c. 1997 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ In the soft, soothing voice of a caring physician, Dr. Carlos Gomez told the story a 42-year-old patient,”Paul,”who was”deteriorating”from AIDS. Paul was lonely, helpless and in pain, Gomez said, so he requested a lethal dose of medication to end his misery.

Gomez refused. Instead he put Paul on a physical therapy regimen which, he said, allowed his patient to socialize and _ for a time _ emerge from his wheelchair.

When the disease finally became unmanageable, and Paul was admitted to the hospital, the patient told the doctor:”Enough. You did what you could. It’s been a good six months. Enough.”And he died peacefully soon thereafter.”Nobody killed him, nobody had to kill him,”said Gomez.

Gomez’s anecdote was typical of many such case histories sprinkled throughout a two-day interfaith symposium,”Life At Risk: A Closer Look at Assisted Suicide,”involving more than a dozen international religious leaders, ethicists and legal experts March 7-8 at The Catholic University of America.

More than 200 activists, representing congregations, dioceses, anti-abortion political groups and medical institutions, attended the conference to exchange ideas about the volatile question of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and to examine international examples such as the Netherlands, where euthanasia numbers have risen sharply in the last 20 years.

The question of the right to end life or request physician assistance in doing so in the face of a debilitating or terminal disease sharply divides society between those who believe ending a painful and burdensome life at the patient’s own request is merciful and ethical and those who believe better care, not death, is the only valid way of managing horrifying diseases and disabilities.

Not surprising, the latter position dominated the conference, sponsored the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Center for Jewish and Christian Values, a conservative interfaith think tank and advocacy group.

State laws barring assisted suicide are currently before the Supreme Court, with a ruling expected in late June or early July.

Two legal experts, Alexander M. Capron, a professor law and medicine at the University of Southern California, and Robert P. George, a professor of law and political philosophy at Princeton University, explored the constitutional issues raised by the cases _ Washington and New York laws barring assisted suicide that lower courts have found to be unconstitutional.

George said he believed the Supreme Court will likely find no constitutional mandate to support a right to assisted suicide and thus turn the matter back to state legislative bodies.

If that happens,”we’re already geared up”to lobby state legislatures said Bishop James McHugh of Camden, N.J.

McHugh said one goal of the conference was to share”program tips”among activist groups. Bills and other initiatives to toughen laws against euthanasia are already under discussion in over a dozen states.

Massachusetts state Reps. David Donnelly and John Rogers said they came to the conference to recruit critical experts for upcoming hearings on a bill in their state that would ease anti-euthanasia laws.

Acknowledging the complexity of the debate, Rogers called physician-assisted suicide”a religious, moral, legal, political and medical issue. And all pistons are firing.” Rabbi David Novak, an ethicist at the University of Toronto, delivered the keynote address and called the practice of physician-assisted suicide”horrendous.””Suicide and homicide are really two sides of the same coin,”Novak said.

He called on people of faith to help society realize that”we simply don’t have proprietary rights over our lives.” Novak also noted, however, that the allocation of health-care resources is a key component of the debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. He says passive euthanasia occurs when federally-funded or managed care providers stop benefits when a patient reaches a certain level of disease.

Such passivity, he argued, can quickly evolve into active euthanasia.”Eventually, we will make the decision for them,”he said in an interview.

Carrie Gordon, bioethics analyst for the conservative advocacy group, Focus on the Family, said euthanasia is”like taking fire and trying to put it in a paper bag. The power to kill cannot be controlled.” Alison Burke, who is wheelchair-bound because of cerebral palsy, also agreed with Novak’s assessment, saying,”It’s even more frightening to consider that a person with a disability might internalize a cost-benefit analysis”and feel”unvalued”by society.

DEA END LEBOWITZ