Euthanasia In Canada… Liberty Without Freedom
By DONALD DeMARCO
On April 14, 2016, Canada’s Liberal government introduced Bill C-14 legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide. The long-awaited draft is intended to amend two Criminal Code sections that formerly prohibited euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 9-0 decision on February of 2015, declared these sections to be unconstitutional.
While there will be further discussion before the draft proposal becomes law, the Catholic Bishops of Canada have strongly denounced it, stating that “no matter how it will be amended” it remains a “danger to all vulnerable persons — particularly the aged, disabled, infirm and sick who so often find themselves isolated and marginalized.”
Of special concern to the bishops is that the proposed federal bill contains no explicit protection of conscience rights. As the bill now stands, the Liberal government will leave it up to provincial and territorial governments to decide whether or not publicly funded health centers will be compelled to provide euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Thomas Cardinal Collins of Toronto has implored the government not to “force or compel in any way either an individual or an institution to facilitate their wish against the conscience of the person or the institution.”
He stressed the critical importance of making palliative care available for all. “At a time when our priority should be fostering a culture of love, and enhancing resources for those who are suffering,” he stated, “assisted suicide leads us down a dark path.”
The title of this brief essay, “Liberty Without Freedom,” is not meant to be a contradiction in terms, although these two nouns are often used interchangeably. When we take a careful look at “liberty” and “freedom,” we find a very important difference between them. “Freedom” is meant to complement “liberty.” But it is possible for an excess of liberty to become freedom’s enemy.
Liberals love liberty far more than they love freedom. In fact, it may be said, observing what has transpired in Canada and the United States over the past few decades, that liberals hate freedom and are happy to crush it wherever possible. This point may make more sense once we analyze the difference between liberty and freedom.
The word “liberty” is derived from the Latin libertas, which means “unrestricted, unbounded, or released from constraint.” It is consistent with the notion of being separate and independent. On the other hand, the word “freedom” can be traced to the Germanic or Norse word frei, describing someone who belongs to a tribe and has rights that go with such belonging. Therefore, it contains a communal implication that libertas does not have. Moreover, frei is the root word for “friend.”
When viewed in this light, it becomes clear that liberty and freedom should be complementary and not antagonistic to each other, just as the individual person should fit smoothly into society.
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his most perceptive work, Democracy in America, warned about an excessive preoccupation with liberty. “I think that liberty,” he wrote, “is endangered when this power is checked by no obstacles which may retard its course.”
His understanding that too much liberty can crush freedom is made more evident when he stated that “I hold it to be an impious and an execrable [extremely bad] maxim that, politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatsoever it pleases.”
As Dostoevsky once remarked, “Unbounded liberty leads to tyranny.”
De Tocqueville was cautioning young America that removing one restriction after another, so that individuals can do what they please, undermines their freedom to do what is right for their nation. Some restrictions, codified in law, serve as protections. Restrictions on speeding protect motorists and pedestrians. Restrictions on shoplifting protect business. Removing restrictions that really protect the common good constitutes a threat to society. We need liberty (“freedom from,” to use Erich Fromm’s terminology), so that we can enjoy “freedom for.”
By removing the restriction on abortion, a woman has the liberty to abort. But her liberty comes at the price of destroying the freedom of her unborn child as well as the freedom of the father to protect his unborn child against premature death. As a result of removing the restriction that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, the freedom not to officiate at same-sex marriages has been denied to certain magistrates.
And now, removing restrictions against euthanasia and assisted suicide may very well violate the consciences of medical professionals as well as patients who do not want to die. Instances of forced euthanasia are well documented in the Netherlands and Belgium.
Liberty, of course, has a positive function. The restrictions that enslave a person must be removed so that he can take his rightful place in society. Here, liberty exists for freedom. But the restrictions that require him to refrain from criminal activity must be upheld, and also for the good of society. When too many restrictions are withdrawn, society descends into chaos, what Thomas Hobbes referred to as “a war between all against all.”
Legitimate restrictions are needed so that law can function. When restrictions that serve to protect are removed, law no longer exists to protect people against themselves.
Archbishop Richard Smith of Edmonton is acutely aware of how too much liberty, that is, the removal of too many restrictions, is tantamount to an assault on the freedom of citizens and sets them up as victims of discrimination.
“What is already clear,” he stated, “is that this legislative step [in Canada] introduces into law the chilling message that some lives are less worth living that others.”
Liberty should not crush freedom; nor should it discriminate against people. Rather, it should prepare the way and provide the opportunity for freedom.
“With liberty and justice for all,” means that the limits of liberty are set by the demands of freedom.
+ + +
(Dr. Donald DeMarco is professor emeritus, St. Jerome’s University; adjunct professor, Holy Apostles College & Seminary; and senior fellow, Human Life International. He is a regular contributor for St. Austin Review. Many of his 28 books are posted on Amazon.com.)
