Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label End Of Life Ireland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label End Of Life Ireland. Show all posts
Noel Byrne ✏ In recent years two attempts have been made in this jurisdiction to have a law on Assisted Dying enacted. Both efforts failed. 

In 2024 a Dáil “All Party Special Committee” concluded after a nine-month period of research and consideration that such legislation should be enacted here. Their report has been accepted by the Dáil. It had already been determined by the Supreme Court that there was no constitutional bar on such legislation.

Unfortunately, legislation on Assisted Dying has not been included in the new “Programme for Government” as neither Fianna Fáil nor Fine Gael had included it in their manifestos. The majority of the other political parties are in favour of such legislation.

Such legislation would permit a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or terminally ill, and gives a choice to those with incurable physical conditions who face years of constant pain and suffering that they find unbearable.

The purpose of any Assisted Dying legislation is to give people:

  • The right to die with dignity, peacefully, and without suffering.
  • The ability to make their own choices about death while taking into account the reasonable interest of others.
  • The ability to make their well-considered end of life decisions in a safe and peaceful environment supported by the law.

Such legislation is similar to abortion or divorce, it is about giving individuals a personal right to choose if they so desire.

Legislation on Assisted Dying is currently in place in Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, 11 of the United States and Colombia. The process to initiate such legislation is currently in progress in France, England, Scotland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

The principal arguments for Assisted Dying legislation are:

  1. Relief from suffering. Assisted Dying provides a compassionate and humane way to end unbearable pain and suffering for terminally ill patients.
  2. Autonomy and Self-Determination. Persons have the right to control their own bodies and lives. This includes the decision to end their life if they are suffering.
  3. Dignity and Quality of Life. By allowing individuals to choose Assisted Dying it helps to preserve their dignity and maintain their quality of life rather than prolonging their suffering.

Naturally as with all such ethical legislation there are many who are opposed. Their arguments generally fall into four categories:

  1. The sanctity of life. This is a belief that human life has inherent value and should be preserved at all costs, regardless of circumstances. This is primarily an argument from religious belief. There is no evidence of life being sacred.
  2. The Slippery Slope argument is that legalising Assisted Dying could lead to a situation where the criteria for eligibility are gradually expanded, potentially leading to unjustified deaths. This is not a genuine argument. In any democracy the legislature must be in a position to amend legislation. It would be wrong to tie the hands of any future Government. This argument applies both ways, in that a future government might also decide to downgrade the eligibility criteria of any such legislation.
  3. Palliative care is a sufficient alternative. This is completely untrue. There are a percentage of cases where palliative care is unable to relieve intolerable pain and distress. The majority of people seeking Assisted Dying are already receiving hospice or palliative care. Assisted Dying legislation is not in competition with palliative care. It is complementary to palliative care.
  4. Potential for abuse. No law is perfect. All laws can be abused. It is most important that all laws relating to Assisted Dying have extremely tight controls and mechanisms in place whereby any abuse of the legislation is severely punished.

I am a member of EOLI (End of Life Ireland) which is a voluntary advocacy group involved solely in campaigning to have compassionate Assisted Dying legislation enacted in Ireland.

We want a compassionate law on Assisted Dying that permits a medically assisted death to adults of sound mind who are suffering intolerably or are terminally ill. We believe reform is necessary to reduce unbearable suffering of individuals, and just as importantly, to give choice to those with physical, incurable conditions who face years of constant pain or suffering that they find unbearable.

EOLI has a webpage  and also a Facebook page “End of Life Ireland” where you can get further information on this subject. EOLI are also looking for volunteers to assist us in our campaign. If you are interested in assisting the campaign you can contact us at “info@endoflifeireland.ie”.
 
⏩ Noel Byrne is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

Assisted Dying

End Of Life Ireland ✒ This is the fifth and final post in a series of posts by Noel Byrne considering the Catholic church’s stance on End of Life choice as outlined in their Oireachtas submission to the Justice Committee considering the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill. If you missed the earlier posts describing the negative impact the ‘Irish Bishops Conference’ has had on legislation in Ireland, you can catch up here.


The bishops insist on the use of the word “suicide” in their submission to the Oireachtas Committee. They say the Bills proposals “provide for the medical facilitation of suicide.” 


