INTRODUCTION

THE rights and values pertaining to the human person occupy an important place among the questions discussed today. In this regard, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council solemnly reaffirmed the lofty dignity of the human person, and in a special way his or her right to life. The Council therefore condemned crimes against life “such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful suicide” (Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 27).

Iura et bona quae humanae personae inhaerent, magnum obtinent momentum in quaestionibus quae apud nostrae aetatis homines agitantur. Ad rem quod attinet, Concilium Oecume­nicum Vaticanum II praecellentem personae humanae digni­tatem, peculiarique modo ius ipsius ad vitam, sollemniter confirmavit. Quapropter idem Concilium denuntiavit crimina contra vitam, quorum in numero ponuntur « cuiusvis generis homicidia, genocidia, abortus, euthanasia et ipsum voluntarium suicidium » (Constitutio pastoralis Gaudium et Spes, n. 27).

      More recently, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has reminded all the faithful of Catholic teaching on procured abortion.^[1] The Congregation now considers it opportune to set forth the Church’s teaching on euthanasia.

Recentiore tempore S. Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei in omnium Christifidelium mentem doctrinam de abortu procu­rato revocavit.l Nunc vero eadem S. Congregatio opportunum ducit Ecclesiae doctrinam de euthanasia proponere.

It is indeed true that, in this sphere of teaching, the recent Popes have explained the principles, and these retain their full force ^[2]; but the progress of medical science in recent years has brought to the fore new aspects of the question of euthanasia, and these aspects call for further elucidation on the ethical level.

Verum quidem est, hoc in doctrines campo, ultimos Ponti­. fices ‘- principia exposuisse, quae vim suam integre servant; at rnodicae artis progressus effecerunt ut in quaestione de eutha­nasia hisce ultimis annis novi aspectus in medium proferren­tur; qui quidem aspectus postulant ut novis dilucidationibus proponantur, ad ethicas normas quod attinet.

      IN modern society, in which even the fundamental values of human life are often called into question, cultural change exercises an influence upon the way of looking at suffering and death; moreover, medicine has increased its capacity to cure and to prolong life in particular circumstances, which sometime give rise to moral problems.

In hominum societate, quae hodie est, cum saepe in discri­men vocentur ipsa fundamentalia vitae humanae bona, fit ut mutatio civilis culturae vim habeat in ipsam rationem mortem et dolorem aestimandi; animadvertendum etiam est auctam esse medicae artis virtutem sanandi vitamque prorogandi qui­busdam datis condicionibus, quae quidem interdum nonnullas de re morali quaestiones gignunt.

      Thus people living in this situation experience no little anxiety about the meaning of advanced old age and death. They also begin to wonder whether they have the right to obtain for themselves or their fellowmen an “easy death,” which would shorten suffering and which seems to them more in harmony with human dignity.

Itaque homines, qui in tali rerum statu versantur, anxii sibi interrogationes ponunt de extremae senectutis et mortis significatione. Ac proinde con­sentaneum est, ut iidem quaestionem sibi ponant an ius habeant sibi vel suis procurandi « dulcem mortem », quae bre­viores dolores reddere possit, quaeque ipsis videtur hominis dignitati magis respondere.

      A number of Episcopal Conferences have raised questions on this subject with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Congregation, having sought the opinion of experts on the various aspects of euthanasia, now wishes to respond to the Bishops’ questions with the present Declaration, in order to help them to give correct teaching to the faithful entrusted to their care, and to offer them elements for reflection that they can present to the civil authorities with regard to this very serious matter.

Qua de re plures Conferentiae Episcopales Sacrae Congre­gationi pro Doctrina Fidei quaestiones proposuerunt. Nunc autem haec Sacra Congregatio, postquam circa varios eutha­nasiae aspectus peritorum sententiam iam quaesivit, in animo habet hac Declaratione episcoporum petitionibus respondere, quo.ipsi facilius fideles sibi creditos recte docere possint, idque habeant unde ad gravissimam hanc causam publicae rei mo­deratoribus considerationis elementa praebeant.

