Finding Meaning in Suffering, by Stephanie Gray

Image Source: Prof. Dr. Franz Vesely, Viktor-Frankl-Archiv, Wikimedia Commons

     When acceptance of assisted suicide was written into Canadian law earlier this year, one of the criteria for it became this: that the person “have a grievous and irremediable medical condition” which is defined, in part, as an “illness, disease or disability or …state of decline [that] causes them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.”

     Everyone suffers at some point or another, but most do not select suicide.   So to suffer so much that one chooses death over life is to suffer to the point of despair.  Rather than assisting with a despairing person’s suicide, we ought to instead consider the insight of psychiatrist and Holocaust-survivor Dr. Viktor Frankl.  In this interview he talks about the following mathematical equation his observations and lived experiences caused him to create:

     D = S – M  

     He explains it as follows: Despair equals Suffering without Meaning.  Some people get cancer.  Others get hurt in car accidents.  These are very real cases of suffering—not to be minimized.  But whether someone despairs in light of these experiences is in direct proportion to whether they find meaning in the situation or not.

     Dr. Frankl cites a teenager in Texas who became a quadriplegic—undoubtedly, an experience of suffering.  And yet she did not despair as others in her situation have.  What set this young woman apart was not her experience of suffering but her response to it: She spent her days reading newspapers and watching the news for an important purpose—whenever there was a story about someone experiencing difficult and challenging times, she would ask that a stick be placed in her mouth so she could use it to press keys to type out letters of encouragement, consolation, and hope to the people she read about.  Dr. Frankl said, “She’s full of confidence.  She has a strong sense of abundant meaning in her life.”  She turned her experience of suffering into a springboard to reach out to others; it enabled her to have empathy and share hope.  In short, she found meaning.

     Or take another person with quadriplegia, a young man who became paralyzed at 17 years old.  Dr. Frankl received a letter from him: “I broke my neck but it did not break me.  I am at present helpless and this handicap will remain with myself apparently forever.”  Why, like the aforementioned young woman, did this man not despair?  Because he found meaning in his situation: “I want to become a psychologist to help others,” he said in explaining his decision to pursue post-secondary education. “And I’m sure that my suffering will add an essential contribution to my ability to understand others and to help other people.” 

     When speaking of individuals like the two mentioned, Dr. Frankl noted, “They can mold their predicament into an accomplishment on the human level; they can turn their tragedies into a personal triumph.  But they must know for what—what should I do with it?”

     The brilliance of this philosophy is that it empowers everyone.  While we cannot necessarily escape suffering, we can escape despair, and we can escape it in direct proportion to the meaning we allow ourselves to find in a situation.  In other words, when circumstances prevent us from eliminating suffering, perspective allows us to add meaning, and that, in turn, helps alleviate the suffering itself.

     This can happen in profound ways.  Dr. Frankl told a story about a man who was electrocuted and all four of his limbs had to be amputated.  That patient wrote, “Before this terrible accident I was bored, always bored, and always drunk.  And since my accident I know what it means to be happy.”

     This is proof that happiness is not determined by physical wellbeing but by an attitude of the mind.  So if someone is struggling in this area and requests assisted suicide, it’s our job—not to facilitate their despair—but to facilitate their search for meaning.

     If a Holocaust survivor, amputee, and quadriplegics can do this, why can’t we all?

ADVERTISEMENT

Live Every Stage Fully, by Dr. Julia Bright

On July 6, 2016, Stephanie Gray gave a pro-life apologetics talk on euthanasia and assisted suicide in Calgary, Alberta. Learn more at www.stephaniegray.info. Thanks to Victor Panlilio (https://about.me/victorpanlilio) for filming and putting together this recording.

As I wrote about here, in the Spring I had the great joy of giving a talk alongside my best friend from childhood, Dr. Julia Bright. We re-joined forces to share a stage again this Fall, this time speaking on euthanasia to an assembly of hundreds of high school students.  Once again, I was impressed with Julia's message and decided to share it here in its entirety, below.  As for what I shared, it was a shortened version of the presentation in the Youtube video above.  May these help you help others.

Julia's Speech:

     Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about physician assisted suicide, or “medical aid in dying”. Since this is now legal in Canada, it is a reality that we need to know about.  As was mentioned in the introduction, I am a family doctor.  I’ve been working for 9 years in my office, the hospital, the hospice, and nursing homes.  So I’m speaking to you today from the perspective of someone who works everyday with the sick and dying.  But I also speak from the perspective of a person who faces her own mortality when thinking about these issues.  And as a person of faith, who believes that our ultimate home is in heaven.

     I find I am drawn to sick people.  I feel comfortable in hospitals.  That may seem strange, but it is because I see opportunities there to show my concern in practical ways.  I spend much of my time trying to prevent disease and cure disease, but I recognize that eventually, our health always fails.