They constantly use the term “assisted suicide”. It is actually used in their submission on at least thirty occasions. They also use terms such as “medicalised killing “ and “deliberate killing “ in their submission. In section five of their submission they specifically question why the drafters of the Bill “do not make use of the term suicide”. They state 'it is appropriate to refer to the Bill as an “assisted suicide” bill'. They continue: 

While palliative care already provides assistance to those who are dying, this Bill provides for the medical endorsement and facilitation of suicide. Legislators need to honestly recognize the difference and call things by their proper name. This is a difficult and extremely sensitive issue. Why make it vulgar? Is it simply to win more adherents to your point of view?

These last sentences in the above quotation from the bishops are pejorative, denigratory and disparaging as well as being callous. This is an effort at stigmatizing the Bill as immoral.


The term “suicide “ is the most insensitive term that could be used to someone who is the position of requesting assistance to die. Such people are already dying but are begging for assistance. But remarks of this nature are typical of these ivory-tower church intellectuals. To request the use of the term ‘suicide’ in these circumstances is absolutely callous. As I said in previous posts the bishops have no real understanding of compassion or suffering. Their direct line to their alleged god gives them a different mentality and puts them in a different category to normal human beings.

They appear to have no knowledge or awareness of the harrowing stories being told of the dreadful hardships, agonies and torture that terminal illness can bring, nor of the limits of palliative care.

In all the English speaking countries where similar legislation is now in place the term ”suicide” is never used. I am referring to Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia, and in countries where the issue is currently being debated such as Ireland, Scotland and the UK the term suicide is not used either. That is because those drafting these bills have an understanding and sensitivity of what the Bill is about. It is because it is such a sensitive issue and because those promoting it have a genuine and compassionate concern for those who are at the stage of their lives where they have to consider such a horrible and ghastly option.

Suicide is generally undertaken by people who do not actually want to die, they want the pain of living to end. It is generally done alone and in secrecy, leaving loved ones with devastating grief and is often violent and carried out by people who do not enter or are misunderstood by the medical system.


Voluntary Assisted Dying on the other hand hastens death for people in irremediable circumstances whose death is reasonably foreseeable. It involves decision-making by the patient and medical personnel and allows the option to involve loved ones. It is a non-violent, rationally chosen, medical intervention.

This Dying with Dignity Bill is based on the original model first used in the US State of Oregon and which is in existence for over twenty years.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are the codified laws of the State of Oregon. Chapter 127 of the ORS deals with Advanced Directives for Health Care. ORS Paras. 127-800 to 127-897 deal with the Oregon Death with Dignity Act. At para. 127-800 it specifically states:

Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127-800 to 127-897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide under the law. 

The Oregon Dying with Dignity law has been before the US Supreme court and passed.

The American Association of Suicidology recognizes that the practice of medical aid in dying is distinct from the behavior that has traditionally and ordinarily described as “suicide”. People who seek medical aid in dying want to live but are stricken with life-ending illnesses. They feel deeply offended when the medical practice is called suicide or assisted suicide. The AAS documents fifteen ways medical aid in dying is fundamentally distinct from suicide and completely outside the focus of the AAS.

The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Medical Women’s Association, American Medical Student Association, American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Public Health Association, all have policies opposing the use of the terms “suicide” and “assisted suicide in describing the medical practice of aid in dying.

In 1996 the “American College of Legal Medicine” filed an amicus brief before the US Supreme court rejecting the term “ Physician Assisted Suicide”. In 2008 they adopted a resolution in which they:

publicly advocated elimination of the word ‘suicide’ from the lexicon created by a mentally competent, though terminally ill, person who wishes to be aided in dying.

One US Judge has referred to suicide as a biased term when used in connection with Physician Assisted Death.

This Bill is about terminally ill people who are dying and have decided they can take no more pain, anguish or suffering. It is about the avoidance of futile suffering. It is not about suicide, it is about a different way of dying.

Why are the bishops so hard-hearted and unfeeling in insisting on calling the procedures in the Bill suicide? Not alone is it callous but denigratory and snide in their comments to the drafters of the Bill and to the Oireachtas Committee. Why can they not have compassion, pity and love for the plight of those who are forced to suffer against their own wishes? These people are faced in their final days with unbearable suffering, or else sedation, starvation, suicide or travelling to Switzerland to end their life painlessly.

This type of action by the bishops is part of the ongoing attempts at bullying legislators and legislation into their warped world which thankfully has been seen through in recent years by the majority of the citizens of this state.

