COMPASSIONATE LAW, LAWFUL COMPASSION?

One more extraordinary decision was made in a law court recently. A woman suffering from an illness which cannot be cured and will become progressively worse wanted to make sure that if she decided to end her life her loving husband would not be prosecuted for helping her  to do that..  This is a heart breaking situation that commands all the sympathy, and uderstanding we can express. A heart breaking situation  and a  reminder that we have the duty and the privilege of easing our human burdens and making our laws minister to  that easement.

It was  an extraordinary decision because there must be few if any – are there any ?- laws penalising people for helping someone to do something that is legal. Of course lawmakers  understand that when you make – or unmake – one law you may have to make  – or unmake – other laws to deal with the consequences of what you have done.  The law which made it illegal to help a person taking his or her own life while in distress was made when   attempting to end one’s own life was illegal. One could see the meaning of that. But when it was no longer an illegal act , must  it be illegal to help ? One could see the meaning of  that as well, but one could see inconsistency too. Judges can say there is no constitutional or other right for anyone  to take his or her own life and this is true – there is a difference between saying an action  is without harm to others and not punishable, and saying a right is conferred to do it. There are many things we disapprove of or are regretful about  and  they are not punishable by law. Some people then are afraid that if you allow active help to someone in distress who wants to end life then you open the way to abuse  both of  law and of helpless people. All that adds to the sorrow and fear which is terrible enough in a grieving family. We would never want to add to that.

Lawmakers are facing a problem also in the laws about abortion. Making something acceptable or at least non-punishable by law always creates worry about abuse of law and of people. That is one of the many problems  of the human condition which we as rational and sympathetic beings have a duty –  a privilege – of solving. That is what  creating a dignified and potentially happy human life is about and it is difficult and cannot be done without  fellow feeling, compassion, realising another person’s pain so acutely that you suffer with them .

We have removed what  used to be called the “stigma” of taking away our own life . And we remember that there have been times in history when ending one’s own life for the sake of others – not losing it but actively ending it – has been publicly called heroic, although we never admitted that it could be other than an exception to the most stringent of human or superhuman rules.

The present state of law  regarding the awful dilemma of a grieving husband and a suffering wife seems to be that there are times when  grief and suffering will dictate certain irresistible measures and those who take them will have to put themselves at the mercy of the courts in the hope that , as the founder of the Christian philosophy of life said , sympathy and compassion will govern law and not the other way about.