     When I hear people speaking in support of physician assisted suicide, I sense an underlying lie being spread-that the time just before we die when we are suffering physically and emotionally is not important.  That we’d be better off avoiding it.  Or that we should be able to control how much of that time we have.  But I have seen that this is untrue.  Sick people can be happy.  Dying people can acknowledge their death and still feel peaceful.  My job is to try and help people with medicine and support so they are free to find that place of peace.  As a Catholic, I know that the times when we suffer are sacred-because Jesus suffered.  He brings meaning to our suffering.  And He teaches us how to lessen it for others.

     Why is this lie being spread, that says we should avoid suffering and ask our doctor to end our lives?  I think it is because people have suffered without relief and their families have watched and felt helpless. But I don’t believe the solution is to kill those who suffer.  The solution is to provide palliative care.  This is a particular approach to medical care that involves focusing on comfort and relieving symptoms like pain or nausea, as well as providing emotional and spiritual support. 

     I think it is possible for people to have a “good” death.  I think of my patients who come to the hospice when it is clear that their cancer is not going to be cured.  They may choose not to have further treatment, based on the side effects.  [This is an important point.  Patients can still refuse interventions that seem too burdensome, even if they don’t believe in physician assisted suicide.]  Once at the hospice, they have their own room.  They are surrounded by their families until the end.  They can accept what is happening and face it with peace, even though it is always sad to say goodbye.  Nurses are present to try to ease their pain and take care of their needs.  I think of the time they have talking to their loved ones.  When you know that your time is limited, each conversation is more meaningful.  Each moment together matters.  Families will not forget those moments.

     Palliative care is not easy-it requires people to be creative.  Like helping people redefine their goals.  Sometimes if a parent has a terminal illness, this means helping them write letters to their children to be opened at specific times-like high school graduation.  Even though the parent longs to be there in person, they can still be present through a meaningful letter.  Palliative care takes flexibility-like nurses coming into a patient’s home to give medication.  Or setting up a mini hospital room on the main floor of a patient’s house if the bedroom is too hard to get to.  Mostly, it takes compassion-a willingness for everyone involved to “suffer with” the patient.  It isn’t easy to visit patients in the hospice-there’s a lot of emotion in the room.  But taking that on for a few minutes with them is such an important part of palliative care-at least as important as giving medication.

     I have several fears about physician assisted suicide becoming accepted into our society.  Firstly, I worry about vulnerable patients feeling pressured to hasten their death. What if your family lives far away or there is not enough money and the option of physician assisted suicide is seen as the responsible thing to do? Their request for death wouldn’t be based on a true desire for it, but rather on the guilt they feel because of their circumstances.  Or what if a patient finds out they have early dementia and makes a decision to choose death instead of finding out how they feel as time progresses?  They may assume they'll want something in the future that they can't really know until they are facing it in the present moment.

     I fear how families will cope when they find out their loved one is choosing suicide.  The choices we make when we’re dying have a significant impact on our families.

     I fear what it will do to palliative care.  What is the incentive to develop advances in care for the dying if we don’t cherish that time of people’s lives? 

     I am concerned about what it will mean for the culture of health care.  I’ll give you a common scenario in my work right now to explain this.  Let’s say I get called to a nursing home to see a patient who is 95.  She has multiple health problems and is starting to lose her memory because of dementia.  She needs a wheelchair to get around.  It’s getting harder to look after her-she gets confused, tries to get out of her chair, and then falls.  The nurses spend much of their time trying to redirect her to keep her safe.  I get called to see her because she has a bad cough.  I drive to the care home and ask the nurses what’s been happening.   We’re all thinking about how we can best care for her and what treatment for her cough will get her through it and keep her comfortable.  I sit with my patient for a few minutes and see if anything has changed from when I last saw her.  I don’t think she really remembers who I am.  I listen to her breathing.  I think she needs antibiotics again.  She keeps getting pneumonia.  Maybe because she can’t swallow very well anymore and is choking a lot.  I order the medication and call her daughter to let her know.  I ask the nurses to call me if she isn’t getting better.  Her cough improves for the time being and she wanders less now that she is feeling better.

     Compare that to what my mindset could be in 20 years if I get used to physician assisted suicide.  I’ve dulled my conscience and given in to patients who request to hasten their death.  I’ve become indifferent-what the patient wants, the patient should have access to-I merely deliver that service.  I get the same call to the nursing home.  My patient made it clear before she got dementia that she did not want physician assisted suicide.  It’s getting harder to look after her.  I’m having a busy day when they call me about her cough.  There’s lots of younger people to see at the office first.  As I drive to the nursing home, I can’t help thinking-why is she still here?  What is the point of all this?  I have to suppress the thought—wouldn’t it be easier if she were like my other patients who chose death earlier on?  How might that attitude affect the care I give her?  What if she sensed what I was thinking?  Is this why I became a doctor?