      The considerations set forth in the present document concern in the first place all those who place their faith and hope in Christ, who, through His life, death and resurrection, has given a new meaning to existence and especially to the death of the Christian, as St. Paul says: “If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord” (Rom. 14:8; cf. Phil. 1:20).

Argumenta hoc in documento proposita ad eos in primis spectant, qui fidem et spem suam reponunt in Christo, e cuius vita, morte et resurrectione christianorum vita ac mors prae­sertim novam significationem acceperunt, iuxta S. Pauli verba « Sive enim vivimus, Domino vivimus, sive morimur, Domino morimur. Sive ergo vivimus sive morimur, Domini sumus » (Rom 14, 8; cf. Phil 1, 20).

As for those who profess other religions, many will agree with us that faith in God the Creator, Provider and Lord of life - if they share this belief - confers a lofty dignity upon every human person and guarantees respect for him or her.

Ad eos autem quod attinet, qui alias religiones profitentur, horum plerique nobiscum in id profecto consentient, quod sci­licet fides in Deum Creatorem, Providentem et vitae Dominum - si quidem eam ipsi participent - unicuique personae hu­manae praecellentem dignitatem tribuit, eiusque reverentiam tuetur.

      It is hoped that this Declaration will meet with the approval of many people of good will, who, philosophical or ideological differences notwithstanding, have nevertheless a lively awareness of the rights of the human person. These rights have often, in fact, been proclaimed in recent years through declarations issued by International Congresses^[3]; and since it is a question here of fundamental rights inherent in every human person, it is obviously wrong to have recourse to arguments from political pluralism or religious freedom in order to deny the universal value of those rights.

Sperandum est hanc Declarationem consensum adipisci pos­se etiam hominum bonae voluntatis, qui etsi philosophicae doc­trinae vel ideologiae diversitate inter se discrepant, nihilo­minus de iuribus personae humanae vivam conscientiam fe­runt. Haec ipsa iura, alioquin, recentiorum annorum decursu, saepe proclamata sunt per declarationes Conventuum Inter­nationalium; ³ cum autem hic agatur de iuribus fundamenta­libus cuiusvis humanae personae propriis, patet fas non esse argumentis inniti ductis a pluralismo politico vel a libertate religiosa, ut eorundem iurium vis universalis denegetur.

I.  THE VALUE of HUMAN LIFE

I VITAE HUMANAE VALOR

HUMAN life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of every human activity and of all society. Most people regard life as something sacred and hold that no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life something greater, namely, a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful. And it is this latter consideration that gives rise to the following consequences:

Vita humana est fundamentum omnium bonorum itemque necessarius fons et condicio cuiusvis activitatis humanae nec­non consortionis socialis. Quod si maxima pars hominum vi­tam aestimant rem sacram esse, et fatentur neminem eadem libere uti posse, christifideles tamen in ea quiddam praestan­tius cernere valent, donum scilicet amoris Dei, quod conser­vare fructuosumque reddere debent. Qua ex altera conside­ratione haec consectaria sequuntur

1. NO ONE can make an attempt on the life of an innocent person without opposing God’s love for that person, without violating a fundamental right, and therefore without committing a crime of the utmost gravity.^[4]

1. Nemini attentare licet vitam alicuius hominis inno­centis, quin sese opponat amori Dei erga ipsum, quip funda­mentale ius violet, quod nec amitti nec alienari potest, ac proin­de quin summae gravitatis crimen committat.°

2. EVERYONE has the duty to lead his or her life in accordance with God’s plan. That life is entrusted to the individual as a good that must bear fruit already here on earth, but that finds its full perfection only in eternal life.

2. Omnis homo vitam secundum Dei consilium agere debet. Ea ipsi committitur tamquam bonum quod iam hisce in terris fructus facere oportet, sed cuius plena et absoluta perfec­tio in aeterna vita exspectanda erit.

as a rejection of God’s sovereignty and loving plan.

reiectio supremae Dei potestatis eiusque amoris consilii.

