” The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, (SPUC), who have led the battle against legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia, rejoined that the guidelines “clearly undermine the protection that the law affords to those who might commit suicide, and leaves prosecutors with a very difficult task, when faced with relatives who claim to be grief-stricken by the death of someone they loved, but helped to commit suicide.”
Paul Tully, the point-man for SPUC’s fight against legalization, said, “It seems [Archbishop Smith] may be suggesting that disabled people are better protected now than they were before the interim guidelines were first issued last September.”
Tully said, however, that the new guidelines are deceptive in that they “appear to have eliminated some of the worst aspects of the interim guidelines,” but they “retain many damaging elements.” With regard to protections for ill and disabled people, “the element of implicit discrimination is more subtle, but it is still there.”
“Today’s guidelines,” Tully said, “still represent a significant shift towards judging the suspect’s motive (‘compassion’) in committing the crime, rather than his/her intention (to help cause death).”
“This shift clearly undermines the protection that the law affords to those who might commit suicide, and leaves prosecutors with a very difficult task, when faced with relatives who claim to be grief-stricken by the death of someone they loved, but helped to commit suicide.”
This focus on “compassion” was roundly denounced recently by an eminent Belgian Catholic philosopher and ethicist, Michel Schooyans. In his latest essay, Schooyans, professor emeritus of the Catholic University of Louvain – and a leading specialist in anthropology, political philosophy, bioethics, and demographics – wrote that a “bogus” concept of compassion is increasingly being used to justify killing by euthanasia, abortion and assisted suicide.
Schooyans pointed to the case of Germany, in which country two men, a jurist and a doctor, began to argue, ultimately with appalling success, for euthanasia on “compassionate” grounds in 1920. Karl Ludwig Binding and Alfred Erich Hoch published a book that year, Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwertem Lebens (Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living), that was later used by the Nazis as justification for their T-4 euthanasia program.
Schooyans pointed out that this infamous book offers “categories of individuals whose lives are not deserving of criminal protection. Their lives are valueless. Euthanasia will save them from living a life not worthy of living.”
Under the “compassionate” euthanasia mentality, Schooyans wrote, such persons must be euthanized both in their own interests and in interests of society.
“‘Compassion’ for society must be invoked by the same token as ‘compassion’ for these beings, who must be liberated from their utter lack of value and utility.”