     It seems scary.  But I really believe there is hope.  Creative and dedicated people are working on improving palliative care.  And most doctors are listening to their consciences and upholding their commitment to help people live.  God is still present to the suffering who call on Him. 

     I would like to challenge each of you today to think about how you can be defenders of life.  One of the most important things that sick people need is companionship.  People fear abandonment even more than pain.  So if you know someone who is unwell or in a hospital or nursing home-visit them.  Get to know them.  If you feel awkward or don’t know what to say, just be present.  Think about when you were a kid and your mom or dad sat by when you were sick-something about them being there was comforting.  Pray for the people you visit.  Read to them or listen to music with them.  I think of the character in the book Still Alice who loves ice cream.  Even as her memory fails because of dementia, she continues to enjoy the experience of eating an ice cream cone.  Find out what people enjoy and make it possible. 

     When you’re thinking about your future career, consider how you can help improve the lives of sick, disabled, or vulnerable people.  This could mean working directly in health care, but the possibilities are broader than that-think of interior designers who make nursing homes more beautiful, or chefs who prepare meals for patients in a hospice, or engineers who design new equipment to keep people mobile, or administrators who organize volunteers to visit the elderly.

      Finally, don’t give in to the notion that our time is only worthwhile when we are young, healthy, productive, and independent.  Look for meaning in the things that last-family, faith, goodness, and the simple pleasures in life.  Don’t be afraid to discover how to live every stage of your life fully.  We are each precious to God and He will give us the inner peace that we seek along the journey.

How to Talk About Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

If you've wondered how to speak clearly and compassionately about euthanasia and assisted suicide, this new apologetics presentation above will help!  Thanks to Victor Panlilio for filming and putting together this recording.  Note: You can also read an FAQ on the topic by clicking here. 

You Before Me is Better than Me Before You, by Stephanie Gray

“Wait for it…It’s going to make you raaaaaaaage.”

     That’s what my friend texted me who had told me about the book, and soon-to-be-released movie, “Me Before You.”  She suggested I read it, not because under normal circumstances it would be worth my time (or hers), but rather because she had just attended a pro-life apologetics presentation I gave on assisted suicide and euthanasia and she thought I should be aware of the story as my future audiences might bring it up.

     So on the weekend, as it poured rain, I curled up and got caught up in the world of the main characters Louisa Clark and Will Traynor.  So would I recommend it?  Absolutely not.  It’s dangerous—very dangerous.  Setting aside the obvious problems of blasphemous language and sexual references, the storyline supports assisted suicide—but it does so in a sneaky way, making it all the more dangerous.

     Initially Louisa, hired to be a companion and helper to wheelchair-bound Will, was my hero.  She was from a family that, while it had its own dysfunctions, overall lived a self-less philosophy:

·         Louisa worked so as to help provide for her poverty-stricken family.  You before me.

·         Her parents welcomed her sister home when faced with an unplanned pregnancy, and helped care for their grandson.   You before me.

·         Her mom quit work to care for the family’s ailing grandfather.  You before me.

     But the world of you before me was about to collide with another world—the ugly world of me before you.  The Traynor family had it all—by the world’s standards: unlimited wealth and the ability to go wherever and do whatever.  But they were all miserable because they lacked love:

·         Mr. Traynor was having an affair (not his first).  Me before you.

·         When Will’s sister Georgina visits and learns of his plan to have assisted suicide in 6 months she gets angry that he would do it, but instead of using the 6 months to give him the gift of time, attention, and love, to try to convince him he’s valuable and should stay alive, she returns to Australia saying, “…this was just a visit…It’s a really good job…the one I’ve been working toward for the past two years…I can’t put my whole life on hold just because of Will’s mental state.” Me before you.

·         Will himself, pre-accident, lead a life of self-indulgence.  Me before you. 

     So why was Louisa my hero initially? When she learns that the parents have agreed to assist Will in his suicide in 6 months’ time, she quits because she doesn’t want to be part of killing.  Louisa, you’re my hero.  Then she decides to return to work, realizing she can spend the next few months trying to make Will’s life as incredible as possible so he doesn’t choose suicide.  Louisa, you’re my hero.  Then she takes Will on a life-creating and spirit-building vacation and tells him she wants to devote her life to loving and serving him, but he refuses saying he still plans to commit suicide, so she cuts him off in a decision to remove herself from the killing.  Louisa, you’re my hero.