Furthermore, suicide is also often a refusal of love for self, the denial of a natural instinct to live,

Suicidium, praeterea, saepe est etiam recusatio amoris erga seipsum,

the denial of a natural instinct to live,

negatio naturalis instinctus vivendi, f

a flight from the duties of justice and charity owed to one’s neighbor, to various communities or to the whole of society

fuga a iustitiae et caritatis offi­ciis quae debentur sive proximis, sive variis communitatibus, sive consortioni hominum universae

- although, as is generally recognized, at times there are psychological factors present that can diminish responsibility or even completely remove it.

 - quamvis interdum, ut omnes norunt, animi status contingant quae culpam minuere aut etiam plene auferre possint.

HOWEVER, one must clearly distinguish suicide from that sacrifice of one’s life whereby for a higher cause, such as God’s glory, the salvation of souls or the service of one’s brethren, a person offers his or her own life or puts it in danger (cf. Jn. 15:14).

A suicidio tamen plane distinguendum est illud vitae sa­crificium, quo quis ob excelsam causam - cuiusmodi est Dei honor, salus animarum, vel servitium pro fratribus - vitam suam profundit aut in discrimen adducit (cf. Io 15, 14).

 II.  EUTHANASIA

II EUTHANASIA

      In order that the question of euthanasia can be properly dealt with, it is first necessary to define the words used. Etymologically speaking, in ancient times Euthanasia meant an easy death without severe suffering. Today one no longer thinks of this original meaning of the word, but rather of some intervention of medicine whereby the suffering of sickness or of the final agony are reduced, sometimes also with the danger of suppressing life prematurely.

Ut autem quaestio de euthanasia rite tractetur, expedit in primis vocabulorum significationem accurate explicare.

Etymologia spectata, euthanasia apud antiquos placidam mortem significabat acerbis doloribus vacuam. Hodie amplius non attenditur ad hanc originariam vocis significationem, sed potius ad quendam medicae artis interventum, quo dolores infirmitatis vel supremi vitae agonis imminuuntur, interdum etiam cum periculo vitam praemature auferendi.

      Ultimately, the word Euthanasia is used in a more particular sense to mean “mercy killing,” for the purpose of putting an end to extreme suffering, or having abnormal babies, the mentally ill or the incurably sick from the prolongation, perhaps for many years of a miserable life, which could impose too heavy a burden on their families or on society.

Denique hoc verbum strictiore sensu accipitur, ita ut eius vis et notio sit mortem inferre miserationis causa, eo quidem proposito, ut extremi dolores radicitus tollantur, vel ut pueris abnormibus, aegrotis insanabilibus aut mente captis evitetur infelicis vitae prorogatio, fortasse ad plures annos, quae nimium grave onu familiis vel societati imponere possit.

      IT is, therefore, necessary to state clearly in what sense the word is used in the present document. By euthanasia is understood an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.

Necessarium igitur est ut plane pateat, quae notio huic voc in praesenti documento tribuatur. Nomine euthanasiae significatur actio vel omissio quae suapto natura vel consilio mentis mortem affert, ut hoc modo omni, ^,dolor removeatur.

      Euthanasia’s terms of reference, therefore, are to be found in the intention of the will and in the methods used.

Euthanasia igitur in voluntatis proposito et in procedendi rationibus, quae adhibentur, continetur.

   IT is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action. For it is a question of the violation of the divine law, an offense against the dignity of the human person, a crime against life, and an attack on humanity.

Iamvero, denuo firmiter declarandum est neminem nihil­que ullo modo sinere posse ut vivens humanum innocens occi­datur, sive sit fetus vel embryon, sive infans vel adultus, sive senex, sive morbo insanabili affectus, sive in mortis agone constitutus. Praeterea nemini licet mortiferam hanc ,actionem petere sibi aut alii, qui sit ipsius responsabilitati commissus, immo in eadem ne consentire quidem potest expli^,cite vel implicite. Nec auctoritas ulla potest eam legitime iniun­gere vel permittere. Agitur enim de legis divinae violatione, de offensione dignitatis personae humanae, de crimine contra vitam, de facinore in hominum genus.