The Irish bishop’s hypocrisy is shown in Bishop Brendan Comiskey delivering the homily at the funeral of Fr. Sean Fortune who committed suicide while awaiting trial on sixty six charges of sexual abuse and the Bishop Casey scandal.

Suicide was a mortal sin up until the Second Vatican council of 1962 to 1965.

A death by suicide was also forbidden by the bishops to be buried in “consecrated” ground. However after Vatican II the church softened it’s attitude slightly on suicide. It now became “a grave offense”. The church then brings its casuistry into suicide by stating “that suicide is distinguished from the sacrifice of one’s life for god or another as in the case of martyrdom”.

This change was probably to get round that the fact that it was being argued that Jesus himself committed suicide “as a sacrifice for man”. He was “the sacrificial lamb” who could through his alleged power as god have avoided death. He came on earth to die for our sins. The theologian Jurgen Moltmann said in his book The Crucifed God, that “Jesus did not suffer passively from the world in which he lived, but incited it against himself by his message and the way he lived”. In Mark’s gospel at 10.45 Jesus says” For the son of man himself did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many” and in John’s gospel at 10.18 Jesus said “No one takes it [my life] from me; I lay it down of my own free will, and as it is my power to lay it down, so it is in my power to take it up again”. At John 15.13 Jesus gives a motive for his willingness to die, he says “A man can have no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends”. Is there a distinction between killing oneself and provoking one’s own death? I think not.

Jesus’s death was a suicide and he could have avoided it. So why are the church against it?

This type of submission by the bishops does not really help their own cause. Those who still believe in the Catholic religion are educated and aware that this Bill is about choice and that there is no compulsion or coercion involved. It does not in any way interfere with the Catholic religion or it’s believers. The bishops might be better spending their time out with their flocks and trying to get them to stay on board the Catholic bus. As it currently stands they are failing miserably and the bus is gradually emptying.

⏩ Noel Byrne is a committee member of EOLI. He is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

The Insistence Of The Use Of The Word ‘Suicide’ In The Oireachtas Submission Of The Irish Bishops.

End Of Life Ireland ✒ This is the fourth in a series of posts by Noel Byrne considering the Catholic church’s stance on End of Life choice as outlined in their Oireachtas submission to the Justice Committee considering the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill. 

If you missed the earlier posts describing the negative impact the ‘Irish Bishops Conference’ has had on legislation in Ireland, you can catch up here.


In this post I will discuss the church’s concept of suffering, and how this filters down to legislation enacted in Ireland.

Even a cursory reading of the Bible is sufficient to see the god of the Bible has no problem with pain and suffering. In many cases in the Bible, God is the cause of the pain and suffering. Any objective history of the Catholic church shows how the church has caused pain, suffering anguish and torture, not least here in Ireland in the last century.

The Catholic Church has a completely different attitude to pain and suffering than is normally acceptable in society – to the church pain and suffering can be a good thing and have a societal purpose.


This concerning quote from a contentious Catholic raises grave concerns about how the church considers the suffering of their flock. The Catholic Church is based on blood sacrifice – that of Jesus himself becoming the “sacrificial lamb”. To the Catholic Church the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus provides the model for voluntary suffering in his followers. The Church’s symbol is the cross and the crucified Christ. The problem is they want to impose this macabre justification of suffering on all of us through the laws of the land.

Theodicy and the contradiction of suffering and an omnipotent, benevolent god

Christianity has an issue with their benevolent god in the context of the evil and suffering in the world. In theological terms their god is “omnipotent” (all powerful), “omniscient” (all knowing) and “omnibenevolent” (all good).

Theodicy is the branch of theology attempting to reconcile the supposed unlimited goodness and love of an all-powerful god with the sad reality of pain and suffering in the world. Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher asked:


As the Christian god created the Universe and everything in it, so also he created suffering and pain. Being omnipotent he could have created a world without suffering, and therein lies the necessity of the casuistry, sophistry and distortions of theodicy that attempt to rationalize the contradiction of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent god, in a world with such suffering.

The arguments of theodicy are flawed, morally, emotionally and intellectually. One cannot logically reconcile an all-powerful and all-loving god with suffering and pain. Despite the churches attempts to do so, there is no rationalization, justification or vindication for why an innocent baby should die a painful death with cancer.