     But then it all goes downhill.  And I understood why my friend said “It’s going to make you raaaaaaaage.”  Almost every single character caves.  Mr. and Mrs. Traynor, Georgina, Mr. Clark, Louisa’s sister. And Louisa herself.  They all cave.  They all encourage, facilitate or are actually present at Will’s suicide the way he wants it. 

     And a morally un-formed reader will think, “Maybe it’s not so bad after all. Maybe, by being present, that was the loving thing to do.”  No, no it’s not.  Would they have been present if Will was killing a child?  Then why would they be present when Will killed himself?  His life is just as unrepeatable, and just as irreplaceable, as a child’s.  Life, whether our own or someone else’s, is not ours to take.  Moreover, Will couldn’t have gotten to the suicide clinic without their help.  So his act of suicide actually turned into their act of homicide.  Had they refused to “help” him, especially when, as a result of Louisa’s involvement in his life, he admitted those were the best 6 months of his entire life, Will may have gone on to thrive in a world of human connection and a world of you before me.  But we will never know.  Because he’s dead.  And they helped kill him.

     Will was obsessed with control, and argued he needed to end his life because it was the one thing he could control.  But he could control more than death—he could control his perspective.  Holocaust survivor Dr. Viktor Frankl wrote in his book, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” that “everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances…”

     When someone is despairing so much that they can’t see they can choose their attitude, it’s the job of people who care to help them see this, not to feed into despair.  As one palliative care website says for why they don’t allow or encourage assisted suicide, “In our experience, the issue of physician-assisted suicide often arises as a response to a complex set of problems which we help people sort through and address.”  If only Louisa et al had helped Will sort through and address his problems.

     So when the movie is released this Friday, and unsuspecting movie-goers who’ve seen the trailer may have no clue it’s actually about assisted suicide, please boycott the film and encourage others to do the same.  And when someone asks why, you could begin by explaining, “You before me is better than me before you…”

The Power of No, by Stephanie Gray

     I always seem to be on a plane, 30,000 feet above my home, when news is released of my country making landmark decisions to advance the Culture of Death.  In February 2015 when the Supreme Court overturned the law prohibiting assisted suicide, I was en route to speak in Texas.  Yesterday, fourteen months later, I was en route to present in Wisconsin and my stopover gave me a chance to read that the Liberal government had introduced Bill C-14, draft legislation allowing for euthanasia and assisted suicide.  And although it was tempting to want to stay in the clouds, to flee a country that promotes perversion of “health care,” my plane landed, I had my passport, and I was reminded that I am Canadian.  So as I think about my country’s attack on human life—and my country’s attack on the medical profession that is given the sacred duty to respect and protect that life—it occurs to me that the response of people of good will ought to be very simple: We just say no.

A firm,

confident,

calm,

unshakable,

unwavering,

            well-reasoned

No.

     Think of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man: the power of no.  Think of Gandhi and his followers’ famous Salt March: the power of no. Think of Alice Paul and her fellow suffragettes: the power of no.  Like these social reformers, we must go against the tide and declaratively state our no in the face of injustice.

• Inject a poison to kill you?  No.
• Refer you to someone who will kill you?  No.
• Hold your hand while you kill yourself?  No.
• Be silent when I should speak?  No.
• Vote for a politician who would advance this Nazi-like philosophy of “lives unworthy of life”? No.

     Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has noted, “Our success will depend more on whether we are respected than liked. Respect flows not from doing what the other finds pleasing, but from what is seen as consistent with principle, courageous, and immune from the temptation to change with the wind.”

     So in the spirit of being consistent with the principle that human life has inherent dignity and worth, that each human being is willed, loved, unrepeatable, and irreplaceable, when some wish to end such a life that is not yet over, we say no.

     In the spirit of being courageous, as the powers-that-be may threaten and intimidate those who do not comply with this impending unjust law (which St. Augustine would say “is no law at all”), we say no.

     In the spirit of refusing to change with the wind, when different variations of the same death-obsessed philosophy are proposed, we say no.

     Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

     The times of challenge and controversy are here—now.  We must embrace the power of no.

Canada's Contradictions, by Stephanie Gray

     Contradiction (con·tra·dic·tion \ˌkän-trə-ˈdik-shən\) the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else; a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true. –Merriam Webster Dictionary

     A read of recent news reveals significant contradictions going on in Canada:

     ·         On one hand, a remote First Nations community in Northern Ontario, Attawapiskat, is facing a suicide crisis so dire they’ve called a state of emergency.  The federal government has responded by sending in mental health counselors to try to stop these deaths.

     ·         But on the other hand, that same federal government is in the process of forming a new law which would make suicide legal, possibly even allowing it for “mature minors” and the mentally ill. 

     Is suicide wrong because of what it is or because of where it’s done?  Do we really want to say it’s wrong when done on a First Nations reserve but right when done in a hospital?  Is suicide wrong because of what it is or because of who does it?  Do we really want to say it’s wrong if done by oneself but right if done with a physician’s assistance? 