REQUESTS for EUTHANASIA
are often PLEAS for HELP

      It may happen that, by reason of prolonged and barely tolerable pain, for deeply personal or other reasons, people may be led to believe that they can legitimately ask for death or obtain it for others. Although in these cases the guilt of the individual may be reduced or completely absent, nevertheless the error of judgment into which the conscience falls, perhaps in good faith, does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected. The pleas of gravely ill people who sometimes ask for death are not to be understood as implying a true desire for euthanasia; in fact, it is almost always a case of an anguished plea for help and love. What a sick person needs, besides medical care, is love, the human and supernatural warmth with which the sick person can and ought to be surrounded by all those close to him or her, parents and children, doctors and nurses.

Fieri potest ut ob diuturnos ac vix tolerandos dolores, ob rationes in animi affectibus innixas, vel ob alterius generis cau­sas, aliqui ad persuasionem adducantur se legitime posse mor­tem sibi petere aut aliis afferre. Quamquam hisce in casibus hominis culpa imminui aut omnino deesse potest, nihilominus error iudicii in quem conscientia, bona fide fortasse, incidit, naturam huius actus mortiferi non mutat, qui per se repudian­dus semper erit. Gravissime aegrotantium implorationes, quan­doque mortem invocantium, haud intelligendae sunt quasi veram euthanasiae voluntatem significent; etenim fere semper agitur de anxiis invocationibus auxilii et amoris. Praeter medi­cas curas, id quo aegrotus indiget, est amor, est fervidus animi affectus humanus et supernaturalis, quo proximi omnes, pa rentes et filii, medici et aegrotorum ministri eum complecti possunt ac debent.

III.  THE MEANING of SUFFERING
 for CHRISTIANS
AND THE USE of PAINKILLERS

III DOLORIS SIGNIFICATIO APUD CHRISTIANOS
ET ANALGESICORUM REMEDIORUM USUS

DEATH does not always come in dramatic circumstances after barely tolerable sufferings. Nor do we have to think only of extreme cases. Numerous testimonies which confirm one another lead one to the conclusion that nature itself has made provision to render more bearable at the moment of death separations that would be terribly painful to a person in full health.

Non semper mors advenit in miserabilibus condicionibus post vix tolerandorum dolorum cruciatum. Neque necesse est ut casus omnino singulares prae oculis habeamus. Plura enim eaque concordia testimonia opinari iubent naturam ipsam con­suluisse, ut leviores redderentur separationes illae in morte faciendae, quae si homini acciderent optima utenti valetudine, ,acerbae praeter modum ipsi evaderent.

Hence it is that a prolonged illness, advanced old age, or a state of loneliness or neglect can bring about psychological conditions that facilitate the acceptance of death.

Quo fit ut morbi diu­turnitas, provecta senectus, solitudinis ac derelictionis status eiusmodi inducant psychologicas condiciones, quae acceptio­nem mortis faciliorem efficiant.

      Nevertheless the fact remains that death, often preceded or accompanied by severe and prolonged suffering, is something which naturally causes people anguish.

Nihilominus fatendum est mortem, quam saepe acerbi diu­turnique dolores praecedunt aut comitantur, eventum exstare, qui naturaliter hominis animum angore afficit.

Physical suffering is certainly an unavoidable element of the human condition; on the biological level, it constitutes a warning of which no one denies the usefulness; but, since it affects the human psychological makeup, it often exceeds its own biological usefulness and so can become so severe as to cause the desire to remove it at any cost.

Corporis dolor certe condicionis humanae pars est, quae vitari non potest; ratione biologica spectata, is monitum prae­bet, cuius utilitas est indubia : at, cum psychologicam hominis vitam attingat, eius vis saepe biologicam utilitatem superat atque adeo augere potest, ut optabilis sit eius amotio, quoquo pacto obtinenda.

