suffering" that is to be relieved; and the "mercy" thatis to be shown. That we cannot reach a moral consensusreflects disagreement on the role of the physician and ofthe very aim of medicine. In wanting to license physiciansto kill, McKhann and other advocates of euthanasia/PAS arecalling into question the expectation that physicians willbe healers committed to preventing, diagnosing and treatingdiseases and to promoting wholeness. Manning and otheropponents of euthanasia/PAS argue that "killing a patient"is contrary to the aim of medicine and the responsibilitiesof the physician.(McCuen pg. 82)The obligation to relieve suffering is the context forMcKhann's argument, but he is typical in that he does notaddress the issue of suffering as such. Suffering remainsone of the most neglected end-of-life issues, perhapsbecause we do not know what to do about it or how to makeuse of it. The argument from suffering reaches beyondmedicine's responsibility and competence; it extends intometaphysical questions about the nature of human happinessand what constitutes a meaningful life. To enlist aphysician to achieve release from suffering presumes thatthe physician is competent to judge what kinds of life areworth living. Perhaps this would be true if suffering hadonly medical causes. As physician-philosopher Eric Cassellhas sown, while physical pain may be the major physicalcause of suffering, the roots of suffering are more thanphysical. The degree to which people suffer and whether theyfind life empty or meaningful depend more on their attitudethan on their physical condition. Christian traditionteaches that suffering, while not a value in itself, is notan unqualified evil. It can be transforming. But if onebegins with the assumption, as advocates of euthanasia/PASseem to do, that no one ought to suffer, then the solutionto suffering is to remove the sufferer. The Christianimagination, informed by its Jewish roots, presents thepossibility for anot...
