A question of life

“Don’t take away hope!” this is the title given to the statement issued on October 2 by Msgr. Fernand Franck, archbishop of Luxembourg. The document illustrates the position of Luxembourg’s Church vis à vis the debate over euthanasia, that gained primary attention in the Country. In fact, on February 19 2008 the parliament drew up a draft-law decriminalizing euthanasia. The law is progressing on its path through parliament with a series of amendments that include the possibility of practicing euthanasia on people who are simply ‘tired of living’. We hereby report the salient points of the statement of Msgr. Franck who briefed the CCEE assembly held a few days ago in Esztergom (Hungary). The last word has not been written yet. “There’s still time for a politically mature and legally safe decision on euthanasia. “The terminally ill can still hope escaping the offer – or rather, the pressure – of euthanasia. The Church’s reservations regarding the legalization of euthanasia are numerous and extremely important. The Church is not interested in questions of power or culture struggles. The matter at stake regards the life of individuals and social coexistence”. Life, gift and relationships. “Life was given to us as a gift: a gift we receive thanks to others and thanks to the progress of medicine. This precious life…is more than a mere succession of closed natural cycles. Our lives are also marked by ongoing relationships and mutual exchanges. Still today, the living God occupies a primary role in many people’s lives and is guarantor of human life”. How can crises be overcome? “Crises – especially those which undermine life and health – lead to insecurities”. […] “In the quest for new points of reference, the signs coming from the surrounding environment become extremely significant. We cannot simply count on ourselves and on our lives, other role models are sought. In Europe and in Luxembourg’s society, an increasing number of terminal patients are offered palliative treatments and care. This offer ought to develop significantly, since it ensures pain mitigation and the support of professional environments with the family and dear ones. Palliative treatments and related health care specifically address the fears and needs of terminal patients, giving them the hope that they are not alone in facing the last stretch of their life”. Desperate freedoms. “The new draft bill, envisages euthanasia and assisted suicide for terminal patients and all those who want to put and end to their lives. With the promise of achieving a painless end to one’s life based on the assumption that all support is useless and that death is the only solution. Mercy killing, provided by society, is addressed to desperate forms of freedom that see no other alternative to death. Not only does this regulation oppose the many public and social initiatives aimed at suicide prevention, since it actually suppresses hope in life and life lived with hope”. Deep consequences. “Luxembourg’s society is now facing these completely different proposals. The vote that will soon be cast by its political leaders will determine which of these proposals must be envisaged by the Country’s legal system. In voting according to their own conscience, the representatives will act according to true social policy. They won’t only decide upon single cases of people resorting to euthanasia, assisted suicide or palliative treatment and care. Rather, they will be deciding whether society is called to offer individual hope or desperation. It is a question of choosing a specific social model and human image. Offering hope to someone without life and against life, is not only against common sense, it’s also against humanity”. The last limit. “Hope and faith reposed by individuals in politics and in its representatives, compels to undertake a series of responsibilities”. […] “Whoever shatters hope in life will contribute to the development of a society that corresponds to this behaviour. Those who enable murder-on-demand are crossing the last limit: mitigating the prohibition to kill and paving the way to the collapse of an inalienable foundation of human coexistence. The amendments to the second draft-bill show the direction this attitude might lead to. It’s still possible to curb the expansion of euthanasia practices and the relative social impact this might entail”.