      According to Christian teaching, however, suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which He offered in obedience to the Father’s will. Therefore, one must not be surprised if some Christians prefer to moderate their use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (cf. Mt. 27:34).

Secundum christianam doctrinam, tamen, dolor praesertim in extremis vitae momentis, propriurn obtinet locum in sal­vifico Dei consilio; is enim est participatio passionis Christi et coniunctio cum redemptionis sacrificio, quod Ipse obtulit voluntati Patris obtemperans. Quare mirum non est si christia­ni quidam cupiunt modice uti anaestheticis medicamentis, ita ut partem saltem dolorum suorum voluntarie assumentes, per cos conscio modo cum doloribus Christi cruci affixi sese con­iungere valeant (cf. Mt 27, 34).

Papaver somniferum                Anesthetic Surgery

Ether inhaler

Nevertheless it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause as a secondary effect semiconsciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor’s advice.

Nihilominus a prudentia alie­num est heroicam quandam agendi rationem tanquam gene­ralem normam imponere. E contrario humana et christiana prudentia pro pluribus aegrotis suadet usum eorum medica­mentorum quae apta sint ad leniendum vel auferendum dolo­rem, etiamsi inde, ut secundarii effectus, torpor et imminuta animi conscientia consequantur.

Quod autem ad eos attinet quibus deest facultas sensa sua exprimendi, recte praesumi potest ipsos velle haec doloris leni­menta sumere, eademque sibi ministrari secundum medico­rum consilia.

      But the intensive use of painkillers is not without difficulties, because the phenomenon of habituation generally makes it necessary to increase their dosage in order to maintain their efficacy.

At intensivus analgesicorum remediorum usus difficulta­tibus non caret, quia ad eorum efficaciam servandam, ob assue­tudinis phaenomenon, communiter portio sumenda augeri de bet.

      At this point it is fitting to recall a declaration by Pius XII, which retains its full force; in answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: “Is the suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics ... permitted by religion and morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that the use of narcotics will shorten life)?”

Iuvat hic commemorare quandam Pii XII declarationem, quae adhnc integram vim suam retinet. Medicorum coetui, qui hanc quaestionem proposuerant : « Doloris et conscientiae su­blatio ope narcoticorum medicamentorum [...] iuxta religionem et disciplinae moralis normas potestne permitti medico et aegroto (etiamsi mors immineat atque horum medicamento­rum usus praevideatur breviaturus esse vitam) ? )>,

the Pope said: “If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties: Yes.”^[5] In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken; the intention is simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose painkillers available to medicine.

Pontifex respondit : « Si alia subsidia desunt, et si in hisce rerum adiunc­tis id minime impedit quominus alia religiosa et moralia officia impleantur : licet u.⁵ Quo in casu, uti patet, mors nullo modo est animo intenta aut quaesita, etsi rationabili de causa in eius periculum incurritur; id tantummodo in propositis fuit, ut dolores efficaciter lenirentur, adhibitis ad id analgesicis reme­diis, quae medicae arti praesto sunt.

      However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or she also has to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus Pius XII warns: “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious reason.” ^[6]

Attamen analgesica medicamenta, quibus aegroti sui con­scientiam amittunt, peculiari considerations digna sunt. Mul­tum interest, enim, homines posse non solum moralibus prae­ceptis et officiis erga familiares satisfacere, verum etiam ac praesertim plene sibi conscios ad occursum Christi rite animum disponere. Pius XII idcirco admonet « fas non esse morientem sine gravi causa sui conscientia privari » .⁶

IV.  DUE PROPORTION
in the USE of REMEDIES

IV PROPORTIO SERVANDA IN REMEDIORUM
THERAPEUTICORUM USU

TODAY it is very important to protect, at the moment of death, both the dignity of the human person and the Christian concept of life, against a technological attitude that threatens to become an abuse. Thus some people speak of a “right to die,” which is an expression that does not mean the right to procure death either by one’s own hand or by means of someone else, as one pleases, but rather the right to die peacefully with human and Christian dignity.

