Euthanasia: Not just a matter of faith

Eluana Englaro died earlier this month after 17 years in a persistent vegetative state – and in a storm of controversy that has implicated politicians and religious leaders alike. Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, the Vatican Health Minister, and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, characterised her death as a "crime," while Pope Benedict XVI called for the sanctity of life to “be safeguarded from conception to its natural end.” Heading such direct calls to action, Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi started emergency legislative processes to vote in a law making it illegal for carers of incompetent patients to decide to withdraw artificial nutrition. Preliminary debates of the bill have been characterised by politicians shouting "murderers, murderers" at those voicing opposition to the legislation and, although the bill will arrive too late to affect the case of Ms Englaro, Mr Berlusconi is committed to taking the legislation forward so that this "sacrifice” won’t be “completely in vain."

There is no doubt that euthanasia, the bringing about of a merciful death in specific circumstances usually involving terminally ill patients or whose with overwhelming and incurable pain, remains an extremely contentious moral issue, in all its forms, whether it involves the active taking of a life, or the withdrawal or withholding of treatment and/or nutrition and hydration. Similarly there is no doubt that people have firmly held convictions on this matter which should be respected purely on the grounds of the strength of the conviction and the seriousness of the issue. Yet the move to shape law and government policy based on religious beliefs—irrespective of whether these religious beliefs form part of the majority opinion or not—is deeply disturbing. One should be deeply concerned to hear politicians justify their legislative reasoning by appealing to personal religious beliefs, whether this refers to Ms Englaro’s case and similar euthanasia cases, or to major diplomatic and world policy decisions being made on the grounds of inspiration, and even perhaps direct communication, from God.

Don’t get me wrong, matters of religious faith are deeply significant and they should be accorded proper respect. Religious beliefs are usually deeply held beliefs pertaining to, amongst other things, serious moral matters, whose violation could amount to a strong sense of lost personal integrity and moral failure. However, two points are significant here. Firstly, religious beliefs do not, contrary to how some would have their own personal beliefs presented, occupy an exclusive position of strength. Moral beliefs that are not based on religious doctrine can have an equally central role in one’s conception of oneself and an equal importance in terms of one’s commitment to the requirements of a good and meaningful life. Therefore, the claim to the significance of one’s beliefs on moral matters, which gives rise to the demand that these beliefs be respected, is shared by all sorts of kinds of moral beliefs and not simply by those inspired by religious faith. For example, a physician’s moral commitment to the goals of medicine, which have at their centre the obligation to act in the best interests of the patient, may result in as strong a commitment in favour of euthanasia, as another person’s religious commitments to a command against euthanasia. Secondly, the nature of religious beliefs is idiosyncratic. Religious beliefs are based on faith, a capacity to believe that seems to have, deep down, nothing to do with evidence or reason. Faith is blind and it requires a leap into belief, rather than, for example scientific enquiry which is based on observation, verification and reason.

All of which brings us to the question of legislation and government policy. The law determines the appropriate boundaries of our actions, especially when these affect the well-being of others. Should legal policy and government decisions be influenced and even shaped by religious beliefs? In my opinion, this would be a very dangerous step to take. Partly this is because it would mean opting for one particular set of religious claims while rejecting the, possibly incompatible, moral beliefs of many others. This is not merely a point about the plurality of moral views but also a point about the proper sphere of the law. Where there is deep moral disagreement about certain practices, the law would be best served by staying out of the matter. The UK’s de-criminalization of practices such as homosexuality, abortion and the withdrawal/withholding of treatment is not a legal endorsement of these practices; it is merely a statement that making decisions in such cases is not the law’s business but a matter for the individual’s conscience. The second reason for grave concern in allowing religious matters to influence the law, is the nature of the claims. When pressed as to the validity of specific religious beliefs there can be nothing more than an appeal to blind faith. This may well be sufficient for believers, but the lack of reasoned argument cannot be sufficient ground for legislation. Berlusconi may well have strong religious views on euthanasia, but he has no grounds for allowing these views to influence his legislative agenda.