Lhe debate on the end of life comes up regularly in the news and will come back as long as society has not resolved the dilemma: should it defend life at all costs or authorize in certain circumstances the priority of the fight against suffering? What should be its priority? A deep dilemma that leads to the permanent clash between two fiercely opposed camps.
The defense of life as absolute is often linked to the recognition of a divine presence that manages the beginning and the end of human history. All monotheistic religions share, for once, the same analysis: God is master of life. He gives it and he alone can take it back. With a note of submission in Judaism, of fatality in Islam, and even of redemption in Christianity. These religions recognize the human value of fighting against suffering, but on condition that this fight does not oppose the divine plan.
intolerable existence
Conversely, for those who do not believe in a supreme deity or who believe in an unpersonalized mystery, the answer is otherwise. If they respect nature in what it brings positively to man, they oppose its misdeeds, and defend the principle that the fight against suffering can, in certain circumstances, supplant the maintenance of life. And to achieve this goal, they seek the help of medicine.
These two equally respectable points of view are, in certain circumstances, difficult to reconcile. Fortunately, more often than not, medicine, by combating disease, simultaneously prolongs life and combats suffering. This result is called healing. But it sometimes happens that the disease definitely takes over, becomes a source of physical or psychological suffering that makes life intolerable.
Medicine then proves incapable of satisfying these two human desires: to live and not to suffer. Who should prevail, and in the name of what values? Is it a matter of dignity, as some claim? Not sure. Each side can find dignity in defending its position: dignity in the humble acceptance of its lot and in its submission to God. Or, conversely, dignity in the refusal of useless suffering responsible for the decay of the body. In other words, refusal to see disappear what makes the salt of life.
The ultimate question
Are these two points of view reconcilable? Can we expect a consensus? It is unlikely, as the official positions are so opposed. But is consensus necessary? Couldn’t it be based simply on respect for the freedom of the other? Transform this debate on dignity into a debate on freedom? That everyone can choose according to their convictions, and do not impose their point of view on the other, especially when it comes to the ultimate question that human beings must ask themselves, one of the most complex to which he must answer.
You have 16.28% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.