Nostris temporibus magni refert, mortis momento, personae humanae dignitatem et christianam vitae significationem ser­vari, cavendo a quadam « technicitate », uti aiunt, quae peri­culum abusus secumfert. Ac revera sunt qui loquuntur de « iure ad mortem », qua quidem dictione non intelligitur ius alicuius ad mortem sibi consciscendam per se vel per alium, quemadmodum ipsi placet, sed ius moriendi omni cum tran­quillitate, humana et christiana dignitate servata. Si res ita consideretur, artis therapeuticae usus interdum nonnullas quaestiones afferre potest.

      From this point of view, the use of therapeutic means can sometimes pose problems. In numerous cases, the complexity of the situation can be such as to cause doubts about the way ethical principles should be applied. In the final analysis, it pertains to the conscience either of the sick person, or of those qualified to speak in the sick person’s name, or of the doctors, to decide, in the light of moral obligations and of the various aspects of the case.

Pluribus in casibus fieri potest ut rerum status adeo im­plexus sit, ut dubitationes oriantur de modo, quo doctrinae moralis principia in rem traduci oporteat. Decisiones capien­dae ad conscientiae iudicium tandem pertinent sive aegroti vel eorum qui legitime ipsius nomine agunt, sive etiam medi­corum qui omnes prae oculis habere debent tum disciplinae moralis praecepta tum multiplices casus aspectus.

ORDINARY / EXTRAORDINARY: 
PROPORTIONATE / DISPROPORTIONATE MEANS

  EVERYONE has the duty to care for his or he own health or to seek such care from others. Those whose task it is to care for the sick must do so conscientiously and administer the remedies that seem necessary or useful. 

Uniuscuiusque officium est consulere valetudini suae et effi­cere ut sibi curationes ministrentur. Ii autem quibus infirmo­rum cura concredita est, omni cum diligentia operam suam praestare debent ac remedia praebere, quae necessaria vel utilia videantur.

However, is it necessary in all circumstances to have recourse to all possible remedies?

Suntne igitur in omnibus rerum adiunctis cuncta prorsus remedia experienda ?

      In the past, moralists replied that one is never obliged to use “extraordinary” means. This reply, which as a principle still holds good, is perhaps less clear today, by reason of the imprecision of the term and the rapid progress made in the treatment of sickness. Thus some people prefer to speak of “proportionate” and “disproportionate” means. In any case, it will be possible to make a correct judgment as to the means by studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources.

Haud multo ante moralis disciplinae cultores respondebant usum mediorum « extraordinariorum „ numquam praecipi posse. Huiusmodi responsio, quae, ut principium, semper valet, hodie fortasse minus perspicua apparet sive ob parum defini­tum dicendi modum, sive etiam ob celeres progressus, qui in re therapeutica facti sunt. Hinc est quod quibusdam potius placet loqui de mediis , proportionatis » et « non proportio­natis ». Utcumque res se habet, recta mediorum aestimatio fieri poterit, si artis therapeuticae genus, eiusque difficultatum et periculorum gradus ac sumptus necessarii necnon possibilitas eodem utendi, cum effectibus, quos exspectare licet, comparen­tur, debita ratione habita tum status aegroti tum ipsius corporis et animi virium. 

      In order to facilitate the application of these general principles, the following clarifications can be added:

Quo facilius haec generalia principia ad rem deducantur, iuvare poterunt accuratiores explicationes, quae sequuntur

- If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient’s consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity.

- Si alia remedia non suppetunt, licet, ex consensu aegroti, media adhibere, quae novissima medicae artis inventa protulerunt, etiamsi haud satis adhuc experimentis probata sint nec aliquo periculo careant. Aegrotus, qui ea accipiat, poterit etiam exemplum generosi animi praebere in bonum generis humani.

- It is also permitted, with the patient’s consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to be made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient’s family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter.

