A number of news outlets have picked up the story that Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has appeared to lend his support the legal toleration of assisted suicide. The story is based on a speech he gave during the International Journalism Festival in Perugia.
In a laterclarification, the Archbishop stated that he “reaffirms his ‘No’ to euthanasia and assisted suicide”. He also emphasised that, in the Italian law being debated, assisting suicide would remain a crime. It is just that in certain circumstances this crime would not be penalised. The Archbishop thus expressed the view that assisted suicide and euthanasia were not only immoral but also were, and should remain, criminal. At the same time, the Archbishop expressed openness to a regime of selective non-prosecution of assisted suicide in certain circumstances, calling this a legal compromise (una mediazione giuridica).
In this context we might consider the Suicide Act 1961 which applies in England and Wales. This requires that “no proceedings shall be instituted for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions”. Thus, the law in England and Wales acknowledges that the crime of assisting suicide is one that should not always be prosecuted. On the other hand, there is an important difference between the English and Welsh after-the-fact discretion and the proposed Italian before-the-fact exception. The law in the United Kingdom has not led to the normalising of assisted suicide, whereas there is a real danger of this happening in Italy.
It is also important to note the current legal situation in Italy. In 2019, the Italian Constitutional Court declared that in certain specific circumstances the prohibition of assisted suicide was unconstitutional (Decision 242/2019). This was a very poor judgement from an ethical or philosophical point of view. It overstated the value of autonomy and understated the duties of human solidarity and public safety. However, it is the highest court in Italy and so politicians are now under great pressure to bring forward new legislation and are limited in what the law can contain. In this context, the theologian Fr Carlo Casalone SJ has arguedthat politicians should vote for a more restrictive assisted suicide law in order to avoid the risks of a much wider law. It is this argument that seems to have influenced Archbishop Paglia.
Even in relation to Italy I think that Fr Casalone SJ and others underestimate the dangers of normalising assisted suicide. It may be that the Constitutional Court decision has blown a hole in the current law and it is natural to think that putting in place legal safeguards will offer better protection. The problem is that safeguards are often disregarded or weakened over time, while they serve to make the practice appear safe, normal or acceptable. Ineffective safeguards can be worse than none at all. I can understand the concern that Italy could become like Switzerland, where there is no statute law and assisted suicide is provided by private organisations with little legal oversight. However, to my mind, proposals that assisted suicide be restricted to the NHS (which are supported by more conservative lawmakers in Italy) are more dangerous. If assisted suicide is delivered by the health service this will corrupt the health service and assisted suicide will increasingly be framed as essential healthcare. This is already happening in Canada. In my view it is better to have no law, or if this is not possible, then not to specify that doctors or the health service are involved (as has been the approach in Austria). Suicide is not healthcare.
The biggest problem for those outside Italy who heard about this speech is that few were aware of the current legal constraints in Italy. It simply appeared that a Catholic Archbishop was advocating the acceptance of legal toleration of assisted suicide, and this appeared scandalous. It seemed to go against the repeated teaching of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. It seemed to contradict the recent document on the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, signed by Pope Francis:Samaritanus Bonus. Archbishop Paglia, in response to expressions of concern from around the world, has stated clearly that in all that he said he had intended to remain “in full conformity with the Church’s Magisterium”. However, he should have given more thought to the effect of his speech in a global context, not only in an Italian one. Careless talk costs lives.
From the perspective of someone in a country where this issue still hangs in the balance, the words of his speech have been extremely unhelpful. They have given the false impression that a change in the law is inevitable and that the Church will eventually come to accept it. This undermines the important truth that legalising assisted suicide is an ethical and a political choice and that, in most countries, we have the power to accept or to reject. For the sake of solidarity and public safety we must continue to reject it and to say with clarity that every suicide, whether assisted or unassisted, is a tragedy.
Professor David Albert Jones is Director of the Anscombe Centre and is also a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life. The views expressed in this article are his own.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.