The influence of a church that welcomes (1) (2) and even inflicts suffering is a particular concern when it comes to those approaching the end of their lives. In 2021 a Vatican Pontifical Council issued a 132 page New Charter for Health Care Workers (specifically for Catholic Health Care Workers). A quote from paragraph 153 of this handbook is sufficient to show the Church’s mindset:

A further concerning document is the Catholic Church’s Declaration on Euthanasia, dated May 5th 1980 states:


Irish bishops maintain that the continuation of pain and agony for those suffering should be drawn out until the last second as part of their gods’ plan. This lack of empathy for those suffering in the last stages of their lives is typical of the church’s attitude. This attitude is rooted in the fact they must justify all suffering, because this is necessary to explain how a supposedly all powerful, all loving and all just god can be reconciled with pain, suffering and agony.

Suffering and the Dying with Dignity Bill

The church in Ireland portray their attitude to the “Dying with Dignity Bill” as superior to the attitude of those of us who have a compassionate, merciful and pitiful belief in helping those in pain and agony. Passing the “Dying with Dignity Bill “ would give relief to those that are dying with pain by giving them the choice to end their own lives.

The notion of unquestioning loyalty ensures that Vatican dogma is followed by Irish bishops. The church precludes freedom of choice in all matters,(3) and in particular forbids us making our own personal healthcare choices such as choosing Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD). As we saw in our first post, the preferences of the Irish bishops, as agreed at the annual ‘Bishop’s Conference’, have been and continue to be influential in Irish society and laws.

What is really worrying is the fact that Irish bishops through their representatives sit on the boards of many of the hospitals and hospices in this state. If they have their way in defeating this bill, the principal consequence will be more unnecessary pain, suffering and agony for many and for years to come.

Suffering through self-harm in the Catholic Church

I could not leave this topic without considering the Catholic church’s attitude to self-harm. Apart from the church’s external history of bloodshed and suppression, there is also the internal violence of its belief in self–mortification through fasting, self-sacrifice, abstinence, self-abasement, custody of the eyes and senses, and compulsory celibacy for priests and nuns. At the extreme end of self–mortification, there are hair shirts, wearing of chains, self–flagellation, and flogging, and for those really desirous there is of course martyrdom. Many of those who were made saints were canonized because of their self-mortification and /or martyrdom. Think of poor Matt Talbot who was brainwashed into extreme self-mortification – and still didn’t get to be a saint!

The idea that those who suffer here on earth are united in their suffering with Christ because of his death on the cross is concerning and has historically fed into a culture of self-harm. This is typical of the Catholic Church, because dogma must be constructed to explain how a supposedly all-powerful, all-loving and all-just god can be reconciled with the pain, suffering and agony in the world. Through their dogma and pronouncements the bishops imply they know what their god thinks and wants, but they have yet to answer satisfactorily the question as to why their god included pain in his creation. Unfortunately for the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Irish bishops continue to force their macabre belief, that suffering has a purpose, on all of us.

Further evidence of these dreadful attempts at justification of suffering are done through casuistry and sophistry and can be seen in an Apostolic Letter by John Paul 11, a pope who himself is believed to have practiced self-flagellation.

This is the meaning of suffering, which is truly supernatural and at the same time human. It is supernatural because it is rooted in the divine mystery of the Redemption of the world, and it (suffering) is likewise deeply human, because in it the person discovers himself, his own humanity, his own dignity, his own mission - Para. 31, Salvifici Doloris, Apostolic Letter, John Paul 11 (1984)

It is a macabre document. The then-pope outlines the role of suffering and evil and how a love of god can be borne out of suffering. It lacks any empathy for the physical and mental pain, experienced by some people in the final stages of their lives. This attitude is evident in the Irish bishop’s condemnation of the Dying with Dignity Bill. In the bishops eyes, their purpose is to inform consciences which they do vociferously. Fortunately not too many consciences are informed by their bronze age beliefs and practices.

Does God change his mind?

The present attitude of the church is in complete contradiction to their past history. Now it insists that merciful euthanasia is a sin against god and yet for centuries the church tortured, maimed and killed anyone who disagreed with it, and forced many to suicide to avoid the wrath of the church. So does their god change his mind?

If one believes in the Christian god it follows that people suffer because god makes them suffer. God made humankind as we are. With his attributes, this god could have made humans pain free, physically, mentally and emotionally. Yet this god choose not do so. The church believes without punishment there can be no real atonement for sin. Pain and suffering can be redemptive and bring one closer to salvation.
 