     The tie that binds a suicidal teen and a suicidal elderly person is suffering (physical or emotional) to the point that they see no reason to live.  But because people are valuable and killing is wrong, civil societies pursue suicide prevention.  Suicide prevention is all about alleviating a person’s suffering without eliminating the person.  Suicide prevention is about giving hope.  In fact, as the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention points out,

     “‘Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense regardless of how it turns out’ [Victor Havel].

***

     “Hope, at the darkest moments in our life, is not a comprehensive commitment to faith and belief.  At those times hope can be as simple and as profound as the voice of another human being who appears to hear our fear; hope can be the knowledge that the sun will rise tomorrow, hope can be the smell of fresh spring rain, or the first snow flake, or the photo of someone we love.  When despair seems to overcome us we feel disconnected, isolated, lost.  What we need most in those moments is a means of re-connection, relationship and belonging.” [Emphasis added] 

     As news of suicide spreads across the internet, another contradiction is circulating:

     ·         On one hand, people are horrified at a recent report  revealing that sex-selection abortion is happening among Indian immigrants to Canada, skewing the population’s sex ratio.  The Globe and Mail reported that “among Indian-born mothers, the proportion of males increased with the number of children born. By the third birth, 138 boys were born to Indian-born mothers for every 100 girls, and by the fourth birth, 166 boys were born to every 100 girls.”  The paper stated that over 4,000 girls are “missing” as a result.

     ·         On the other hand, Canada allows abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy—for any reason.  Rather than be horrified, all too often people celebrate this as a “woman’s right to choose.”

     Is abortion wrong because of what it does or because of why it's done?  Do we really want to say it’s wrong when the motivation is getting rid of girls, but okay when the motivation is getting rid of boys, the disabled, the inconvenient, or any human in general?

     The tie that binds a sex-selection abortion and another abortion is the rejection of the youngest humans among us based on the circumstances or wishes of older humans among us.  But because humans are valuable—whether they’re girls or boys—and because killing is wrong, civil societies should reject abortion.

     In brief, Canada can’t have it both ways.  If we are to deplore the suicides in Attawapiskat and if we are to deplore the sex-selection abortions among some Indian immigrants, then we should deplore all suicides and all abortions.

The Day I Was Stumped, by Stephanie Gray

     A couple years ago I spoke at the March for Life youth conference in Ottawa where the topic was “Stump the Pro-Lifer.”  Instead of giving my usual one hour presentation, the time was spent with me fielding questions from the audience—with attendees given the challenge of thinking of their toughest questions to confound me.

     Most of the questions were typical of what I’d heard many times before, and in answering I was able to articulate basic pro-life apologetics, emphasizing that humans have human rights and because the pre-born are human, they have the same right to life as you and me.  But then the question came, the question that (momentarily!) baffled me:

     “If you believe in God,” an audience member asked, “and therefore claim that life is a gift from God, then how can you claim we have a right to our lives?  After all, gifts are something given—they can’t be demanded; we can’t claim a right to have them.”

     Suddenly 1,000 teenagers in the audience started hollering, cheering, and clapping.  They felt it was a tough question and were excited to hear my response—was I stumped?  Truth be told, I felt stumped; in trying to think of an answer, I took advantage of the audience’s reaction by trying to get them to extend their clapping: “Oooooooh,” I said, “Very good….grrrrrreat question,” I remarked as the audience laughed and cheered.  My colleague, who was in the audience, later told me that she was trying to clap long and hard to drag out the time before I had to answer because she wasn’t sure if I had an answer either!

     I silently called on the Holy Spirit for inspiration and began to speak.  Truth be told, I wasn’t satisfied with what I started to say (nor can I remember it today), but then, about 30 seconds into my rambling, the inspiration came (Praise the Lord!).  I explained my thoughts as follows:

     Believing life is a gift and believing we have a right to life are not contradictory.  To believe life is a gift means if I’m alive, then God loved me enough to will me into existence and my life is a gift from Him.  Embracing human rights doctrines simply says once I’ve been given the gift, people around me may not take my gift away from me—my life is not their gift, it’s mine, so I have a right to ensure my gift is not unjustly taken from me; hence, I have a right to life.  That’s why abortion is a human rights violation—it takes away the gift of life from pre-born children, a gift they have a right to have because they were given it, and a gift we don’t have a right to take.

     The cheering began again.  They were satisfied.  Whew!

     In reflecting on my answer in light of much news about euthanasia, it occurred to me that some might take this point but ask, “Even though someone doesn’t have a right to take my gift of life from me, if I don’t want it anymore, I can get rid of it, can’t I?  After all, if I don’t want a gift someone gave me for my birthday several years ago, it’s okay for me to get rid of it, so isn’t it okay for me to choose euthanasia and get rid of my gift of life I no longer want?”

