Life Matters

Sometimes the words are intrinsically evil, as when a child of God made in His image is mocked as a "vegetable." More often the expressions employed to end lives are neutral, perhaps even benign, as interpreted by the patient or the family, that is.

The real question is not the assignment of arbitrary meanings but who decides what words mean? In this case, it is generally those with the power of life and death over the potential euthanasia victim. "Extraordinary means," for example, may mean one thing to you and something entirely and fatally different to your doctor or hospital chaplain.

When life is on the line it is essential to be exact in our choice of words. In defense of your life and the lives of your loved ones, I offer these examples of language that often proves lethal regardless of intent. (I'll pass over the obvious anti-life clichés, such as "death with dignity," since they are not likely to kill you.)

a.k.a. "artificial nutrition" to make it sound medical. "A real consensus is emerging that artificial nutrition and hydration are forms of medical treatment," a euthanasia advocate advises. My father ate slenderized meats and vegetables through his stomach tube for nearly ten years, while living in coma. That's called "artificial." What about the chemical concoction my local fast-food joint calls a shake?

"Providing food and water through a nasogastric tube is not an artificial life-sustaining treatment. Removing [the tube] results in death from dehydration and starvation and is not natural' or humane,'" Jonathan Lew concluded at the California Department of Aging.

•  "brain dead"

Used by transplant terminators to describe a candidate for utilitarian euthanasia who has a beating heart, circulating blood, etc., i.e., who is alive. As Dr. Paul Byrne and Fr. Paul Quay, S.J., observe, "To many, organ transplantation, per se, is commendable, but removing a vital organ from one who, if he is not dead, will certainly be dead after such removal, is not acceptable."

•  "burdensome treatment"

Consider this classic by theologian Leonard Weber in the purportedly Catholic Paulist Press:

One can even talk about the treatment imposing an excessive burden when it is the timing of the treatment that results in burdensome life. If, for example, . . . the opportunity to resuscitate . . . comes when it is probable that extensive damage has been done to the brain, it should be considered an extraordinary means . . ., no matter how common the procedure. By saving the life of the patient at this time, an excessive burden would be imposed. (original emphasis)

Note the slippery slope from "burdensome treatment" to "burdensome life."

• "extraordinary means"

As can be seen in the preceding "extraordinary" is, as one pro-life leader laments, "an extremely slippery term." Writing in the journal of the Catholic Physicians Guild, nine pro-life physicians and one pro-life attorney sound a prudent note of caution:

In the religious context in which 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' means originated, they are limited to particular criteria that may (not must) be employed by the patient himself to ascertain his moral duty to utilize specific medical treatments. In secular and legal parlance, however, they have come to provide a pretext for persuasion to accept the imposition of yet another euthanasia subterfuge i.e., "passive" euthanasia and failing that for it's involuntary application. (original emphasis)

• "hopelessly ill"

This is one side of a counterfeit coin minted to promote prognosis euthanasia. (The other is "futile treatment.")

"The misconception," Dr. Lawrence Foye, Jr., advises, is "that the point of hopelessness can be known with accuracy. We must not equate incurability with hopelessness. The patient who was told by his doctor he had six months to live is legendary." Deo gratias, I know several.

HLI Reports, April 1993

• Facts of Life

Even a succinct study of words that can kill requires further reflection. Beyond the particular examples examined, our contemplations should remind us of two essential facts of life.

First, in matters of life and death we must take care that our choice of vocabulary faithfully mirrors the scientific facts we should know and the moral standards we must uphold. We would not call an abortion mill an abortion clinic, because clinics are, or should be, houses of healing, whereas abortuaries are prenatal execution chambers. By the same token, we should not refer to the ventilator that assists a patient's breathing as a respirator because that fosters the misconception that it is the machine and not the person that does the breathing.

Should this seem too fine a distinction, reflect that, as Dr. Leo Alexander warned, the road to euthanasia lies in just such "small beginnings." Down the road from "respirator" lies the dehumanization of "oxygenated corpses," as if the truly dead could breathe!