Catholicism still pursues its age-old mission of slowing down the progress of human welfare, and consequently prolonging the misery and agony of those affected by their continual fight to delay social progress. Hopefully in this instance through their cult of suffering they will not delay the call for a humane choice at the end of life.

In the next post I will deal with the bishop’s insistence on the use of the word suicide.

References:

(1) “the Holy Spirit giving to some a special charism of healing so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illness. Thus St. Paul must learn from the lord that ‘my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’, and that the suffering to be endured can mean that ‘in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." - Para 1508, The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(2) “By the grace of this sacrament (Last Rites) the sick person receives the strength and the gift of uniting himself more closely to Christ’s passion: in a certain way he is consecrated to bear fruit by configuration to the Saviour’s redemptive passion. Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus.” - Para 1521, The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(3) “It is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, of worship as if these were so many rights given by nature to man.” - Para. 42. Pope Leo X111, Libertas (On the nature of human liberty).

⏩ Noel Byrne is a committee member of EOLI. He is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

The Catholic Church's Attitude To Suffering And How This Influences End Of Life Choices In Ireland

End of Life Ireland (EOLI) is a volunteer-led group seeking to foster conversation about end-of life issues. In this series, EOLI committee member Noel Byrne comments on the arguments expressed by the bishops of Ireland in their submission to the Oireachtas Committee considering the Dying with Dignity Bill.


This is the third in a series of posts by myself (Noel Byrne) considering the Catholic church’s stance on End of Life choice as outlined in their Oireachtas submission to the Justice Committee considering the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill. If you missed the earlier posts, you can catch up starting with my first post, where I outline the negative impact the ‘Irish Bishops Conference’ has had on legislation in Ireland.

In this post, I illustrate why compassion is not a virtue that is typically associated with the Catholic church in Ireland, despite compassion being widely recognized as critical for pure moral conduct.

The New Oxford Dictionary defines compassion as ‘sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others’. Compassion is about mercy, pity and doing what we can to help the sufferer to overcome their suffering and anguish. Compassion is widely recognized as essential to ensuring pure moral conduct.


Compassion in the Catholic Church

The horrors of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Autos da fe and Witch burnings are examples of ghastly church-orchestrated historical events that show a lack of compassion. These events are described in many objective, impartial accounts of the Catholic Church.

Likewise, the well-documented history of the Catholic church in Ireland shows little compassion. As I described in my first post, the Catholic church showed no compassion for those abused by the clergy, nor women in violent marriages who sought divorce, nor for girls and women raped, who needed an abortion, nor for gay couples who wanted to marry, nor for the women and children incarcerated in church institutes such as Mother and Baby homes.

In the Catholic church there are four Cardinal Virtues - these are:

  • Prudence
  • Justice
  • Fortitude
  • Temperance
There are also three theological virtues
  • Faith
  • Hope
  • Charity
Compassion is not included in the list of virtues, with charity being the closest virtue to compassion.

Despite quotes such as that below from St. Paul, the word ‘compassion’ does not appear as a subject in the modern ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church’ (CCC).


The CCC runs to 691 pages, with a subject index of 42 pages yet compassion is not a listed subject. ‘Charity’ / ‘love’ is defined (at paragraph 1822 of the CCC), as ‘the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake and our neighbour as ourselves for the love of God’. It seems in the CCC our neighbor is secondary and only loved for God’s sake and not for their own sake!

Compassion and Suicide in the Bishop’s Oireachtas Submission on the Dying with Dignity Bill


In the bishop’s submission to the Dáil Committee dealing with the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill the word ‘compassion’ is used only twice, in the consecutive sentences below:

Their next sentence says of Compassion, and Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD), “It is the complete opposite.”

They make the point in their submission, that in the church’s eyes VAD is actually “a failure to respond to the challenge of caring for terminally ill patients as they approach the end of their lives.”

The bishops deliberately take an etymological, literal, dry, dispassionate, abstract, conceptual meaning of the word ‘compassion’. Compassion etymologically indeed comes from the Latin root ‘compati’ meaning ‘to suffer together’. However, Etymology relates to the origin of words and not their use in a modern or contemporary world. Compassion is neither dispassionate nor abstract. It is and should be an emotive term. It means a lot more than the Latin root of ‘suffering together’. It implies action and is about wanting to care and help. Compassion describes the feeling that arises when confronted with another’s suffering and feeling motivated to relieve that suffering.