     To answer that, we need to realize the following: The gift of life we’ve been given is so valuable it’s priceless.  We’re not talking about getting an article of clothing that will go out of style.  Instead, imagine being given a trillion dollars.  It wouldn’t make sense to use only a portion of it and say, “I don’t want it anymore,” and then proceed to burn the rest.  So too would it be wrong to live a portion of our lives and then prematurely destroy them.  So if we don’t understand how valuable our lives are, then our job is to eliminate our incorrect understanding as to our worth, not eliminate our lives.

     Moreover, think for a moment about the Giver of the gift of life: The Giver loves unconditionally and is perfect; He only wants our good.  His judgment is better than ours.  He takes great joy in giving us the gift of life.  Can you imagine throwing a present in the face of a parent who lovingly gives his child a toy that will bring happiness?  How, then, could we throw back at the face of an all-good God the gift of life He gave us?

     To be sure, life on this earth has a natural expiry date that God built into it.  We will die, and we all have to face our mortality.  But if our Creator knows better than us about when that moment should be, then isn’t it our responsibility to steward the gift we’ve been given in the meantime?  After all, imagine if that money was given with an expiry date—except you didn’t know when on the calendar that was.  Wouldn’t you do your best with the resource you’d been given and not shorten the unknown time you have with it?  Likewise, we do not know precisely when each of us will die, so we should embrace our invaluable resource until such time as it is designed to run out.

     Now some might interject that if someone is suffering they can’t “do” much with their gift, so what’s the point? First, as I’ve written before, in such cases we should certainly alleviate suffering—just not eliminate the sufferer.  Moreover, unfortunately in this imperfect world suffering is a part of life—it’s not something limited to those who are dying.  And time and again, inspiring people, heroes, and role models, teach us to strive to overcome suffering and to turn obstacles into opportunities.

     Holocaust-survivor Viktor Frankl, who saw some suffering people reject the gift of their lives by committing suicide in the concentration camps, wrote about how he decided he would not follow in their footsteps.  He also tried to dissuade others from doing so.

     He said, “We had to teach the despairing men that it did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us…When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he will have to accept his suffering as his task…His unique opportunity lies in the way in which he bears his burden...When the impossibility of replacing a person is realized, it allows the responsibility which a man has for his existence and its continuance to appear in all its magnitude…love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire…a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved.”

     Suffering is confusing.  It is a mystery.  But like many things in life, particularly those we don’t understand, what matters is what we do with them.  St. John Paul II, in "Salvifici Doloris" (On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering), wrote,

     “We could say that suffering . . . is present in order to unleash love in the human person, that unselfish gift of one’s 'I' on behalf of other people, especially those who suffer. The world of human suffering unceasingly calls for, so to speak, another world: the world of human love; and in a certain sense man owes to suffering that unselfish love that stirs in his heart and actions.”

     That point is well illustrated in an imaginary story (read here) about suffering people who don’t have elbows, and the different reactions one could have in their situation.  Ultimately, their suffering led to love.  And if there is no life, there can be no love.  So we should respect the gift of life each of us has been given because it is with this gift, of an unknown duration, that we can love. 

A Response to Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide by Dr. Julia Bright

Stephanie's Note:  I met my best friend Julia when she was 4 and I was 5 and she visited my kindergarten classroom.  Since then, we grew up together, played all sorts of games and made-up activities together, performed piano concerts (including our own-composed duet) together, graduated high school together (thanks to her being so smart and skipping grade 9 going from grade 8 into my grade 10 class), going to UBC together, and travelling together.  On Friday, March 11, 2016, we finally presented together.  We spoke on euthanasia and assisted suicide at the Chilliwack Pro-Life Society's banquet dinner.  I was so impressed and inspired by her presentation, that I'm sharing it here below.  Julia is not only a brilliant family physician (seriously, besides skipping a grade in high school she got into med school after 3rd year university), she is caring, compassionate, and ethical.  Her patients can be guaranteed she has their well being in mind.  Her presentation that follows is proof of this.  Here it is: 

     If you’re anything like me, you have found the recent news regarding the legalization of physician-assisted suicide in Canada overwhelming. It is easy to feel discouraged and distraught by these changes, and so I want to focus my reflections on something positive. Staying positive is what I believe is the best antidote to this negative force entering our country.  In order to stay positive in the face of these changes, we need to:

1.      Acknowledge and think about our own mortality

2.      Support those among us who are dying or nearing death by helping them to achieve peace and live out their last days well

3.      Support the palliative care movement

      We need to remember that there is an alternative choice to suicide—a natural death in the context of a caring community. 