Second, as our previous example demonstrates, the lethal result of language does not depend on the evil intentions of its employer. Indeed, the intent may be neutral or even benign. By way of illustration, the following verbatim examples of lethal language are derived from purportedly "pro-life" sources:

The psychologist looked at me like I was the 'village idiot.' (emphasis added)

Defenders of the sanctity of life should avoid the negative, stereotypical labels of "quality-of-life" bigots. On ABLEnews, CURE's Fidonet computer conference, we speak of persons with disabilities, not handicapped people, because a person's physical or mental condition should not define them.

• "mercy killing"

Proponents of mercy killing argue the hard cases. (emphasis added)

Murder is never merciful. As CURE's logo proclaims, to kill is not to care. I have sat in courtrooms where parents sought to kill their own children. Such court battles may extend for years, providing considerably more time for reflection than the average abortion. When pro-lifers describe relatives seeking to kill defenseless dependents entrusted to their care as "caring," they do truth, as well as life, a disservice. CURE has worked closely with family members facing life-and-death crises for more than a decade. Not one ever contemplated killing their loved one. All were saddened by their loved one's death, however it occurred.

• "hard cases"

We should avoid the term hard cases. "Cases" are abstract affairs, generally with pro's and con's, but human beings are intensely personal and murdering them is an unmitigated evil. "Hard cases" embraces the anti-life philosophical premise that some innocent lives are more difficult to justify than others.

On the contrary, we know that every innocent human being has the same God-given right to life, the unborn child conceived by rape as the child conceived in wedlock, the grandmother dying of cancer as her healthy newborn grandson.

• "death with dignity"

It is a cruel irony that death with dignity, a respect-for-life phrase, has been taken over to justify killing. (original emphasis)

This "respect-for-life phrase" was coined by the German euthanasia movement in the 1920's and appears in the seminal, anti-life classic, The Destruction of Life Devoid of Value, by Binding and Hoche. True dignity lies in living each moment of life given by God united to His Will.

• "futile treatment"

Medical treatment that is futile or extraordinary methods that only prolong the dying process are not required. (emphasis added)

Aside from the elasticity of "extraordinary" and the Orwellian nature of "prolonging dying," "futile treatment" is the flip side of "hopelessly ill." Dr. Paul Byrne observes the expression, which promotes prognosis euthanasia, was unheard of in Hippocratic medicine. Among several sell-outs in the 1984 Baby Doe legislative compromise (opposed by Senators Helms and Zorinsky) were exception clauses for euthanasia by denial of "futile" and "virtually futile" treatment. As Judie Brown noted in her letter to the Congressional Conference Committee:

These are not legal terms, but nebulous words. . .that could, if enacted, never be defined in defense of life in courts of law. For, you see, they are vague, meaningless, and thus dangerous.

Deadly even, for hospital bedsides are no more protective of life than benches, and careless lips, as yesteryear's posters warned, still take lives.

Our "Lethal Language" series has focused on expressions that have become code words for death as interpreted-rightly or wrongly-by the pervasive practitioners of euthanasia. However, it is not simply how we speak, but what we say that may prove deadly.

Consider this excerpt from an address by a former chairman of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee for Pro-Life Activities:

It is fairly easy for technology or medicine to become an end, in itself, and for life to be preserved when, in fact, death should be allowed to happen.

St. Paul warns creatures not to confuse themselves with the Creator. This is particularly true when usurping God's role of determining our time to die, much less the time to die of others.

Another difficulty we creatures, as opposed to our Creator, have is judging the intentions of others, for, unlike God, we cannot always see into their heads or their hearts. That is why CURE opposes all acts whose foreseeable end ends innocent life. The road to the grave, far more than the road to hell, is paved with good intentions.

Sometimes, a man's words proclaim his meaning, as when the Cardinal proceeds to speak of "a life prolonged inappropriately." Still, you may wonder whether I have taken His Eminence's words out of context.

Good! You've mastered our lesson on lethal language. That is precisely how your words will be taken by anti-life doctors, lawyers, etc., so I implore you to be careful in what you say, in what you write, and, above all, in what you sign.

Alas, to return to your specific concern, I have not misconstrued Cardinal Bernardin's remarks. Interested readers may request my analysis of his address, The Cardinal's Cop-Out: A Candid Critique, from CURE.