Their use of the term ‘suicide’ in the second sentence shows the lack of compassion of the authors. Anyone with genuine compassion for those who might feel the need to avail of the services this Bill facilitates would not use the term ‘suicide’. The use of the word suicide by the Irish bishops is pejorative and is intended at best to conflate issues, and at worst conveys their denigratory stance on VAD, by equating it to ‘the sin’ of suicide. Their use of the term suicide in relation to the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding for those who have a great wish to live, but who cannot continue to endure the suffering. (Suicide and Assisted Dying are terms I will deal with in a later post.)

Religious Free Will and the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill

Accepted Catholic church teaching is that their god gave each individual free will and reason. It follows that this god expects each person to use those abilities. The ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill if passed will also allow religious and non-religious individuals use their free will to avail of Voluntary Assisted Dying services if they so need, desire and choose.

Many of those who have availed of ‘Dying with Dignity’ or ‘Medical Aid in Dying’ in the jurisdictions where it is permitted were Christians. They have by their own free will and reason made the decision to avail of assistance to end their lives.

It is very positive to see some Christian church leaders (albeit not here in Ireland), recognise there is no compassion in forcing someone to suffer when it is their wish and choice to die free of pain and suffering. The two Anglican archbishops quoted below are in favor of voluntary assisted dying. Archbishop Desmond Tutu said in the context of VAD, “Compassion is not just feeling with someone, but seeking to change the situation” and Archbishop George Carey said “I want to send the message that we live in a compassionate society that has the courage to confront complexity, not one that bases its rules on fear or misunderstanding.”

We are unlikely to get a similar quote from an Irish Catholic bishop. As outlined in my first post, our bishops fear consequences from Rome if church orthodoxy were questioned. As in most moral issues, the Irish bishops have a fundamentalist attitude to ‘Dying with Dignity’. The opposite of compassion is hardheartedness or cruelty, and those are the attributes the bishops promulgate on behalf of their god. It seems nothing is grey and only the bishops know the truth. The bishop’s god is not compassionate and wants the last ounce of suffering eked out from each individual before judgement. Their god is cold, pitiless, dispassionate, and dogmatic. They believe they are the middlemen between god and humanity. In their eyes, if a law does not agree with their beliefs and dogma, it is wrong. They try to impose this on the rest of society by means of influencing Irish legislation.

It would be more in the bishops' interest to explain to their followers how their omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god can justify pain and suffering at the end of life. With those wonderful attributes their god has the potential to cancel all pain and suffering. How Irish bishops seem to know what god is thinking and wants is beyond my comprehension! Their insistence that pain, suffering and anguish should be endured up to the very last dying breath utterly lacks compassion.

In my next post, I will address the church’s attitude to suffering and how their fondness for suffering informs their position on the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill.

⏩ Noel Byrne is a committee member of EOLI. He is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

Compassion Is Not A Virtue Typically Associated With The Church In Ireland

This is the second in a series of posts by Noel Byrne considering the Catholic church’s stance on End of Life choice as outlined in their Oireachtas submission to the Justice Committee considering the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill. If you missed the first post describing the negative impact the ‘Irish Bishops Conference’ has had on legislation in Ireland, you can catch up here.


The Catholic church generally gives much credence to quoting scripture. In the case of the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill and End of Life choice however, the church fathers and their documents fall far short of justifying the church’s ethical position and dogma. As recent as 2020, the ‘Vatican Secretariat for the Doctrine of the Faith’, approved by Pope Francis, stated with regard to the care of persons in the critical and terminal phases of life:


In the bishop’s submission to the Oireachtas committee, there are no biblical quotations or references. In the submission the bishops state: ‘This submission is rooted in our conviction that we have a moral responsibility to care for our neighbour according to the gospel image of the Good Samaritan’. Their principal reference is the letter ‘Samaritanus Bonus’ also known as the ‘Good Samaritan’. Somehow, the well known parable of ‘The Good Samaritan’ is used by the bishops to draw conclusions about end of life choice. The church twists this parable to justify their stance on euthanasia because there is no actual biblical prohibition on euthanasia.