     I speak to you from the perspective of a family physician involved in palliative care, but also as a person who faces her own mortality when thinking about these issues.  And that is key when trying to accompany people on the journey of dying.  We must acknowledge that one day we will be the one dying.

     That being said, I am no expert on this, because I haven’t died yet.  In fact, I haven’t even faced a serious illness yet in my life.  So my reflections are based on what I’ve learned through my work and from other doctors.  I would like to reference Dr. Kuhl, who wrote the book What Dying People Want and Dr. Gallagher, who is a palliative care physician in Vancouver who has written multiple articles in Canadian medical journals.

     At this point, I want to tell you a story.  It is about a patient of mine who died recently at a relatively young age from cancer.  He went through multiple medical treatments in an attempt to overcome this illness, but ultimately after facing more and more problems at home and hospital, he moved to hospice for his final weeks.  During one of my visits there, he was lying in bed watching a home renovation show on TV.  I asked him how he was doing and while we talked, he pointed out to me a small wooden box on the table at the end of his bed.  It was an urn that his neighbor had made for him.  He was planning to be cremated and that box would one day soon hold his remains. He hoped that in the future his wife and their pet dog would also join him in this resting place.   So, he was lying in his bed, with this reminder of his mortality directly in front of him.   What really impressed me about this was his acceptance of what was happening.  I thought to myself-am I brave enough to calmly acknowledge that one day I will die?  Will I be able to maintain that bravery when my death is imminent?  And an even harder question-can I accept that my loved ones will one day die?

     Personally, I hope I can get to that place of peace.  And when I am taking care of a dying patient, that is my goal for them-to create enough freedom from physical and emotional suffering so they can obtain peace and acceptance. 

     Is it possible to have a good death?  I believe it is because I have seen it.  People who are comfortable, surrounded by loved ones, well looked after by experienced nurses.   People who have said their goodbyes.  Dying is not all negative.  As I heard a priest say once, happiness is not dependent on health.  Some of the most content, calm people I know are physically unwell.

     Cultural movements like physician-assisted suicide usually arise as a misguided response to a real problem.  People in Canada have died in pain and have faced obstacles to obtaining care that maintains their dignity.  Their families have suffered watching this happen.  The answer to physician-assisted suicide is not to wish that things could just go back to the way they always were.  It is to use this as an opportunity to create a better solution... [To read the rest of this presentation click here for the PDF of the full talk transcript.]

Frequently Asked Questions About Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide, by Stephanie Gray

Image Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syringe2.jpg

With various countries facing the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is important for people of good will to be able to winsomely articulate why these are not moral.  Click here to read a PDF of Frequently Asked Questions About Euthanasia & Assisted Suicide.

It's Not About Conscience, It's About the Nature of the Healing Profession, by Stephanie Gray

With today’s news that the Canadian Medical Association has voted to reject a motion that would protect the conscience rights of physicians who refuse to refer patients to die by euthanasia, panic and fear is likely to set in with some pro-life physicians.*

“Well, if I’m forced to refer for euthanasia then I can no longer practice as a doctor,” some might say.

Not true.  We create a false dilemma by saying there are only two options: Either I refer for euthanasia or I don’t practice as a doctor.  No.  There is a third option: You practice as a physician and you do not refer for euthanasia.  Let me explain.

I have never been a fan of emphasizing “conscience” as one’s argument for doctors avoiding practices that simply aren’t good medicine.  I have written on this before regarding abortion and that can be viewed here.  Emphasizing conscience has the risk of marginalizing true, ethical physicians, putting them on the “fringe,” as though pro-life doctors are somehow different from the average doctor because they have a “conscience” that tells them something that is different from what “real” medicine would do.  That is not the case. 

Real medicine heals, not kills. 

Real medicine alleviates suffering without eliminating sufferers.

Real medicine addresses the underlying motivation for someone’s request to die (e.g., administering pain medicine, giving love and attention to the lonely), rather than responding at a surface level.

Real medicine believes we should “do no harm.”

Real medicine heeds the Canadian Medical Association’s Code of Ethics which says, “Practise the profession of medicine in a manner that treats the patient with dignity and as a person worthy of respect.  Provide for appropriate care for your patient, even when cure is no longer possible, including physical comfort and spiritual and psychosocial support.”

Real medicine remembers it was less than a century ago when physicians were lead killers during the Holocaust, killing not only Jews, but also the elderly and disabled, the individuals they categorized as “lives unworthy of life.”