- Pariter licet horum mediorum usum abrumpere, quotiescumque exitus spem in eis repositam fallit. At in hoc ca­piendo consilio, ratio habeatur iusti desiderii aegroti eiusque familiarium, nec non sententiae medicorum, qui vere periti sint;

      The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques.

hi profecto prae ceteris aequam aestimationem facere po­terunt, cum sumptus instrumentorum et hominum in id impen­dendorum non respondet effectibus qui praevidentur, et cum medicae artis adhibita subsidia imponunt aegroto dolores aut incommoda graviora quam utilitates quae inde ei afferri possunt.

- It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore ONE CANNOT IMPOSE ON ANYONE the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which .

[1] carries a risk or

[2] is burdensome. 

adhuc tamen non caret periculo

 vel nimis est onerosum. 

Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as 

Quae remedii recusatio comparanda non est cum suicidio verius habenda est vel 

[1] an acceptance of the human condition, or 

[2] a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or 

[3] a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

vel cura vitandi laboriosum rnedicae artis apparatum cui tamen par sperandorum effectuum utilitas non respondet;

 vel denique voluntas onus nimis grave familiaee aut communitati non imponendi.

- When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.

- Imminente morte, quae remediis adhibitis nullo modes impediri potest, licet ex conscientia consilium inire curationi­bus renuntiandi, quae nonnisi precariam et doloris plenam. vitae dilationem afferre valent, haud intermissis tamen ordinariis curis, quae in similibus casibus aegroto debentur. Tune^, causa non est cur medicus animi angore afficiatur, quasi alicui,. qui in periculo versaretur, auxilium negaverit.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSIO

      The norms contained in the present Declaration are inspired by a profound desire to service people in accordance with the plan of the Creator. Life is a gift of God, and on the other hand death is unavoidable; it is necessary, therefore, that we, without in any way hastening the hour of death, should be able to accept it with full responsibility and dignity. It is true that death marks the end of our earthly existence, but at the same time it opens the door to immortal life. Therefore, all must prepare themselves for this event in the light of human values, and Christians even more so in the light of faith.

Normae quae hac Declaratione continentur, proficiscuntur­ab impenso studio opem hominibus ferendi, secundum Creato­ris consilium. Si ex una parte vita habenda est Dei donum, ex altera vero mors vitari nequit ; necesse igitur est ut nos, mortis, horam nullo modo properantes, eam excipere valeamus plene• nobis conscii responsabilitatis nostrae et omni cum dignitate. Mors, enim, finem quidem imponit terrestri huic vitae, sed simul ad immortalem vitam aditum patefacit. Quapropter ad hoc eventum omnes homines animum rite disponere debent,. humanorum valorum praefulgente luce, ac multo magis christi­fideles suae fidei lumine ducti.

      As for those who work in the medical profession, they ought to neglect no means of making all their skill available to the sick and dying; but they should also remember how much more necessary it is to provide them with the comfort of boundless kindness and heartfelt charity. Such service to people is also service to Christ the Lord, who said: “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt. 25:40).

Quod attinet ad publicae sanitati tuendae addictos, ii pro-­fecto nihil reliqui faciant ut totam artis suae peritiam in bonum infirmorum et morientium impendant; quibus tamen memine­rint aliud solacium deberi, idque multo magis necessarium, sci­licet immensam bonitatem et ardentem caritatem. Huiusmodi ministerium, quod hominibus praestatur, ipsi Christo Domino etiam praestatur, qui dixit : « Quamdiu fecistis uni de his fratribus meis minimis, mihi fecistis » (Mt 25, 40).

At the audience granted prefect, His Holiness Pope John Paul II approved this declaration, adopted at the ordinary meeting of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered its publication.

Hanc declarationem in Conventu ordinario huius S. Con­gregationis deliberatam, Summus Ponti f ex Ioannes Paulus PP. II, in Audientia in frascripto Cardinali Prae fecto concessa, adprobavit et publici iuris fieri iussit.

Rome, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 5, 1980.

Romae, ex Aedibus S. Congregationis pro Doctrina Fidei, die 5 Maii 1980.