The bishops draw on the insights of the letter ‘Samaritanus Bonus’, to draw illogical conclusions on the care of persons in the critical and terminal phases of life. The bishops appear to compare the case of helping a stranger who has been assaulted, to preventing a person suffering agony as a result of a terminal illness from ending their suffering. An illogical stretch at best, at worst a ridiculous and typically cruel comparison, showing how out-of-touch the church is with our compassionate, modern Irish society.

The parable of the Good Samaritan that is taken completely out of context is part of chapter ten of Luke’s Gospel. I will paraphrase the relevant section of Luke.

There was a lawyer who asked Jesus ‘Master what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ Jesus replies ‘What is written in the Law?’ to which the lawyer replies, ‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your strength, and your neighbour as yourself.’ Jesus replies ‘You are right.’ The lawyer then asks Jesus ‘who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replies with the parable of the Good Samaritan. At the end of the parable Jesus asks which of the three individuals in the parable do you think proved himself a neighbour? ‘The one who took pity on him the lawyer replies’ Jesus then said “Go and do the same yourself. “

When put in context it is obvious the parable is a version of ‘The Golden Rule’, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. It is truly a parable about compassion, humanity, pity and understanding. In no way does this parable condemn or even relate to Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) or euthanasia. It seems a twisted interpretation of the parable given in “Samaritanus Bonus” is the best the Church can do to try and get a biblical justification for their dogma. It is a warped interpretation of the parable that tries to give legitimacy to the church’s stance on Voluntary Assisted Dying. As this is the most recent instruction from Rome on the issue of VAD, the Irish bishops use this weak justification in their submission as the best available church argument.

In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes the god of the Old Testament “Yahweh” as:

arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction as evidenced by the following characteristics; jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

The following quotes from Yahweh, the god of the Old Testament should raise alarm in any right thinking person:

However, you must not let any living thing survive among the cities of these people the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. You must completely destroy them – the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.’ Deut. 20:16-18

Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, infants and nursing babies, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ 1 Sam 15:3

We could also recall the genocide at the time of Noah and the extermination in Sodom and Gomorrah. I emphasise again the church teaches there is but one god. This genocidal guy in the old testament is the same homophobe and misogynist found in the New Testament, and this is the same guy the bishops pray to!

The bishops find it appropriate to consider Voluntary Assisted Dying in the same moral context as suicide. Nothing could be further from the truth, those accessing VAD would, if in the full of their health have no desire to die. This thinking in itself is flawed. Further, even if they could be considered with the same moral judgements, the Bible does not prohibit suicide.

I am aware of five cases of suicide in the Old Testament. They are:

  • Abimelech (Judges 9: 50-57)
  • Samson (Judges 16: 28-31),
  • Saul (1 Samuel 31:1-4) Saul’s armour bearer (1 Samuel 31:5)
  • Ahithophel (2 Samuel 17:23)
  • Zimri (1Kings16:17-19).

Further, in the New Testament there is:

  • the suicide of Judas Iscariot (Matthew 27:3-5).


Accordingly, there is no evidence to sustain any moral condemnation of suicide based on the Bible.

Notably, the bishops do not use the commandment “thou shalt not kill” to dismiss voluntary assisted dying. This is because the commandment “thou shalt not kill” as given to Moses only related to murder within the Israelite tribe. It did not refer to killing outsiders, or gentiles as they referred to them. Yahweh, the god of the old testament, was a war god who helped the Israelites exterminate many races and tribes. According to doctrine there is but one god and these exterminations happened long after Yahweh had given the commandments to Moses.

In reality the ‘Good Samaritan’ parable provides no biblical justification for the stance of Irish bishops against the Dying with Dignity Bill

The bishops make a single reference to another church document called ‘New charter for health care workers’ that will be addressed in a later post in this series.

In the next post I will deal with Compassion, an emotion that is notably missing from the Oireachtas submission by Irish bishops on the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill. The lack of compassion is hardly surprising considering the bishops lack of compassion when it came to divorce and abortion. Thankfully, the twisted thinking of the Irish bishops has been repeatedly rejected by the people of Ireland. We expect the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill will see similar public support regardless of the dogma of a small number of men and their waning following.

⏩ Noel Byrne is a committee member of EOLI. He is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

No Biblical Evidence For Condemnative Stance Of Catholic Church On Dying With Dignity Bill

Noel Byrne ✒ with the first of a proposed series of five articles addresses the influence of Catholic bishops on legislation. 
 