Real medicine remembers the words of Holocaust-survivor Elie Wiesel whose essay, incidentally titled, “Without Conscience,” was published in 2005 in the New England Journal of Medicine and read by UBC medical students in which he writes, “[I]nstead of doing their job, instead of bringing assistance and comfort to the sick people who needed them most, instead of helping the mutilated and the handicapped to live, eat, and hope one more day, one more hour, doctors became their executioners…Why did some know how to bring honor to humankind, while others renounced humankind with hatred?  It is a question of choice.  A choice that even now belongs to us—to uniformed soldiers, but even more so to doctors.  The killers could have decided not to kill.”

Real medicine simply does not kill.

Instead of emphasizing conscience, we need to emphasize what the nature of the healing profession is all about.  We have to show it is simply not good medicine to kill a patient.  Instead of saying, “I do not refer for euthanasia because my conscience tells me not to,” a pro-life physician should declare, “I do not refer for euthanasia because it is not good medicine.  I do not refer for euthanasia because it goes against the nature of the healing profession.  I do not refer for euthanasia because as a physician I am called to do no harm and I would be violating that command.”  At this link I have developed an apologetic to help guide physicians to articulate why euthanasia is not the proper response, and what, in fact, is.

To my many dear, and some of my closest, friends who are physicians: Do not let this decision discourage you.  Let it empower you.  Let it embolden you.  Get ready to love your patients like you’ve never loved before, and get ready to fight your medical establishment like you’ve never fought before.

If the day will come when you no longer practice as a physician, may it be because your license was taken from you, not because you voluntarily walked away.  Do not walk away.  If the day will come when you no longer practice as a physician, may it be because you were literally dragged from doing so, not because you willingly left.  Do not willingly leave.  

If the day will come when any of this happens, our attitude must be to look at it, not as the end, but as a beginning, to get creative about how physicians can practice as doctors and do the right thing, regardless of the environment one is in--just as others in the past who have lived through human rights violations have done.   Never give up. 

Patients who are truly loved and cared for physically, emotionally, and spiritually are unlikely to request euthanasia.  So do your job and let the lawyers who exist to defend you (here  and here) do theirs.

What the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once said, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, about the early church is as a relevant to the civil rights activists of his day as it is relevant to the pro-life physicians of our day:

“There was a time when the church was very powerful -- in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being ‘disturbers of the peace’ and ‘outside agitators.’ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were ‘a colony of heaven,’ called to obey Gad rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be ‘astronomically intimidated.’ By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.”

If we are going to bring an end to the present-day evil of killing the weak and vulnerable, we will not only have to capture the sacrificial and courageous spirit of the early Church, but we will need to be prepared for an epic battle.  That is what happens when the Culture of Life clashes with the Culture of Death.  But we need not be afraid, because we are people of hope.  And as the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus once said,

“Hope is a virtue of having looked unblinkingly into all the reasons for despair, into all of the reasons that would seem to falsify hope, and to say, 'Nonetheless Christ is Lord. Nonetheless this is the story of the world. Nonetheless this is a story to which I will surrender myself day by day.' Not simply on one altar call, but as the entirety of one's life, in which every day is a laying of your life on the altar of the Lord Jesus Christ being offered up in perfect sacrifice to the Father.

“And will we overcome? Will we prevail? We have overcome and have prevailed ultimately because He has overcome and He has prevailed. There are days in which you and I get discouraged. On those days I tell myself — I suppose almost every day I tell myself, sometimes several times a day — those marvelous lines from T. S. Eliot's 'East Coker,' where Eliot says, 'For us there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.'

“For us there is only the trying. The rest is not our business. Some people read those lines as lines of resignation, kind of shrugging your shoulders and saying, 'What can you do?' But I read them as lines of vibrant hope. The rest is not our business. The rest is God's business.

“Thank God, we are not God. Thank God, God is God.”

So try, try with all your might, and watch God work mighty wonders through you.

---

*It should be noted that there were several votes by the CMA on this topic. Although the CMA reported that “Conscientious objection was a contentious issue, with 79% of delegates voting against a motion to support conscientious objectors who refuse to refer patients for medical aid in dying”  the CMA also reported that “According to results of a CMA member survey [of 1407 responses] presented at the meeting, many doctors remain opposed to assisting in a patient's suicide. Only 29% of those surveyed said they would consider providing medical aid in dying if requested by a patient, 63% would refuse outright and 8% were undecided.”   The CMA also reported, “‘No physician should be forced to participate against their conscience,’ said Dr. Jeff Blackmer, vice president of medical professionalism at CMA. ‘But there's disagreement about what this means.’”  

This isn’t the end of the story as the CMA is looking at all these votes and motions and considering guidelines moving forward; therefore, it is still possible the guidelines to come will respect a physician’s conscience.  Time will tell, which is why, at minimum, protecting conscience rights can still be lobbied for, but, more importantly, a solid pro-life apologetic on euthanasia must be articulated, not only at a national level with the CMA, but also to the provincial governing medical bodies as well as to our elected representatives on a provincial and federal level.