The debate surrounding euthanasia (courageously revived by friend Alfonso Gumucio Dagrón) is peppered with several paradoxes.
To begin with, medicine fights to prolong life with undeniable success: at the beginning of the 20th century, global life expectancy was under 35 years; today, the world average is 73. This fact has triggered attention to the problems of old age (gerontology, nursing homes, social activities, social security, etc.). However, by opting for euthanasia (assisted suicide or dignified death), medicine seems to surrender to the presumed irreversibility of certain diseases and the unbearable pain that sometimes accompanies them.
Likewise, on one hand, doctors—with the consent of relatives—sometimes engage in “therapeutic obstinacy” with terminal patients, keeping them alive artificially and preventing nature from taking its course. Pope Francis was clear in repudiating these practices, which sometimes hide a profit motive in private clinics. But on the other hand, there is the temptation to become masters of life or to want to “help” (God or nature, depending on one’s beliefs) to end existence. At stake is the concept of existence and the anthropology that each culture has developed. For Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, and Muslims), human life belongs to God, from conception to death. For others, death is preferable to suffering, a stance adopted by modern secularism.
In this sense, comparing “putting animals to sleep” when they are sick or very old with the euthanasic solution for those on the “ninth floor” debases and distorts human dignity. The goal is the same: to get rid of what is no longer useful; however, pets are replaced, while loved ones are lost irreversibly. Paradoxically, no era has been more attentive to the elderly than ours, yet this concern “for” the elderly frequently transforms into a concern about “how” to deal with them when they fall seriously ill, in a modern lifestyle where fragmented families often do not help.
A fourth paradox arises from the attitude of relatives. They are labeled “accomplices in torture” when they encourage medical obstinacy to avoid losing their loved ones. But at the same time, they are considered insensitive if, for various reasons—not least economic ones—they prefer the patient’s life to end, ideally with external help. My experience in dealing with the sick and elderly has convinced me that caring for them usually transforms the lives of the caregivers; the undeniable sacrifice involved is compensated by human and spiritual growth during the period of farewell.
In turn, the concept of “quality of life,” used to justify euthanasia, is debatable and relative, especially when seeking to uncritically imitate “civilized” countries without taking into account the culture and traditions of each nation, which sometimes explain the resistance to legislating and regulating this issue. For example, in Bolivia, there is a belief that the sick person decides to leave us only after releasing the affective “ties” that bind them to life. Although a country’s legislation usually reflects the majority’s ethics, in practice, it often trips over the thin red line of challenging casuistry.
Finally, beyond medical and legal arguments, for a Christian, pain is a mystery that, when accepted through love, becomes dignified and fruitful, like a grain of wheat buried in the field.