End Of Life Ireland

End of Life Ireland (EOLI) is a volunteer-led group seeking to foster conversation about end-of life issues. This is the first of our opinion pieces, where members of our committee take a close look at the arguments for and against the ‘Dying with Dignity’ Bill. In this series, EOLI committee member Noel Byrne comments on the arguments against the bill as expressed by the bishops of Ireland in their submission to the Oireachtas Committee considering the Bill.

I was delighted to be invited by End of Life Ireland to write this series of blog posts, debunking the myths put forth by Irish bishops in their Oireachtas submission on the Dying with Dignity Bill. The invitation was no doubt extended in full knowledge of my opinions on the Catholic church in Ireland so here it goes!


In the almost one hundred years since the foundation of the state, Irish bishops via the ‘Irish Bishops Conference’ have been a major influence on Irish Society. This influence, particularly up to the 1960’s, went beyond the expected religious domain, stretching into health, education, social welfare, the media and politics. Let us look at their influence to date and consider whether that influence has been for better or for worse.

Early interventions by the church in Irish law include: (1)
  • Censorship of Films Act (1923)
  • Censorship of Publications Act (1929)
  • Legitimacy Act (1930)
  • Vocational Education Act (1930)
  • The Constitution of Ireland Act (1937)
  • Public Health Bill (1945)
  • Health Act (1947)
  • Intoxicating Liquor (Amendment) Bill (1948)
  • Adoption Act (1952)
  • Vital Statistics and Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act (1952)
  • Health Act (1953)
  • Agriculture Act (1958)
  • Intoxicating Liquor Act (1960)
  • Charities Act (1961)
  • Adoption Act (1964)
  • Succession Act (1965)

By their influence the bishops have in our young state managed to ban and censor books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers, songs and films. There was the blanket ban on attending Trinity College, and evidencing the misogyny of the bishops, they supported such diverse persecution of women such as the bans on tampons, contraception and married women in the Civil Service.

In addition, the bishops publicly opposed divorce (in two referenda), civil partnerships and marriage equality, abortion (in two referenda) and the Mother and Child Scheme. They still oppose sex outside marriage and now they oppose the “Dying with Dignity Bill”.

In relation to the various scandals within the church including the sexual abuse scandals, the Magdalene laundries and the Mother and Baby homes, the church, through its bishops, has been more interested in protecting itself and its assets. It was only when forced to do so that it showed any remorse and made paltry efforts at sorrow and recompense.

In light of the negative effects of these laws and scandals over the last century we should question the continued efforts of the Catholic church in Ireland to negatively influence state legislation. Sean O’ Faolain, the great Irish short story writer, commentator and critic said: (2)


Further in the quotation Ó Faoláin refers to the Mother and Child scheme of 1948, which proposed modernising the Irish healthcare system and making it free. This opportunity to put a single tier healthcare system in place was brought down by an archbishop, John Charles McQuaid and we still suffer from the effects of that dogma to this day. As Ó Faoláin wrote:

The Dáil proposes, Maynooth disposes. The Dáil had, when up against the second parliament, only one right of decision: the right to surrender.

Unfortunately, in 2021 the bishops still try to influence morality at state level in this Republic, despite their waning power and their decreasing flock. The bishops have become accustomed to imposing their beliefs on everyone.

In contrast, the Dying with Dignity Bill legislates for choice, offering our citizens choice and freedom at end of life, and does not in any way impose on anyone.


Why should a misogynistic and homophobic clergy be allowed any more to influence state legislation and decisions? The Maynooth Parliament has lost most of its influence, and despite it’s aging flock and waning influence the bishops continue to fight against offering voluntary assisted dying (VAD) as a choice at end of life.

In my next post I will address the flaws in the apparent biblical justification the bishops give for fighting against the Bill. The Vatican use the ‘The Good Samaritan’ parable in a twisted format to justify their stance. As the bishops won’t dissent or disagree with the Vatican they have little option but to use the Vatican viewpoint as their background. The next post will show there is actually no evidence in the Bible condemning suicide in any shape or form.

References

(1) White, J. H,, 1971, Church and State in Modern Ireland 1923-1970

(2) lanshard, Paul, 1954. The Irish and Catholic Power. 

⏩ Noel Byrne is a committee member of EOLI. He is a retired Civil Servant and a Humanist, with a principal interest in Philosophy, and a particular interest in Ethics and Morality.

Questioning Irish Bishops Influence On State Legislation @ Part 1

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)