Catholics could assent to ‘imperfect’ assisted suicide law to prevent more permissive legislation

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

Archbishop Renzo Pegoraro, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has said Catholics could consider giving their moral assent to an Italian law permitting assisted suicide if it prevented the adoption of more permissive legislation.

Speaking to the Italian bishops’ newspaper Avvenire on September 6, Archbishop Pegoraro said Catholics could face an “imperfect law” that might nevertheless warrant assent if the alternative were legislation “far more detrimental to the dignity of the sick and the value of life”.

“From the Catholic side, in short, it is a question of assessing whether we are dealing with an ‘imperfect law,’ to which it would be moral to give our assent, given that more permissive and libertarian laws, far more detrimental to the dignity of the sick and the value of life, could be readily approved in Parliament,” he said.

The comments came after the Veneto regional council approved legislation regulating assisted suicide in the region. Archbishop Pegoraro, who was born in Padua and studied in Veneto, said more time should have been taken before the measure was passed and that local organisations working with sick people and maintaining the palliative care network should have been consulted.

“In Italy, the crime of assisted suicide exists, a crime never eliminated from the Criminal Code,” Archbishop Pegoraro said. He added that in certain “specific and limited situations” the offence had been decriminalised by Constitutional Court ruling 242/19, which he said called for national legislative action.

Archbishop Pegoraro said the ruling meant the regions had to regulate a procedure, but argued that the matter should ultimately be dealt with nationally. “I believe, however, that in the Veneto case, even more time should have been taken and the many local organizations serving the sick and ensuring the proper functioning of the palliative care network should have been listened to,” he said. “Haste is never a good counselor, especially when addressing a law that affects the very meaning of life.”

He said members of the regional council who supported the legislation had sought to reflect the views of constituents who, when faced with severe and disabling illness, might say that they “would rather die”.

Archbishop Pegoraro argued that the response should not be to accept such a request without first examining its causes. “We must have the courage and patience to talk about this, to inform, to educate people about respect for the value of life, and the role of medicine in the treatment of disability,” he said. “A society that remains silent, unable or unwilling to speak up and address this issue, is doomed to sad and harmful euthanasia.”

Archbishop Pegoraro nevertheless identified what he regarded as a positive element of the Veneto law: the obligation on public authorities to provide palliative care and psychological support, together with information about organisations whose statutory objectives include protecting life.

If properly implemented and accepted, he said, such provisions could help people seeking assisted suicide choose instead to continue living. Archbishop Pegoraro also referred to cases in Veneto in which people who had requested assisted suicide subsequently decided to continue facing their illness after discussions, palliative care and detailed information about what could be provided by the National Health Service.

Such cases, he said, demonstrated the importance of ensuring that people are not left alone when confronting serious illness. The Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Francesco Moraglia, had written that the Veneto legislation had damaged and limited a particular “model of human closeness”. Archbishop Pegoraro said that, for Christians, this model was rooted in the compassion of the Good Samaritan: approaching those who suffer, remaining with them, listening to their questions and taking responsibility for alleviating pain while sustaining the meaning of life until its final stage.

The Archbishop said society therefore needed to establish “channels of understanding and attentive dialogue” capable of addressing the reasons behind requests for assisted suicide and offering practical support to patients and their families.

Asked whether assisted suicide could alter the understanding of medicine itself, Archbishop Pegoraro rejected the idea that medicine could properly become an instrument for causing death. “No vision of medical science can ever contemplate it as a science at the service of death,” he said.

He distinguished assisted suicide from decisions to allow a person to die naturally, including the refusal or withdrawal of unnecessary or disproportionate treatment. Patients, he said, could already refuse or suspend treatment, while deep sedation could be offered when necessary. Archbishop Pegoraro also raised the question of what constitutes “natural death” in an age in which medical technology can extend life far beyond what was possible in previous generations.
https://advaticanum.com/article/vatican ... gislation/

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

This is comparable to the question of whether it would be acceptable to vote for a law that restricted abortion but did not prohibit it entirely.

[Highlander]

As promised, abortion is safe,legal, and rare. Isn't it?

[p.falk]

Archbishop Renzo Pegoraro, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has said Catholics could consider giving their moral assent to an Italian law permitting assisted suicide if it prevented the adoption of more permissive legislation.

Prevented for how long? Forever? Or just until the next time the issue arises and those same people desire to gain more ground in hopes of pushing "more permissive legislation".

[Riverboat]

So, like sacrificing children to Moloch to prevent natural catastrophes, right?

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

To give more context to my statement: The question was whether an legislator could vote for a law that tightened abortion restrictions without forbidding it entirely.