use and todispose of as one sees fit. The Judeo-Christian oppositionto euthanasia/PAS is a part of its general opposition tomaking autonomy an absolute value. Freedom lies not just inhaving control but also in submitting to what cannot becontrolled. We exercise freedom by accepting ourselves ascreatures of God and by admitting our powerlessness beforedeath.(McCuen pg. 39)The social nature of being human also limits ourfreedom. We cannot properly classify euthanasia/PAS only anexercise of individual autonomy. Such acts also involve theone doing or aiding the killing and a complying society.Therefore, euthanasia/PAS must be assessed for its socialimpact on care for the dying and on our general attitudetoward life. While a concern for the common good respectsand serves the interests of individuals, it upholds thecollective good as more important than the good of any oneindividual. A commitment to the common good stands inconstant tension with autonomy because it forces us to askwhether we should forgo some of the things which we want forourselves so that the good of the whole might better beserved. Manning appeals to our responsibility for the commongood in assessing the euthanasia/PAS movement. If weintroduce euthanasia/PAS as a legal, medical option, wouldwe risk discriminating against vulnerable groups (such asthose with AIDS, Alzheimer's or spinal cord injuries) thatare perceived as burdens on the system and on society? Wouldlegalizing euthanasia/PAS affect the way we think aboutmental and physical decline, about suffering, about theobligations of adult children to their parents or of howparents needing care feel toward their children? How wouldthis practice affect the self-understanding of the disabledand their relation to society? How would it affectphysicians' attitudes toward their failing patients? Howwould it affect the way we distribute our resources? Wouldthose who did not choose euthanasia/PAS be forced to justifytheir refusal...
