M. Scott Peck - Denial of the Soul: Spiritual and Medical Perspectives in Euthanasia and Mortality

PART I

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

PART II

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

PART III

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

T his is an age where every possible issue seems to be coming out of the closet, which, I suspect, is generally to the good. One such issue is the topic of euthanasia. I have no desire to see it thrust back into the closet. I believe it a proper matter for public debate. Currently, however, the debate strikes me as strangely skewed, incomplete, and, in some quarters, passionless. This book is an attempt to rectify the situationnot to dampen the debate but to enlarge it and heat it up.

My motivation for the attempt is a sense of alarm that the subject of euthanasia is not being given the importance it deserves, almost as if it is being lost among the myriad of other issues that have come out of the closet or been on the table for some time. The issue of euthanasia may be more critical than all the others. Indeed, it is possible we may need to reach a national consensus about it before all the other issues can be more satisfactorily resolved.

Of course weve always known about the existence of euthanasia. Just because it was in the closet doesnt mean that we had no awareness of it, only that we didnt want to bring it into the living room for serious discussion.

In 1950, when I was fourteen, I began to think seriously about death. It occurred to me that perhaps the most important thing about my existence was that it was limited. Along with everybody else, I was going to die. Thinking for myself as well as others, it seemed to me that if someone was clearly dying there was no reason for that person not to hasten the process, if she or he so desired, to avoid the unpleasantness involved. I knew perfectly well what the word euthanasia meant, and I believed in it. I was very rational back in those days.

A generation later, in 1975, a very prominent American theologian, Dr. Henry Van Dusen, and his wife executed a suicide pact together in their New York City apartment, leaving behind them a most rational and public letter explaining that they were motivated by their desire to avoid the inconveniences of old age and natural death. I found myself mildly shocked. Had a more ordinary elderly couple made a suicide pact for the same reasons I wouldnt have been in the least surprised. But because Dr. Van Dusen had been a famous religious leader I was disquieted. Somehow it seemed that religion or spirituality was an aspect of the euthanasia issue, although I had no idea at the time of the nature of that aspect.

Since then, however, I have had enough life experience, including professional experience in medicine, psychiatry, and theology, to believe I can sufficiently understand the complexities of euthanasia so as to be able to make a clarifying contribution to its debate.

The current debate over euthanasia is often simplistic. That is hardly surprising, since the process of debate is usually construed as a win-or-lose activity in which one party will eventually be declared right and the other wrong. It is also not surprising, since even the well educated tend to think simplistically about all manner of issues ranging from abortion and homosexuality to war and the right diet. But we do not live in a black-and-white world, and for some years I have been engaged in a crusade against simplistic, one-dimensional thinking.

The subject of euthanasia is complex. We dont even have a generally agreed-upon definition of the word. Is euthanasia solely an act committed by someonea physician or family memberon someone else who is ill or dying? Or can the term also be used for someone who is ill or dying who kills himself without the assistance of another? Does euthanasia require the patients consent? The familys consent? Is it separable from other forms of suicide and homicide? How does it differ from simply pulling the plug? If one type of euthanasia consists of refraining from the use of heroic measures to prolong life, how does one distinguish between those measures that are heroic and those that are standard treatment? What is the relationship between euthanasia and pain? Is there a distinction to be made between physical pain and emotional pain? How does one assess degrees of suffering? Above all, why are ethical issues involved, and what might they be?